Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

2025-06-0713:25329758spacenews.com

An escalating feud between President Trump and Elon Musk June 5 included threats to cancel SpaceX contracts and decommission spacecraft.

WASHINGTON — An escalating feud between President Trump and Elon Musk June 5 included threats to cancel SpaceX contracts and decommission spacecraft, although those words have yet to become actions.

In a heated exchange largely carried out on social media, Musk’s criticism of a budget reconciliation bill backed by Trump turned into full-fledged attacks on each other, less than a week after Musk ended his formal role in the administration as a “special government employee” overseeing the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency.

That exchange included a threat by Trump to cancel government contracts with Musk’s companies, such as SpaceX. “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social.

While the comment did not specifically mention SpaceX, Musk appeared to interpret it as a threat to SpaceX. “In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately,” he posted on his social media platform, X, about 90 minutes later. He didn’t elaborate on what would be involved in “decommissioning” Dragon.

The back-and-forth between Musk and Trump raised fears that the White House might cut SpaceX off from its extensive work with NASA and the Defense Department, to the detriment of both the government and the company. It comes just months after many in the space industry worried that the then-close relationship between Musk and Trump might give SpaceX an unfair advantage.

Any loss of federal contracts would have a significant effect on SpaceX. Musk, in a rare glimpse into SpaceX finances, said June 3 that SpaceX is projecting $15.5 billion in revenue in 2025, of which $1.1 billion would come from NASA contracts. He did not disclose the amount coming from defense work, which would include launches as well as Starlink services and development of a reconnaissance satellite constellation for the National Reconnaissance Office.

The effects on the government from canceling those contracts, though, could be far greater. Both NASA and the Defense Department rely heavily on SpaceX for launch services as competing vehicles from other companies have been slow to enter service. SpaceX has the only operational vehicle, other than Russia’s Soyuz, to get crews to and from the International Space Station, and is a key cargo supplier. SpaceX also has a NASA contract to develop the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle, the spacecraft that will ensure a safe reentry of the station at the end of its life.

One industry source, speaking on background, dismissed the exchanges as “bluster” that neither Musk nor Trump would actually implement, noting the reliance the federal government has on SpaceX and SpaceX’s desire to retain government revenue.

Indeed, Musk, about five hours after making the threat to decommission Dragon, walked it back. “Good advice,” he wrote in a post, responding to a pseudonymous user who asked Musk to “cool off and take a step back for a couple days” from the debate. “Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon.”

NASA stood on the sidelines during the Trump-Musk exchanges. “NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space. We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met,” said NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens.

The dispute between Musk and Trump overshadowed comments made by Trump earlier in the day about his decision announced May 31 to withdraw the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be NASA administrator.

Musk “wanted, and rightfully, recommended somebody that I guess he knew very well — I’m sure he respected him — to run NASA, and I didn’t think it was appropriate,” Trump said in a media availability with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said that Isaacman was a Democrat, although Isaacman has donated to both Republican and Democratic candidates and organizations over the year.

“We won. We get certain privileges and one of the privileges is we don’t have to appoint a Democrat,” Trump said.

“NASA is very important. We have great people. Gen. Caine is going to be picking somebody. We’ll be checking him out,” he said, a reference to Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s unclear why Trump asked Caine, an Air Force general with no space background, to select the head of the nation’s civil space agency.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By onlyrealcuzzo 2025-06-0714:5849 reply

    It's wild that a president can say, "I don't like Elon anymore, so out of retaliation, I'm canceling all his government contracts," and ~40% of the country doesn't see that as corruption in any way, shape, or form.

    Government contracts should not be based on whether or not the president likes the CEO, and the CEO says enough good things about the president.

    If you can cancel contacts not based on merit, then it should extend you're likely willing to grant contracts not based on merit and based on nepotism instead.

    This is literally the path that led the USSR to ruin. If anyone says anything you don't like, their funding is gone, even if it shoots the country in the foot. If people kiss your ass enough, they get contracts, even if it's clear they're just spending the money on hookers and coke and yachts and not delivering on promises, and it shoots the country in the head.

    • By pessimist 2025-06-0721:2110 reply

      It turns out that when elections are fought on the basis of identity (race, religion) etc corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyalists interpret this as "we" are winning and "they" are losing.

      I witnessed this up close in India where parties openly exist to benefit certain constituencies based on caste, language, religion and so on.

      It is horrifying to see this attitude take root in my adopted land.

      • By clumsysmurf 2025-06-0723:066 reply

        > corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyalists interpret this as "we" are winning and "they" are losing.

        I think the end goal is domination. From https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267 :

        It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied.

        It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination.

        It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or an unintended side-effect.

        It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself the thing you’re able to deny others, because you dominate, is the whole point.

        For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue — the greatest.

        https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/hypocrisy-and-fascism-2018-0...

        • By dralley 2025-06-0723:142 reply

          >It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied.

          For my friends - everything, for my enemies - the law.

          • By AlexandrB 2025-06-081:374 reply

            I used to love this pithy quote but reflecting on it more recently this doesn't seem like something limited to fascists or fascism. Indeed, this kind of thinking is used by those of any political leaning when ideology becomes more important than principles. An obvious example is the USSR.

            • By danielheath 2025-06-082:471 reply

              Authoritarianism is the umbrella term describing the behaviour of both fascist states and various others. AFAIK all fascist states have been authoritarian - but it’s a common outcome anytime the people running the government are replaced en masse.

              • By palmfacehn 2025-06-086:283 reply

                The tyranny of the majority is another, often overlooked form of authoritarianism.

                • By WhyIsItAlwaysHN 2025-06-088:571 reply

                  Good point, and much harder to challenge. If the majority is against an authoritarian there's protests and sabotage of social structures. If the majority oppresses a fringe group, it's often socially encouraged

                  • By palmfacehn 2025-06-0812:43

                    For these reasons, I personally believe authoritarianism cannot be opposed without a solid foundation of individualism. The problem becomes that explaining ideological nuance is rarely politically expedient or even rhetorically effective. Appeals to collectivism are more easily digested by the masses.

                • By EasyMark 2025-06-0823:051 reply

                  that's kind of what the USA is going through right now but it's more aptly described as "tyranny of the plurality" because Trump didn't win either majority of of registered voters or majority of the actual vote.

                  • By palmfacehn 2025-06-094:411 reply

                    Regardless of tiresome partisan hyperbole, I don't regard the substance of this administration's actions as any more authoritarian the previous or the status quo. In the specific instances where state power has been expanded, I regard it as part of the general trend of expansion. The trend is more indicative of the overall incentives and structure of governance, rather than specific political actors. Similarly, partisan recriminations fit with the same pattern.

                    • By ringeryless 2025-06-0910:391 reply

                      i tend to see trumps abuse of office as an unprecedented claim to powers a president does not, did not, and should not have.

                      only partisan blinders would cause one to equate trumps actions with anything from our past.

                      mark my words, maga is about dismantling the american system and establishing a totalitarian state. obey.

                • By account42 2025-06-1011:32

                  As is the tyranny of the minority.

            • By consumer451 2025-06-081:473 reply

              This is a great example of the horseshoe theory of politics [0], which I believe in very strongly. I made a separate post if anyone cares to discuss it. [1]

              [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

              [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44214040

              • By thephyber 2025-06-092:561 reply

                Horseshoe Theory is stupid.

                It’s based on the flawed assumption that politics can or should be understood on a single axis. It can’t and shouldn’t be. That heuristic is wrong.

                If viewed on a 2d axis, the “cohorts that appear similar” on the ends of the horseshoe are still on opposing ends of one of the axes, despite being near each other on another axis.

                • By consumer451 2025-06-0919:20

                  I see it as the gateway to people realizing that the left/right 1D line, and even the political compass, are ridiculous.

                  IMHO, political positioning should be described as a tensor, where each data point is the person's position on a specific policy.

              • By rendall 2025-06-086:392 reply

                Horseshoe theory has always read like a Pythagorean epicycle to me, an attempt to redeem a broken model. For a reductive political model, I prefer the 2 dimensional Collectivist-Individualist, Authoritarian-Libertarian axes. No need to literally contort the outdated Left-Right spectrum.

                An added benefit is you get to avoid annoying semantic battles such as whether Nazis or Fascists are Right wing or Left wing.

                Plus you get to add other axes as needed. My favorite, perhaps relevant today, is principled vs. expedient: do we apply principles like this "Rights" stuff impartially, even to people with whom we disagree, or do we just git 'r done?

                • By consumer451 2025-06-0813:341 reply

                  To me, the horshoe theory is just a step in the right direction. It shows the limits of a straight 1D line to describe politics, and is a stepping-off point for deeper exploration.

                  Ideally, maybe we would describe a person's politics with something like a tensor, where each value is the person's support of a specific policy.

                  • By rendall 2025-06-0916:151 reply

                    Hmm. I guess I feel that "The Horseshoe Theory" is worse than useless. It implies that as someone gets "too much" Right or Left, they inevitably become authoritarian, as if centrists cannot be authoritarian. It equates "weirdness" with "bad". I'd argue that we should skip straight to identifying "authoritarianism" as the problem, and the not having weird or even extreme leftist or rightist ideas.

                    • By consumer451 2025-06-0919:27

                      This is a really interesting argument that I had not previously considered. It might take me a few days/weeks/months to fully process. Thank you.

                • By popalchemist 2025-06-087:10

                  Agreed, the matrix expresses this idea more exactly.

              • By ahf8Aithaex7Nai 2025-06-083:391 reply

                It should be a trident theory.

                • By consumer451 2025-06-0920:341 reply

                  If you don't mind, could you expand on this a bit?

                  • By ahf8Aithaex7Nai 2025-06-118:46

                    > I see it as the gateway to people realizing that the left/right 1D line, and even the political compass, are ridiculous.

                    When this theory is used in discourse, it is always a matter of suggesting that the left fringe and the right fringe are equally to be rejected. Stalin and Hitler, communism and fascism, class struggle and racial theory, Das Kapital and Hitler's Mein Kampf, dictatorship of the proletariat and Nazi dictatorship: the righteous liberal democrat must keep his distance from both extremes in equal measure. The golden path lies in the balanced middle. I am tired of criticizing this nonsense. It is an ideological lie.

                    The trident means that there is just as much ideology, corruption, political dysfunctionality and all kinds of drivers of suffering, misery and resentment in the supposed political center. But it is very well hidden because it wears a kind of ideological cloak: the horseshoe theory.

                    So to respond to your sentence I quoted above: the horseshoe theory IS the political compass that should be ridiculed.

            • By FireBeyond 2025-06-0819:15

              Absolutely. See "the only moral abortion is my abortion".

              Republicans can play all sorts of games because their mistresses will always be able to get an abortion on the DL without consequence, while "single black mom? 25 to life for murder!"

            • By wyre 2025-06-082:25

              Red fascism is a term that has been used to equate Stalinism with fascism, so maybe the quote still has merit?

          • By pinkmuffinere 2025-06-080:451 reply

            For my true friends, champagne! For my sham friends, true pain.

            • By kennyadam 2025-06-0819:29

              Close, but the correct version has better wordplay: "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends."

        • By KennyBlanken 2025-06-0723:272 reply

          [flagged]

          • By _heimdall 2025-06-081:082 reply

            [flagged]

            • By tired-turtle 2025-06-085:381 reply

              This is a shameful false equivalency. In the puppet president scenario you outline, the blast radius is, at worst, 4 years? In the case of an insurrection to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, there is a generation or more of democratic order lost.

              • By _heimdall 2025-06-086:21

                That depends entirely on your context and frame of reference.

                You're describing the blast radius of what was possible in the past assuming that one president was willing to usurp power but only for one term.

                In reality, we did go 4 years with a president who wasn't in charge, at least for part of that term, specifically because the public was lied to about his health and some small number of people his the truth. We did not go through 4 years of a presidency after one very much seemed to attempt to take the office despite having lost the election.

                In both cases I take huge issue with the intent and the potential outcome. In one case, though, the outcome was real and I lived, for a time, in a presumably democraric society ruled by someone(s) who weren't elected while the one who was elected decreased mentally and physically beyond the ability to rule.

            • By wat10000 2025-06-081:311 reply

              They’re different orders of magnitude. Biden was elected legitimately. Parties can nominate whoever they want, so shenanigans with primaries, while distasteful, are completely legitimate. Likewise, keeping Biden’s mental state from the public is ugly but legitimate. Voters can, and did, punish these actions.

              Trump tried to cheat his way to keeping power. Even if you don’t blame him for the violent attempt, it’s well established that he made major efforts before that to change the outcome by more peaceful means that were just as illegitimate.

              Playing stupid games within the system means you lose elections and either reform or get replaced. Playing stupid games subverting the system means you don’t have to worry about elections anymore if you succeed. I’m about a million times more concerned about the latter.

              • By _heimdall 2025-06-084:031 reply

                Do you not believe Trump was elected legitimately? I totally understand and share many of the concerns over the insurrection and what happened around it, but Trump didn't take office in 2020 and wasn't reelected until 2024.

                • By wat10000 2025-06-084:451 reply

                  He was. Where do you see me saying otherwise?

                  • By _heimdall 2025-06-0812:511 reply

                    > Biden was elected legitimately.

                    I must have misread you last comment. I read this as a comparison implying that Biden wasn't legitimately elected but you just meant it to set up the point.

                    • By wat10000 2025-06-0815:19

                      Right, that’s a response to issues with the Democratic primary, not a contrast with Trump’s election.

          • By Dig1t 2025-06-082:085 reply

            [flagged]

            • By wyre 2025-06-082:301 reply

              If it’s not an insurrection what it is? What is the organization of thousands of individuals to invade the capital building in protest of election results?

              Just because it failed, doesn’t mean it wasn’t an insurrection.

              • By roenxi 2025-06-084:001 reply

                Words like "protest" or "riot" leap to mind. It is more comparable to something like CHAZ in 2020 which could technically be called an insurrection or rebellion, but realistically was more of an unruly protest.

                An insurrection would traditionally involve a little planning and a little more seriousness in the attempt. Maybe a plan that could conceivably lead to a change in government.

                • By tshaddox 2025-06-084:181 reply

                  It was also a protest and a riot. These things are not mutually exclusive.

                  • By roenxi 2025-06-084:281 reply

                    Obviously. All riots are technically insurrections. They're synonyms. And they are usually protests too; it'd be unusual to have a riot while agreeing with the current direction of the government.

            • By arunabha 2025-06-082:422 reply

              [flagged]

            • By cycomanic 2025-06-084:131 reply

              [flagged]

            • By thatguy0900 2025-06-085:11

              [flagged]

            • By goatlover 2025-06-084:391 reply

              [flagged]

        • By andyjohnson0 2025-06-0810:00

          > I think the end goal is domination. From https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267

          I don't know whether Trump can accurately be described as a fascist, but its been clear to me since his first term that domination is the only thing that matters to him. The obscene wealth and the swaggering deceitfulness and the gold-plated bathrooms are just the secondary outcomes of his need to dominate.

          Domineering father-figure; raised as a sociopath; given a lot of money. Kind of inevitable.

        • By ETH_start 2025-06-082:111 reply

          [flagged]

          • By pessimist 2025-06-084:161 reply

            The Democratic Governor of California denounced them publicly and stopped the effort.

            Despite Musk raising millions and campaigning viciously against the Democrats the administration kept all of SpaceX contracts and Tesla ev subsidies. In fact the IRA benefited Tesla disproportionately.

            Both sides are NOT the same. One is fascist and the other is not

            • By ETH_start 2025-06-084:504 reply

              The Democratic White House chose to not invite Tesla to their EV Summit. That was not political?

              The Democratic DoJ and Democrat DAGs prosecuted dozens of former Trump administration officials and Trump allies, and even Trump himself:

              Trump Administration Officials:

              Michael Flynn – Former National Security Advisor

              Stephen K. Bannon – Former White House Chief Strategist & Campaign Advisor

              Mark Meadows – Former White House Chief of Staff

              Jeffrey Clark – Former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice

              Peter Navarro – Former White House Trade Advisor

              Trump Allies:

              Paul Manafort – Former Trump Campaign Chairman

              George Papadopoulos – Former Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor

              Rick Gates – Former Trump Deputy Campaign Chairman

              Roger Stone – Longtime Trump Advisor and Friend

              Michael Cohen – Former Personal Attorney to Donald Trump

              Elliott Broidy – Former Trump Fundraiser

              Rudolph Giuliani – Attorney to Trump, Former Mayor of New York City

              Waltine Nauta – Personal Aide to Trump

              Carlos De Oliveira – Property Manager at Mar-a-Lago

              Sidney Powell – Trump Campaign Attorney

              Kenneth Chesebro – Trump Attorney

              Jenna Ellis – Trump Campaign Attorney

              John Eastman – Trump Attorney

              Dinesh D'Souza – Conservative Commentator, Trump Supporter

              Joseph M. Arpaio – Former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Trump Supporter

              Ray Smith III – Trump Attorney

              Cathy Latham – Fake Elector, Coffee County GOP Leader

              Robert Cheeley – Trump Attorney

              David Shafer – Fake Elector, Former Georgia GOP Chair

              Mike Roman – Trump Campaign Staffer

              Shawn Still – Fake Elector, Then-Georgia State Senator

              Scott Hall – Atlanta Bail Bondsman

              Misty Hampton – Former Coffee County Elections Supervisor

              Steve Lee – Pastor from Illinois

              Harrison Floyd – Black Voices for Trump Leader

              Trevian Kutti – Publicist from Chicago

              I'm sure this was just Democrats following the law, with no bias, right?

              This kind of narrative that you're forwarding now where the Republican Party are fascists and Trump is a threat to democracy is exactly the kind of mentality that was used to elicit this enormous persecution of Trump and officials near him.

              Meanwhile, the real elephant in the room is always ignored:

              The Democrats shovel hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to large unions in order to secure their support and win elections. This is textbook corruption.

              https://politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/14/kevin-brady/bi...

              The recipients of USAID grants? All Democrats. Same story all across DC. That's why 92.4% of DC voted for Harris. DC, meanwhile, has a per capita GDP of $250,000.

              • By metabagel 2025-06-086:151 reply

                Because Tesla is anti-union.

                • By ETH_start 2025-06-086:251 reply

                  So politics, not the merit of the EV company. This was a EV company summit, not a labor unions summit.

                  • By rat87 2025-06-087:231 reply

                    Policy difference not partisan squables or payback for supporting his opponents. Most Democrats feel Unions are important to help workers (union and nonunion) earn more.

                    • By ETH_start 2025-06-088:431 reply

                      To base the decision on what companies to invite to an EV summit on whether they support the Democrats' favorite constituents is pure politics. The only policy difference here is one which helps the Democrats win elections.

                      • By rat87 2025-06-0810:261 reply

                        It's not

                        Democrats believe that unions help keep wages high and are good for the economy.

                        If Musk wasn't anti union he probably would have been invited. I say probably because of Teslas issues with racial discrimination

                        • By ETH_start 2025-06-0815:43

                          It doesn’t matter what Democrats think about unions. This wasn’t a union summit or a summit on party values—it was about EVs. Tesla is the world leader in EVs and the top American EV manufacturer. Excluding them because they don’t support unionization — an issue tied to massive political support for Democrats through campaign contributions and institutional backing—is indefensible. It undermines the purpose of the summit through rank politicization and partisanship.

                          As for the claim that Tesla has racial discrimination issues—that’s a distortion. Nearly every major company gets hit with discrimination lawsuits because civil rights law has been weaponized to make that outcome nearly inevitable:

                          https://www.richardhanania.com/p/wokeness-as-saddam-statues-...

              • By throwaway173738 2025-06-085:561 reply

                > The recipients of USAID grants? All Democrats. Same story all across DC. That's why 92.4% of DC voted for Harris. DC, meanwhile, has a per capita GDP of $250,000.

                Why shouldn’t the recipients receive these grants other than that they are Democrats? What about their projects makes them not meritorious?

                • By ETH_start 2025-06-086:08

                  If you can't see the opportunity for corruption and bias here, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. This is always a story when people call Republicans corrupt or fascists and say the Democrats are not. They have absolutely no impartiality in the way they look at the world.

              • By conception 2025-06-087:091 reply

                I think you mean convicted. Because they did crimes. If they would stop doing crime they wouldn’t get convicted.

                Still waiting for someone to lock Hillary up. Oh wait…

                • By ETH_start 2025-06-088:441 reply

                  There are hundreds of thousands of regulations carrying criminal penalties. If a political party is determined to imprison an opponent, it will find a law they’ve technically violated. In Trump’s case, they used an obscure accounting rule — one so trivial that even prominent Democratic supporters acknowledged it was an inappropriate basis for prosecution.

                  Hillary Clinton used a private email server while serving as Secretary of State, and in 2014, her staff deleted 31,000 emails they labeled personal to prevent them from being scrutinized in an impending investigation. You don't think that if Hillary had been a Republican and if the Democrats were determined to prosecute her, they couldn't have found some law that she broke and prosecuted her on it?

                  • By sethammons 2025-06-0812:531 reply

                    Wait. What do you think about Hegseth's signal and atlantic reporter issue? That is wildly worse and where is the court case that absolutely should be happening?

                    • By ETH_start 2025-06-0815:281 reply

                      That's nothing. Compare that to deleting 30,000 emails to avoid them being scrutinized in an investigation.

                      • By sethammons 2025-06-0816:511 reply

                        You think Hegseth's use of Signal is nothing. Gotcha. Rules for thee but not for me.

                        • By ETH_start 2025-06-091:321 reply

                          I think using an open source encrypted communication app is no big deal compared to what Hillary Clinton did.

                          The Democratic Party thinks that what Hillary Clinton did was no big deal. Rules for thee, but not for me.

                          • By bdangubic 2025-06-091:351 reply

                            [flagged]

                            • By ETH_start 2025-06-092:101 reply

                              Comments like this really don't belong in hacker news. They amount to blind partisanship and instigation of flame wars.

                              • By bdangubic 2025-06-093:031 reply

                                comparing Hegseth to HRC will do a whole lot more :)

                                • By ETH_start 2025-06-098:221 reply

                                  Clinton deleted 30,000 emails to prevent them from being scrutinized in an investigation.

                                  • By bdangubic 2025-06-0915:061 reply

                                    we are not banana republic (just yet, getting there though) so anyone that breaks a law under a given statute you file charges, run an investigation and punish if law(s) are broken. if memory serves me well there was one :) can’t say the same for Hegseth et al but night is young so-to-speak…

                                    • By ETH_start 2025-06-105:14

                                      The prosecution record, where Trump and dozens of his allies were prosecuted, is the record of a banana republic.

                                      Like I said there's hundreds of thousands of regulations which hold the potential for criminal sanction. They could have found her guilty of something when she deleted those emails. The SDNY DAG found a way to charge the developers of Tornado Cash with running an illegal money transmission service when they didn't even hold it in custody of any funds, they simply published code. They stretched the law to incredible lengths to get someone they wanted. And they couldn't find something to pin on Hillary Clinton? Ridiculous.

                                      They didn't for political reasons and you're naive or dishonest for believing otherwise.

              • By rat87 2025-06-0810:402 reply

                Yes it was them following the law and being unbiased.

                Many of the people involved in prosecuting them are Republicans. Trump is the most corrupt president we've ever had and many of his allies are similarly corrupt.

                These days they know they just have to follow the maga line to get out of jail free. The Attorney General of Texas was so ridiculously corrupt he was about to be impeached by Texas Republicans but then he just claimed it was a witchhunt against maga got Trump on his side and suddenly impeachment was cancelled and he's polling a win in the next Senate primary.

                Also Trump supported an attempted violent coup in addition to things like telling the Georgia Secretary of State to find him votes after the voting.

                Trump has been described as a threat to democracy by many leading conservatives and Republicans. Many of them have had their careers ended and been slandered by former associates despite being conservative who had dedicated decades to the party while Trump doesn't care about ideology or party or outcomes only himself.

                https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/politics/trump-fascist-john-k... Trump's former chief of Staff General John Kelly

                > in a series of interviews published Tuesday, saying the former president fits “into the general definition of fascist” and that he spoke of the loyalty of Hitler’s Nazi generals.

                > He also confirmed to The Atlantic that Trump had said he wished his military personnel showed him the same deference Adolf Hitler’s Nazi generals showed the German dictator during World War II, and recounted the moment.

                > Do you mean Bismarck’s generals?’” Kelly told The Atlantic he’d asked Trump. He added, “I mean, I knew he didn’t know who Bismarck was, or about the Franco-Prussian War. I said, ‘Do you mean the kaiser’s generals? Surely you can’t mean Hitler’s generals?’ And he said, ‘Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s generals.’ I explained to him that Rommel had to commit suicide after taking part in a plot against Hitler

                • By ETH_start 2025-06-091:33

                  Copy-pasting my response to a similar partisan talking point:

                  --

                  There are hundreds of thousands of regulations carrying criminal penalties. If a political party is determined to imprison an opponent, it will find a law they’ve technically violated. In Trump’s case, they used an obscure accounting rule — one so trivial that even prominent Democratic supporters acknowledged it was an inappropriate basis for prosecution.

                  Hillary Clinton used a private email server while serving as Secretary of State, and in 2014, her staff deleted 31,000 emails they labeled personal to prevent them from being scrutinized in an impending investigation. You don't think that if Hillary had been a Republican and if the Democrats were determined to prosecute her, they couldn't have found some law that she broke and prosecuted her on it?

                  --

                  What you're claiming is absolutely absurd. This idea that Trump leads a criminal enterprise and everyone affiliated with him is corrupt and that's why so many were prosecuted and not that this is the same politicization of the justice system you see all over the world and Democrats, with the tacit support of establishment Republicans, trying to imprison their opponents.

                • By ETH_start 2025-06-092:39

                  I also want to make it absolutely clear that it is all about framing. From your beltway-manufactured frame, Trump instigated January 6th, and this amounted to insurrection. But a much more reasonable framing is that leading Democrats instigated over 500 riots in the summer of 2020, and are instigating the current riots too:

                  https://x.com/camhigby/status/1931898945435021349

                  Kamala Harris even tweeted this out, to bail out rioters:

                  > “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.”

                  Of course the mainstream news media journalists who are all unionized and thus economically aligned with the Democratic Party barely cover this or criticize it.

        • By wefinh 2025-06-0723:394 reply

          Yeah, only the issue here is that @realFascists are in opposition to Trump. And reading this text in that light - it check out and not really a news.

          Also, frankly, you folks need to stop monopolizing these topics, based on highly polarized ideological filter, because even before Trump there was dissatisfaction about how Musk monopolized NASA contracts on the promise, that he would deliver more efficient and cheaper solution, while in reality the result is that NASA is currently paying more for Musks private solutions, than when it had to do it by itself. There are sure many other options to what Musk offers and if Trump is there to break up that monopoly and open up the market, then it is a win situation.

          • By Cipater 2025-06-085:53

            >there was dissatisfaction about how Musk monopolized NASA contracts on the promise, that he would deliver more efficient and cheaper solution, while in reality the result is that NASA is currently paying more for Musks private solutions, than when it had to do it by itself

            SLS, NASA's rocket, costs $2.5 billion, PER LAUNCH.

          • By avmich 2025-06-080:15

            Can you clarify what reality you're talking about? How NASA would do it cheaper?

          • By wqaatwt 2025-06-086:31

            That’s all very nice but according to Trump this only suddenly became a problem only a few weeks ago due to some reason. So whatever you are saying has absolutely no relevance to this decision making. If Musk continued licking his boots he’d be doing fine..

          • By shigawire 2025-06-081:43

            Doublethink

        • By tempodox 2025-06-085:481 reply

          I think double standards would be a better term than hypocricy. Hypocricy would imply the pretense to be bound by certain rules, but the whole point of fascism is that those in power are not bound by any rules. They only make rules to bind others. I don't see any hypocricy in the openly advertised corruption of the current administration, it's just plain evil of the “we do it because we can” sort.

      • By BeFlatXIII 2025-06-0815:051 reply

        > It turns out that when elections are fought on the basis of identity (race, religion) etc corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyalists interpret this as "we" are winning and "they" are losing.

        In history textbooks, it's known as the spoils system.

        • By ethbr1 2025-06-0818:051 reply

          For those unaware of ~1900 US political history and how the spoils system was dismantled through political will: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_...

          • By EasyMark 2025-06-0823:022 reply

            hopefully this time around it will go a little quicker, aka one term. project 2025 specifically pointed out all "disloyal" government employees should be kicked out and only those who bent a knee to trump should replace them, whatever their actual merit and ability to occupy the position

            • By more_corn 2025-06-094:33

              But is his plan to only stay one term?

            • By FranzFerdiNaN 2025-06-095:59

              The goal is to make sure the Republicans never lose another election ever again, no matter how. So yeah no it won’t last only one term.

      • By alephnerd 2025-06-0721:282 reply

        Vote banks and patronage politics has always been a thing in the US, especially at the local and state level. The main difference is a significant portion of governance was temporarily de-politicized in the 1960s-90s period as leadership on both sides of the aisle had formative unifying experiences during the World Wars and the Korean War, but has been re-politicized now that activism on both sides of the aisle has resurged and social polarization has taken root.

        The expansion of executive powers also played a role in this erosion, as both the judicial and legislative branch increasingly devolved their prerogative to the executive, leaving it much more open to political tampering and reducing the power of checks and balances.

        There's a reason LKY in SG, Yoshida Shigeru and Sato Eisaku in Japan, and François Mitterrand in France tried to decentralize power to a semi-independent civil service.

        • By pessimist 2025-06-0721:352 reply

          Low-level corruption at the local/state level is related but its effects are different though. In fact even today low level corruption in the US is extremely low by global standards - you can't bribe your way to a drivers license openly, for example. I'm sure it happens but it's not common or openly boasted about (parts of CA or DC could be an exception).

          Here the corruption is openly displayed as a kind of peacock-tail to the beneficiaries.

          • By alephnerd 2025-06-0721:431 reply

            I'd rather not have a whole discussion over this atm (I'm out rn - maybe later), but I recommend reading Yuen Yuen Ang's paper on "Unbundling Corruption" - there are different typographies of what "corruption" is, and some nations have always had a similar type of corruption compared to others.

            In addition, low level corruption is orthogonal to grand corruption as can be seen in Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and the US.

            Finally, Indian public discourse around corruption is non-targeted, and fails to contextualize significant institutional differences in how local, state, and federal governments operate in India compared to other states (be they democratic like the US or authoritarian like China).

            [Feel free to add questions or points of contention, but I won't be able to reply quickly]

            • By pessimist 2025-06-0722:111 reply

              Fine, I don't disagree with anything you point out. However where we differ is that I believe identity politics is the trigger factor here, all the other changes you mention (loss of balance of power etc) are downstream of this.

              • By lern_too_spel 2025-06-0722:433 reply

                Your causal diagram is backwards. Identity politics isn't the path to corruption. Corrupt politicians like Trump use identity politics to gain power to practice their corruption. Nobody who wanted to bring back Christian hegemony and re-oppress minority groups is cheering that Trump is threatening to take away contracts from Musk because "their side is winning."

                • By lostlogin 2025-06-0723:461 reply

                  > minority groups

                  This includes ‘women’. A group that probably has a small majority.

                  • By brookst 2025-06-081:06

                    Women are definitely a majority by demographics.

                    But in the US, “minority” means “less poticial power”. By any reasonable measure straight white “Christian” men should be about 20% of the population, yet somehow they have 80% of political power.

                • By hiatus 2025-06-0723:18

                  > Identity politics isn't the path to corruption. Corrupt politicians like Trump use identity politics to gain power to practice their corruption.

                  These two sentences, taken together, lead me to exactly the opposite conclusion—exploitation of identity politics allows one to gain power to enact corruption. You play into what people want by being the savior they think they need and then once in power do whatever the hell you wanted in the first place.

                • By walleeee 2025-06-080:06

                  Idpol can exacerbate corruption. There are strong feedback dynamics.

                  And to reply to the comment above yours, there are material factors upstream of idpol. It's not a coincidence that sort of thing is in renaissance across the world.

          • By wqaatwt 2025-06-086:361 reply

            > you can't bribe your way to a drivers license openly

            No but when it comes to local government contracts, building permits and similar stuff its quite different. Also a lot of (what sane people would consider) corruption is legal and institutionalized.

            i.e. bribing politicians running for office is perfectly legal and entirely expected by all sides (that Americans are so open about this is quite unique).

            • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-0811:46

              I understand that US federal law makes it difficult for a politician to appropriate campaign donations and use them for personal expenses.

        • By neilv 2025-06-0722:011 reply

          Interesting; is there an accessible 10-minute read on this US (edit: governance) de-politicized/re-politicized history, or does it have a name?

          • By medler 2025-06-0722:109 reply

            The notion that this kind of politicization started in the 90s is fanciful revisionism. It wasn’t really a thing in the US until about 2017. The word it’s known by is Trumpism.

            • By neilv 2025-06-0722:18

              I'm familiar with the rise of talk radio, News Corp, Web propaganda, alt-right, etc., in politics and public sentiment.

              What's new to me is that the last couple decades might be a reversion to a pre-war mode of US governance.

              (I know WW2 was unifying in some ways, as we'd expect, but I don't recall much from school about how US politics was played before then, other than punctuated events like the Civil War, civil rights movement, etc.)

            • By throwawaymaths 2025-06-081:00

              its revisionism to say that the US has been free of politicization this bad. for most of its history, not counting the civil war very minor (and very major) issues sparked massacres, revolts, and even minor wars between states.

            • By KennyBlanken 2025-06-0723:39

              First off, Trump skyrocketed to political fame with his nonsense claims about Obama's citizenship.

              The slide started in the 80's when Reagan killed off the 'fairness doctrine' which meant news outlets could present completely one-sided coverage of an issue.

              Couple that with massive consolidation of newspapers and TV news stations where all the programming is heavily coordinated and groups like Sinclair started pushing identically worded "false news" narratives across all their stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

            • By nfg 2025-06-088:11

              I recommend people read this to see why this comment is wrong: When the Cloke Broke by John Ganz https://a.co/d/hL4vo7d

            • By fcatalan 2025-06-0722:301 reply

              9/11 was a big turning point in my experience. American conservatives that I considered online friends were simple impossible to reason with within days and completely alien beings after a few weeks.

              • By jfengel 2025-06-0723:131 reply

                Interesting. Things did change on 9/11 but it seemed incremental to me. Before that was the constant investigation of Clinton by Gingrich, the dog whistling of Reagan, Nixon's Southern Strategy, and before that to McCarthy and so on.

                This is high level rather than your direct experience, so it's not a contradiction. Just a different perspective.

                • By xnx 2025-06-0723:461 reply

                  Yes. Almost everything about our current situation can be traced back to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. Things were much more civil and reasonable before that point.

                  • By seanmcdirmid 2025-06-0723:501 reply

                    I don’t know. Nixon had goons breaking into the DNC headquarters (and his whole southern strategy led to racially polarized politics up to this day), and there was that senator who got beaten by another senator just before the civil war. Eisenhower waited in the car rather than attend a meeting with Truman on his inauguration.

                    • By wat10000 2025-06-081:34

                      Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace to avoid impeachment when it came out. The dude in the White House now did much worse and he was rewarded with reelection.

            • By metabagel 2025-06-086:19

              It has actually been a gradual process for decades from the John Birch Society to Paul Harvey to Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich to Dick Cheney to Citizens United to Donald Trump.

              Edit: Forgot Pat Buchanan. He belongs in there somewhere.

            • By alterom 2025-06-0722:18

              Trumpism is just Reaganomics brought to its logical conclusion.

            • By baobun 2025-06-0722:19

              This predates Trumpism.

            • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-0811:261 reply

              You can see the rise of left-wing identity politics by looking at term usage in the NY Times:

              https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/06/th...

              It started before 2017. The right adopted identity politics as a response to the left doing so. Note that even NY Times word usage is a lagging indicator -- this is a case of prestige media picking up trends which originated on social media such as tumblr.

              Vox even wrote a defense of the shift back in 2015, with an article called "All politics is identity politics":

              https://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7945119/all-politics-is-identi...

              • By sirtaj 2025-06-0811:481 reply

                Are you tracking actual identity politics or the term "identity politics"? Because the meaning of the term applies just as much to ending slavery, womens' suffrage and civil rights movements.

                Otherwise, you might as well argue that fake news only existed from 2016 onwards, because that's when Google Trends says it did.

                • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-090:521 reply

                  >Are you tracking actual identity politics or the term "identity politics"?

                  The term "identity politics" is not being tracked. Rather, terminology used by modern left-wing idpol ideology is being tracked. See here: https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/new-york-times-word-usage...

                  >the meaning of the term applies just as much to ending slavery, womens' suffrage and civil rights movements.

                  I'm not sure that's true. E.g. Martin Luther King Jr spoke of the "magnificent words" in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Modern activists would say: "Written by dead pale male slaveholders. We need more diversity! Where are the voices of women and POC?" For King, ideas took precedence over identities. For modern activists, it's the opposite.

                  The American Anti-Slavery Society was predominantly white. That's puzzling for a movement driven by identity politics. It does make sense for a movement driven by universal humanitarian ideals.

                  In any case, if you still think I'm wrong, and identity politics is an essential force behind trends such as the civil rights movement -- then I suppose you'll be happy that it's being adopted by the political right in the United States? Since it's got such a great historical track record, surely results will be good? ;-)

                  >Otherwise, you might as well argue that fake news only existed from 2016 onwards, because that's when Google Trends says it did.

                  This is a bad analogy, because fake news itself doesn't use the term "fake news". If "fake news" was an ideology which was characterized by particular terminology, we could graph the use of that terminology to document the rise of the ideology. That's what's being done here.

                  In any case, I do believe that "fake news" (in the narrow sense of websites which write completely bogus news, with no effort at reporting, to drive clicks) is a phenomenon which has, in fact, become more widespread relatively recently (due to the ease of internet publishing etc.) So that's another way in which your analogy is invalid. Fake news did increase in popularity when Trump was the GOP candidate, relative to when Romney was the GOP candidate. And Google Trends helps illuminate that!

                  • By sirtaj 2025-06-0910:11

                    I think our definitions of "identity politics" differ too much to have a useful discussion about it. I'm going off the most common definitions I can find (eg dictionaries, wikipedia), but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place.

      • By burnte 2025-06-090:351 reply

        > It is horrifying to see this attitude take root in my adopted land.

        Agreed, and I was born here. I was taught we expressly want to reject those things, and now it's all the fashion. It feels like a temper tantrum from a third of the electorate, a rejection of adulthood and reason.

        • By hinkley 2025-06-0916:21

          It's because we tried to take down the 'no girls or brown people' sign.

          All of this is a long temper tantrum about Obama and then Mrs Clinton, emphasis on the Mrs.

          If I had a time machine I would take documentation back and convince someone that we need a few more Old White Guys to let the GOP's base unrustle their jimmies for a bit.

          I predicted something like this coming back in the late 90's, not that anyone should have listened to me about civics. I say 'like this', but... not like this. And if I had someone would have requested "wellness checks" (which is American for 'check to see if we can have him involuntarily committed to a mental facility) on my behalf.

          My notion back then was that the vibe of the country was such that a black man would need to be elected before a white woman was a serious contender. But that there would have to be a delay. When you rush progress you can spin out. And fuck if we haven't spun out.

          Maybe they'll go for a whip-smart gay man next term? Who knows.

      • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-0811:224 reply

        >It turns out that when elections are fought on the basis of identity (race, religion) etc corruption is actually considered a benefit! This is because the loyalists interpret this as "we" are winning and "they" are losing.

        So how could one design a political system so this behavior doesn't emerge / is not incentivized?

        • By avaika 2025-06-0814:163 reply

          In no way this is a good example of such a system, but I still find Bosnia and Herzegovina political system absolutely hilarious. After Dayton peace agreement the literally put ethnicity requirement for presidents to Constitution as a hard rule. One Bosnian, one Serb and one Croatian. And yes, the country is ran by 3 presidents at the same time. So there is no longer a competition whether the main guy in the country will be theirs or ours.

          There were two guys: a Roma and a Jew in BiH who also wanted to take the president office. However according to Constitution they didn't have a chance. So they went to EU Human Rights Court to look for a justice. The court told the country it's kinda racist to have a rule like that and they should change it. This was like 15 years ago. Guess whether the rule has changed since then. (Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina for more details).

          PS. If you find 3 presidents not fascinating enough, then google for High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

          • By roryirvine 2025-06-0817:122 reply

            Northern Ireland has a similar system, with an executive built on a forced coalition.

            The executive is led by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister (despite the difference in title, they have exactly equal powers), who are selected from the largest party representing each of the two main communities.

            Major decisions require cross-community support - at least 50% of all those voting AND 50% of the representatives of each of the two communities, OR 60% of all those voting AND 40% of the representatives of each of the two communities.

            On paper, it seems slightly absurd... but in practice, it's a reasonable way to deal with deeply divided societies.

            • By soulofmischief 2025-06-0819:521 reply

              I don't know... Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three. Two guys with equal power is a recipe for inaction in critical moments.

              • By tdeck 2025-06-094:19

                In practice Northern Ireland is subordinate to Westminster in most "critical moments".

            • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-091:22

              I like this term "forced coalition". How about a traditional parliamentary system where a supermajority is required to pass legislation?

              I assume if you need 70% to pass legislation then you get a grand coalition pretty much every time?

              I guess it could incentivize brinkmanship among coalition partners though, since the leader of the coalition has less leverage if a small party threatens to quit?

          • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-091:191 reply

            Interesting.

            When I put my programmer hat on, there's something inelegant about this approach, because it involves hardcoding the words "Bosnian", "Serb", and "Croatian" into the constitution.

            It seems like with a sufficiently clever electoral rule, you could generate a small "national steering committee" with an odd number of members, where each major faction is guaranteed representation. But that also sounds a lot like a parliament where there's one party for each ethnic group, and then we're back where we started?

            What happens when the 3 presidents disagree? Maybe the trick is to incentivize consensus-driven decisionmaking?

            • By avaika 2025-06-1112:57

              >What happens when the 3 presidents disagree? Maybe the trick is to incentivize consensus-driven decisionmaking?

              That's where High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina comes into play. This is external guy appointed by the EU (US also was participating in the appointment in the beginning, but they withdrew themselves from the process quite a few years ago). This guy has the power to fire any (like ANY) politician in the country. And the permission to overrule or enforce any law.

              This guy is probably controlled by EU and can't turn into dictatorship mode, but you never know. At the very least two times presidents were fired due to political disagreement.

              EU considered to discontinue this practice, but local people encouraged EU to leave things as is. Cause nobody trusts politicians and the systems is still pretty corrupt.

              Anyway, whatever decision presidents have to make, all 3 must agree. That's why a lot of controversial topics are hanging for eternity (e.g. recognition of Kosovo).

              When country was trying to choose a national flags, all the parts couldn't find the agreement for a long time. That's why High Representative just approved his own version nobody really liked. So today if you visit the country, you will find Serbian flag in the parts where Serbs live and Croatian flags in the part with Croats. Actual country flag normally is in the parts where majority is Bosnian.

          • By sterlind 2025-06-0822:25

            having three is interesting because it gives a way to break ties. how do they handle candidates with mixed ethnicity, though? or the Serbians and Croatians converging, while the Bosnians move farther apart from both?

        • By intended 2025-06-094:18

          This has not emerged due to the political system, this has emerged due to the issues in the information economy.

          The core issue is that news cannot compete with entertainment, and the firms that appeared after Murdoch on the right, insulate themselves and their politicians from the need to be accurate.

          The cycle is essentially:

          1) Fringe theory appears on the internet

          2) Fringe theory is picked up by Notable Person (Someone who is able to come on Prime time Television)

          3) Notable comes onto media network and repeats fringe theory

          4) Reporting can now cover Fringe Theory as main stream

          This economy of ideas shares little with the processes on the center and the left. People who come up with counter arguments don’t end up getting amplified.

          This has demolished the exchange and debate of Ideas, and it has worked in all liberal democracies. Implacable Partisanship has been rewarded.

        • By Atreiden 2025-06-0813:223 reply

          Get rid of FPTP and the Electoral College that enables a two-party stranglehold. If a vote for a third party wasn't a wasted vote, we could see nuanced parties and politicians emerge that don't have to tow a party line.

          • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-091:291 reply

            Strengthening third parties can also increase extremism though. Consider parties such as Reform in the UK or AfD in Germany.

            I think what you want is electoral rules which tend to select for consensus-makers. Approval voting would be an example.

            • By solumunus 2025-06-093:091 reply

              FPTP is what makes Reform so dangerous though. They have a real chance of having a lot of power. In a proportional representation system where parties have to share power in coalitions these extreme parties actually have to be involved in government, at which point they’re exposed as completely incompetent. See the Netherlands right now for example. I would rather have these extreme positions represented, because they will be represented poorly. It takes wind out of the populist sails, where they can no longer simply promise everything until they’re in power and completely destroy the country.

              • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-096:591 reply

                I think FPTP ends up working out a lot different in the parliamentary context. The US only has 2 parties in Congress, despite FPTP.

                In terms of strength of 3rd parties, I'd say they are generally quite weak in the US system, somewhat stronger in a proportional representation parliamentary system, and potentially overpowered in a FPTP parliament like in the UK.

                Historically I believe the 2-party system in the US was pretty good at tamping down on extremism, but recently the 2 major parties have acquired too many extremists.

          • By secos 2025-06-0813:281 reply

            Ranked Choice Voting goes a long way to solving this as well.

            • By t_mann 2025-06-0814:512 reply

              Does it? Could you explain which mechanism you suggest using? Because the main results from social choice theory about ranked choice voting that come to mind seem to be all about impossibility of fair elections (eg Arrow) or even paradoxical situations such as cyclic preferences (eg Condorcet).

              • By pornel 2025-06-0819:23

                These kinds of perfectionism complaints keep the status quo of FPTP, which is the worst of them all.

              • By cardiffspaceman 2025-06-0819:50

                Since none of the proposed replacements can be perfect according to the theory, let’s just stick with the worst one.

                Big fat /s

          • By trueismywork 2025-06-0817:181 reply

            You need to educate the people and convince them on how it works. Easily a 30 year project in places like India.

        • By unicornporn 2025-06-0814:122 reply

          How about not creating a precarious underclass with lack of (higher) education that is ready to vote for whatever solution promising to take down the system that made them so desperate for radical change?

          • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-091:37

            If the functioning of your nation's political system depends on the functioning of your nation's education system or your nation's economy, you've created a circular dependency. The education system and the economy are themselves downstream of the political system. Dysfunction in one tends to create dysfunction in the others. See https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2004/Caplanidea.htm...

            A good political system is one which continues to work well even when education and the economy suck, so societal self-repair is possible. Ideally it would actually start working better when things suck, so society becomes antifragile.

            "More college diplomas" is not a great solution when existing graduates are already working at Starbucks. This is the "elite overproduction" which creates instability.

            Americans already have a relatively high standard of living by global standards, e.g. see median income adjusted for cost of living: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=t...

            Yet Americans are still dissatisfied. Part of the problem is that our political system incentivizes candidates and media outlets to stir up dissatisfaction so they can exploit it. There's also envy / the hedonic treadmill.

          • By CamperBob2 2025-06-0816:193 reply

            I don't really buy the education argument. How do you "educate" somebody who lived through the first Trump administration and voted for more of the same? Let's get specific: what exactly did they miss in school that would have driven them towards a different decision?

            At some point it's necessary to confront the uncomfortable truth: stupid people are easy for smart, ill-intentioned people to herd, which gives the latter a leg up in any democratic election.

            This bug in democracy was there in the beginning. But it's only now, 2500 years later, that it can be exploited effectively enough to invalidate the whole concept.

            • By tshaddox 2025-06-0821:01

              > At some point it's necessary to confront the uncomfortable truth

              Sometimes the truth is even more uncomfortable than “lots of people are stupid.” A much more insidious scenario is when there’s two groups with no major differences in education or access to facts, but one has a cultural which is actively and explicitly hostile to truth. In such scenarios, ever-escalating hostilities between the two groups is inevitable.

            • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-091:513 reply

              >This bug in democracy was there in the beginning. But it's only now, 2500 years later, that it can be exploited effectively enough to invalidate the whole concept.

              Not sure where the 2500 number came from. The US is about 250 years old, and the founders were extremely wary of democracy based on its history prior to the US. The US constitution was designed to mitigate issues with democracy, e.g. that is the purpose of "checks and balances". By democracy standards, the US has been very successful; the average constitution only lasts 17 years: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lifespan-written-constitut...

              This article estimates that the US is the #2 longest-lasting republic after the Roman Republic: https://www.broadstreet.blog/p/the-democratic-institutions-o...

              Nonetheless, you would think that the "technology" for writing constitutions would've evolved more in the past 250 years. And in fact, in the Federalist Papers, it is predicted that political technology will evolve, just like any other field of technology. Yet results there have been quite disappointing, if you ask me. There aren't that many interesting and innovative ideas in this area. Most people, even programmers, tend to get lost in the object level us-vs-them conflict instead of going meta with their creative algorithmic brain.

              • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-0912:04

                My comment is too old to edit, but I would like to issue a correction. I should not have written "This article estimates that the US is the #2 longest-lasting republic after the Roman Republic", since the caption for the figure in the article states something different ("Duration of Long-Lived Democracies", i.e. the word "democracy" is used rather than "republic", and also there wasn't a claim to "longest-lived")

                Never trust internet comments!

              • By alimw 2025-06-0910:371 reply

                > Not sure where the 2500 number came from.

                Athens probably? From what I remember of school, this was the world's first democracy. (I've heard that Americans are taught something else!)

                • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-0911:211 reply

                  I didn't get the impression that Athenian democracy was particularly successful. So it seemed weird to say that the flaws in democracy are only now becoming apparent.

                  In fact, I understand that CamperBob2's critique of democracy is quite similar to that of Socrates. So I'm puzzled by the claim that it's "only now" that the critique is being proven correct, given that US democracy is notably more stable and long-lived than Athenian democracy.

                  In general, I think times of turmoil are always much more salient when you yourself are living through them. We lack the historical perspective to understand how bad turmoil has been in the past.

                  • By CamperBob2 2025-06-0915:45

                    The flaws in democracy were always apparent, and they've always been exploited by parties willing to do the dirty work. But they couldn't be exploited consistently and decisively. Now they can be.

                    Think of it this way: you can't reach people who don't read much by starting a newspaper, but you can reach them with Fox News and Twitter. Mix in a bit of that old-time religion -- Billy Graham with a side of sauce Bernays -- and the left-hand side of the bell curve is yours to do with as you please.

              • By ringeryless 2025-06-0910:342 reply

                umm Switzerland disagrees with the assessment of the USA being the oldest democratic republic. If we are only speaking of republic, Portugal has been one since the 12th century, albeit there's been 10 or 11 iterations on the constitution, including Salazars so-called New State.

            • By Propelloni 2025-06-0816:541 reply

              They missed that liberty and freedom is not a god-given right, but hard-earned privilege. They missed that liberty is not a personal property but a shared practice of pluralism. They missed that liberty is not absolute, but requires compromise and limitations so that we all can be free.

              To be fair, those are not things that are taught in school. If they come up at all it is in some historical context, a battle someone else fought--and won. There is no mention that maintaining a liberal democracy requires effort and vigilance. Modern, ie. post-WW2, "fighting democracies" have built-in safeguards to oppose internal enemies of democracy, but if they are effective remains to be seen. The USA mostly does not even have such mechanisms and it shows.

              • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-092:011 reply

                >Modern, ie. post-WW2, "fighting democracies" have built-in safeguards to oppose internal enemies of democracy, but if they are effective remains to be seen.

                Eh, "internal enemies of democracy" is way too vague. E.g. Trump supporters claim that "unelected bureaucrats" in the "deep state" are enemies of democracy. Anyone can call anyone an "enemy of democracy".

                • By Propelloni 2025-06-098:181 reply

                  Those fighting democracies are very specific about what is and what is not irreconcilable. For example, in Germany you can murder the president--that's just homicide--but you cannot abolish the protection of minorities. That's a violation of the constitution. Germany's far-right party Alternative für Deutschland has been under suspicion of violating a few of those provisions for quite some time now.

                  The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (aka. Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) completed a report a few weeks ago but is required by law to withhold it from the public due to due process. Of course it leaked, you can read the report here [1] (it's in German, obviously).

                  Now there is a discussion ongoing, if the Alternative für Deutschland has to been dissolved. That's a fighting democracy at work, following the rule of law.

                  [1] https://assets.cicero.de/2025-05/Geheimgutachten_Teil%20A.pd...

                  • By 0xDEAFBEAD 2025-06-0911:571 reply

                    I'm not sure Germany's approach is a good one, based on the historical record:

                    https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/wo...

                    • By Propelloni 2025-06-0916:49

                      Me neither, but as the discussers point out, the Weimar Republic totally failed to apply serious consquences, e.g. Hitler's very short arrest after the Munich coup. Besides, the safeguards include more than limiting free speech.

                      Of course, those safeguards were designed in the late 1940s, so it's interesting, to say the least, how they cope with modern demagoguery. In any case it is worth a try.

                      Tangentially, that's a great site! I hadn't heard of FIRE before, but I'm glad they exist. I hope they don't get suborned by one side or the other.

      • By petre 2025-06-084:521 reply

        I see it as a continuation of the American Civil War in politics. There was always this attitude but now people are more redicalized, so it's more obvious.

        • By lotsofpulp 2025-06-0815:391 reply

          It seemed more subdued during the 1990s/2000s, until a black guy became President, and a good one at that.

          • By FireBeyond 2025-06-0819:17

            And then the Democrats wanted to put forward a... a... a woman, too!

      • By tshaddox 2025-06-084:161 reply

        In that case, it would be neat if corruption were illegal!

        • By ty6853 2025-06-084:261 reply

          Or just more accessible, so the average person can get a piece of the benefits that cartels and megacorp executives already get.

          • By supriyo-biswas 2025-06-0810:09

            Voila, we've ended up with a low trust society with "petty corruption", which is generally considered harmful as it establishes something about that society that cannot be easily corrected unlike "grand corruption."

      • By kamaal 2025-06-104:41

        >>I witnessed this up close in India where parties openly exist to benefit certain constituencies based on caste, language, religion and so on.

        +1

        As an Indian, classic definition of corruption here is something that other people do. When our own do it, its not really called corruption, its more intelligent work done to make our people win.

        Similar term is appeasement. It kind of means if people I hate are winning, they must be doing bad things or cheating. It is impossible that people I hate should do well in life.

      • By natmaka 2025-06-083:381 reply

        > "we" are winning and "they" are losing

        This is a very important rule stated by the War Nerd: 'Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL: "my gang yay, your gang boo!" It really is that simple. The rest is cosmetics.'

        A small human group is compatible with this tribal behavior because the bulk of actions (or at worst their effects) are quickly perceptible to everyone. The larger the group, the less each person understands what is happening, even the effects of what he does.

        • By pengaru 2025-06-083:462 reply

          I don't know wtf War Nerd is, but tribalism being alive and well is nowhere near a new/novel observation worth noting anyone pointed out.

          • By palmfacehn 2025-06-086:27

            Agree that it is not a novel observation, but it is worth noting here. The discussion would be less ridiculous if there were less tribalism.

          • By natmaka 2025-06-0813:44

            It is about more than "being alive and well" but being omnipresent and determinant.

            Stating it is useful because many neglect (or maybe even ignore) this fact.

            The way the War Nerd puts it is IMHO the best.

      • By bobxmax 2025-06-0722:395 reply

        [flagged]

        • By seanmcdirmid 2025-06-0722:431 reply

          [flagged]

          • By bobxmax 2025-06-0722:463 reply

            That's naive and you know it. A massive drive for him was electing the first black president. A less, but still not-insignificant drive was for Hillary as the first female president.

            • By seanmcdirmid 2025-06-0723:362 reply

              Thats your opinion, Obama could have been white, and he still would have been voted for by 99.9% of those who voted for him. Young Kennedy-like candidates are rare (eg Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) but are incredibly electable when they show up.

              Towards the end of his presidency, most of us forgot he was even black. Just those white southerners and a certain old guy in New York who were fixated on his race from the beginning still thought he was a DEI elect.

              • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:571 reply

                There were hit songs about what a big moment it is that he was black. At least among minorities that was a massive deal. If you didn't see that, I think you're probably closer to those white southerners than you might think you are.

                Can you imagine if mainstream entertainers made songs celebrating having a white president?

                • By avmich 2025-06-080:36

                  Given that all of them but one are white, what the point that would be? Songs are not because Obama is black, but because he was the first black on the role.

              • By onetimeusename 2025-06-080:073 reply

                So you are opposed to fixating on people's race and yet there you are singling out white southerners. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

                • By avmich 2025-06-080:28

                  It's important not to start wars first. Good arguments would also help.

                • By cosmicgadget 2025-06-080:32

                  They self-selected. Loudly.

                • By seanmcdirmid 2025-06-080:33

                  Most people forgot Obama was black except them, they are also the ones constantly accusing Obama of being racially divisive, they should just own what they say. This is kind of like Trump calling people names but then being greatly offended when someone calls him a name, right?

            • By Retric 2025-06-0722:492 reply

              I’d be shocked if Hilary had a net benefit being a female candidate. We’ve had 2 chances to elect a female president and they both lost the general election with not that great turnout.

              John McCain’s VP was female during 08 and he lost by a huge margin.

              • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:022 reply

                Hillary and Kamala got boosts from being a woman. They just had a massive drop because of, especially in Hillary's case, being deeply unlikeable.

                Kamala probably wins in 2016.

                • By Retric 2025-06-0723:051 reply

                  > Hillary and Clinton got boosts

                  It’s Hillary and Kamala Harris.

                  I’m not saying they don’t get some voters from being women, the point is they also lost votes from being women.

                  I think a rotting corps might have won in 2016, but 4 years later vs a women and suddenly he’s doing great.

                  • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:123 reply

                    Kamala lost because of Biden, who somehow was even less likeable than Hillary by the end.

                    • By wqaatwt 2025-06-086:48

                      In a way yes. Kamala lost because she was the ultimate DEI candidate (in how own words that the only reason he picked her to be VP). Regardless of her personal skills or qualities it’s very hard to move past that..

                      Had she had a chance to prove that she could win a primary things might have been different

                    • By wqaatwt 2025-06-086:47

                      In a way yes. Kamala lost because she was the ultimate DEI candidate (in how own words that the only reason he picked her to be VP). Regardless of her personal skills or qualities it’s very hard to move past that..

                    • By Retric 2025-06-0723:432 reply

                      Biden fucked up in many ways, but he also got a lot of flack from bad timing and poor messaging. It’s easy to say COVID hurt Trump in 20 and Kamala in 24, but I think the details mattered.

                      The inflation rate fell significantly under his presidency, but during periods of high inflation prices soared. Coming back from that after generations of extremely low inflation would have been tough for someone without failing facilities. I think a great politician could have weathered that storm, Biden wasn’t up to the task and Kamala’s messaging didn’t help.

                      Republicans getting out ahead on that inflation messaging similarly did wonders for Trump and other Republicans. Planting the idea that America somehow didn’t do well when we did far better than the rest of the world was brilliantly executed IMO.

                      • By lostlogin 2025-06-0723:51

                        > coming back from that after generations of extremely low inflation would have been tough for someone without failing facilities

                        But facing off against someone who was never particularly sharp or articulate. I think it evened the playing field.

                      • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:58

                        Yes... Biden's presidency objectively wasn't bad, but the way it was messaged and the optics he gave off were just impossible to recover from.

                • By dinkumthinkum 2025-06-080:51

                  Kamala probably wins in 2016? I mean this in a very nice way but I think you may want research the politics and candidates in the US a little more before bold statements such as that. Kamala was unable to even register on a scale in the primary and what noise she did make was to play a false game on which she essentially accused Biden of being racist filth. I think it is not just that she had no qualifications for office, we could argue about what constitutes a qualification for a long time, but she had no reasoning or theory of why she would even be someone yo run for office. She tablet in such incomprehensible ways that one could not even discern a point from her utterances. You may say the current president rambles but she think the point is always present. Kamala on her best days just spoke in long winded tautologies: “we are always doing each day the things we do every day” or whenever nonsense she chose to present to the public. Further, he main qualification to place herself as one of the poor people was to constantly talk about being a “middle class kid.” The problem is in her generation, the middle class did quite well for themselves so it was such a false premise. Let’s not discuss the accents.

              • By wqaatwt 2025-06-086:42

                It did help her to get on the ballot quite a bit. Of course it had the opposite effect in the general election.

            • By goatlover 2025-06-084:45

              That was not at all the main reason Obama got elected. He was charismatic, likable and promised hope and change. Why is it that the people who don't want identity politics to be a focus make it a focus?

        • By Retric 2025-06-0722:44

          52.9% vs 45.7% of the electoral vote doesn’t come down to race here.

          Obama was vastly more charismatic and coming after for years of an unpopular Republican president, 28% on election night. https://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ra...

          Not that idiot was enough to resonate with voters.

        • By xnx 2025-06-0723:501 reply

          Obama 2012: "There are no red states or blue states, just the United States."

          You may dismiss that as just words, but the modern right does not even attempt to speak in those terms.

          • By bobxmax 2025-06-080:042 reply

            Does the modern left?

            • By energy123 2025-06-083:49

              What about the Harris-Walz campaign? There was no identity politics, it was a message of national unity and civic nationalism.

            • By jbattle 2025-06-082:251 reply

              Biden's inaugural address was full of this

              "To all those who supported our campaign, I'm humbled by the faith you've placed in us. To all of those who did not support us, let me say this. Hear me out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart. If you still disagree, so be it. That's democracy. That's America. The right to dissent peaceably. Within the guardrails of our republic, it's perhaps this nation's greatest strength. Yet hear me clearly: disagreement must not lead to disunion. And I pledge this to you, I will be a president for all Americans, all Americans. And I promise you, I will fight as hard for those who did not support me as for those who did."

        • By paulryanrogers 2025-06-0722:451 reply

          Obama taught constitutional law and served in the state and US Senate before running for president. He was [not] some unqualified hack thrust into power because they needed a person of a different race in power.

          Obama's campaign was far less about race than Trump's campaigns in 2016 and 2024. Unless you can't hear the dog whistles.

          • By bobxmax 2025-06-0722:463 reply

            Can you clarify what Trump's 2016 had to do with race

            • By cosmicgadget 2025-06-080:45

              This is the part where you feign not hearing dogwhistles. How about this, are you aware of any openly racist organizations that support him?

            • By Daishiman 2025-06-0723:011 reply

              The resentment of a chunk of white Americans who for some reason did not like having a black president.

              • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:022 reply

                You can't claim that while claiming wanting to elect a black president wasn't a big driver in much of the turnout for Obama. There were multiple musicians literally making songs about finally being able to elect a black president.

                • By krapp 2025-06-0723:221 reply

                  Trump's initial popularity was due in no small part to the anger of American white supremacists and the alt-right, this was well documented even back in 2016[0,3]. That the President elected after Obama was the man who mainstreamed the birther conspiracies against Obama was not a coincidence. It wasn't entirely about Obama, but he was the straw that broke white America's back.

                  [0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/donald-...

                  [1]https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump...

                  [2]https://archive.is/tZpFB

                  • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:252 reply

                    This wasn't because of racism. This belief is why the left keeps losing to him... a total misunderstanding of what brought him into power.

                    Some of the earliest figureheads of the so-called "alt right" movement were homosexuals and racial minorities

                    Trump's win was a revolt against the social justice age. His win was a revolt against emergent phenomenon like "cancel culture".

                    • By dragonwriter 2025-06-0723:271 reply

                      > Trump's win was a revolt against the social justice age.

                      So, it wasn't bigotry it was just a reaction against the rejection of bigotry?

                      • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:301 reply

                        The social justice age wasn't a rejection of bigotry. It was a Mccarthy-esque movement of dividing everybody between sexual and racial lines into a hierarchy of who was and wasn't allowed to speak. Speaking against the party line meant exile.

                        The SJW/Wokeism movement had nothing to do with true equity and "rejection of bigotry". That's why there was such a revolt against it.

                        • By lostlogin 2025-06-080:021 reply

                          > Speaking against the party line meant exile.

                          But that has got worse, not better.

                          Trump is threatening to cancel contracts with Musk and to Munich him if he funds opposition.

                          That’s the bluntest example of ‘cancel culture’ you’ll find.

                          Also: Musk and Trump deserve each other.

                          • By bobxmax 2025-06-080:05

                            Of course, I didn't claim that the republicans aren't now doing everything they claimed to revolt against but worse. As it turns out "free speech" absolutism only applies to things that pwn the libz.

                    • By cycomanic 2025-06-080:44

                      I call b*t. The reality is that the there is a outrage campaign in the right wing media trying to drive anger about some perceived victimhood in people who have largely been privaledged all their life. They would have found something else instead.

                • By paulryanrogers 2025-06-0723:111 reply

                  Obama was genuinely qualified to be president. Trump was clearly unfit in 2016 (having never held elected office and run nearly all his businesses into the ground), and constitutionally disqualified after Jan 6 2021.

                  Trump was also reluctant to denounce or criticize white nationalists. He repeated and reposted neo-Nazi content and phrases. He is the one ordering a zealous yet haphazard dismantling of anything that breathes the words racial equity, and without a hint of pushback from his voters.

                  • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:14

                    That's your opinion though. Obviously lots of people disagree.

            • By lostlogin 2025-06-0723:571 reply

              Read the Wiki on his 2016 campaign. Or pretty much anything he said on race prior to the campaign.

              That he attracted votes from anyone without white skin is amazing.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

              • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:592 reply

                Don't just send me a random dump wiki dump. Give me actual racist things he said in 2016.

                • By mdale 2025-06-080:201 reply

                  It's not racist to push baseless claims the opposition who is black was born in Africa and not qualified to run for office ?

                  How else would you define racism if not across xenophobic lines by the color of ones skin ?

                  • By bobxmax 2025-06-080:241 reply

                    Obama was not his opposition, and that was not his campaign.

                    • By sethammons 2025-06-0813:131 reply

                      So when Trump admitted on Howard Stern that he likes to walk in on naked teenage girls because his role of running the teen universe beauty pageant allows him to get away with that, that is ok because he wasn't running a campaign at the time?

                      Jump to 1:38 https://youtu.be/kikTv0I8XVw?si=VVfSpMDt7rKEIcRJ

                      • By bobxmax 2025-06-0817:25

                        What the heck are you talking about?

                • By lostlogin 2025-06-080:211 reply

                  I’m sorry that the volume of racist statements he has made means that you have to scroll down. The below link should take you straight there.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump#2...

                  • By bobxmax 2025-06-080:241 reply

                    So you can't give me a single racist statement he made.

                    • By cycomanic 2025-06-080:371 reply

                      For the risk of feeding a troll:

                      >There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world. You go to places like Oakland. Or Ferguson. The crime numbers are worse. Seriously," and retweeted a false claim that 81% of white murder victims were killed by black people.

                      > "We've just seen many, many crimes getting worse all the time, and as Maine knows—a major destination for Somali refugees—right, am I right?"

                      Just 2 of them.

                      • By bobxmax 2025-06-0812:20

                        How are either of those sentences "racist"?

        • By pessimist 2025-06-0723:021 reply

          Yes, both parties do it. In California for example left-wing politics is openly racist and I have sympathy for even the crazy republicans here.

          However to defend Obama - he explictly ran on unity and went out of his away to not openly benefit his own race.

          • By bobxmax 2025-06-0723:04

            Yeah I mean to be clear, I think Obama was a remarkable leader and it's hard to believe he once occupied the same seat DJT does today

            He didn't explicitly use his race (the way Hillary often used her gender), but many who campaigned for him and large parts of his caucuses did. For better or for worse.

    • By creato 2025-06-0721:151 reply

      This is why the standard for something to be considered improper behavior is (or used to be) the appearance of a conflict of interest.

      People stopped giving a shit about anything. This is just one of dozens of things that would have been totally unacceptable a few years ago.

      • By andrepd 2025-06-0721:284 reply

        The world is no longer a serious place.

        Everybody is turbo-infantilised via social media. I don't know if that's indeed the root cause or if it's a combination of factors, but the fact remains that people don't even feel the need to _pretend to care_ about honesty, character, seriousness, etc.

        • By pantalaimon 2025-06-085:122 reply

          Social media is easy to blame, but we had something similar, but worse happening in Germany well before the invention of the computer even.

          Human society has not developed an antidote to charismatic demagogues yet I'm afraid.

          • By aerhardt 2025-06-087:00

            Human society is limited in the antidotes to human nature that it can code through law, institutions or culture. It’s the same species throughout 1930’s Germany and today.

            We shouldn’t give up on law, institutions or culture, but accepting our failings instead of seeing humans as a perfectible project can at least give us solace in confusing times.

          • By herewulf 2025-06-087:223 reply

            Sorry, but Germany had just suffered a humiliating defeat and was punished severely for WWI in which all sides were equally guilty for all of it.

            When did something of this magnitude just happen in the USA?

            P.S.: This does not excuse Germany's actions wrt. WWII but it does help to explain.

            • By gota 2025-06-0817:48

              Just an opinion, but -

              An entire cohort born between 1985~1995 reached their 30s in what they perceived as a far, far worse situation all around (financially foremost, but also almost every social aspect) than their parents.

            • By DoctorOW 2025-06-089:25

              For many reasons (including the ones above) it's difficult for any institution within reach of the US government to analyze how the alt-right took power but from what I can tell the US economy is in a slow burn. It's been receiving patches roughly once a presidency but it turns out you can't combine a lot of short term solutions to make a long term one. Fixing the economy would require bold decisions and the parties took two different directions. The Republican party realized that any bold policy would get votes regardless of any other factor including coherency. This is why Trump supporters, when asked about their logic usually give some form of "things are bad, and they didn't used to be".

              To summarize, there are competing ideas for what got us here, but I think it was less of a real inciting event like WW1 and more of a breaking point that was eventually reached.

            • By Scea91 2025-06-089:11

              > WWI in which all sides were equally guilty for all of it.

              Not true, while Germany was not solely responsible, it and Austria-Hungary were much more responsible than others.

        • By Gigachad 2025-06-0721:515 reply

          This kind of stuff would not fly in Australia. Not to say that there is no corruption, but that it isn’t absolutely blatant and ignored.

          • By Waterluvian 2025-06-0723:011 reply

            Yeah. Same in Canada. Nowhere is free from corruption, but the magnitude and danger of this problem is uniquely American.

            • By slavik81 2025-06-086:232 reply

              I have lived in Alberta my entire life and that used to be true here. It's different now. There's blatant corruption from our provincial government in the news every few months, but it seems like that's just accepted now. Things are not trending in a good direction in Canada.

              • By sirtaj 2025-06-0811:56

                The far right pretty much across the world is learning just how fragile and consensus-based the institutions of democracy are all at once. They're watching and learning from each other. Hence you have people like Bannon involved in similar tricks in multiple countries.

              • By Waterluvian 2025-06-0814:52

                Oddly enough Albertans poll Carney as favourably as Poilievre. So I see what you see but in general I do not believe it’s actually that bad.

                Plus Alberta has always on again off again thrown middle-child tantrums.

          • By Merad 2025-06-080:171 reply

            Are you really so sure? I think the vast majority of Americans would have expressed the same sentiment less than 10 years ago.

            • By Gigachad 2025-06-081:542 reply

              Obviously I can’t tell you what will happen in 10 years, but if the Prime Minister of Australia did even one days worth of Trumps actions he would be removed within a month or two.

              Australia also doesn’t have an almost religious worship of politicians. Australians don’t identify as members of a particular party unless they literally are part of it.

              • By alfiedotwtf 2025-06-082:501 reply

                There’s a huge difference between the US and Australia here that you slightly touch on - in Australia, the Prime Minister can be removed by the ruling party at any time vs the US where removing the sitting President can only be done via a handful of items from the Constitution

                • By mvdtnz 2025-06-085:562 reply

                  Don't play coy. If a small number of Republican representatives decided they would impeach Trump they would have absolutely no problem getting the votes they need and you know it. They don't do it because that's not what they want.

                  • By intended 2025-06-094:23

                    Republicans have said clearly that they will only act when core support for trump drops. And that has not dropped no matter what.

                  • By megamyth 2025-06-087:25

                    Republican representatives are lobbyists to the public for the 1%. It was clear that they hated Trump and wanted him out in his first run and what they want matters as much as what a car salesman wants for Ford.

              • By rat87 2025-06-087:27

                I'm not sure America had that sort of cult thing pre Trump. JFK was pretty popular as was Regan but even they weren't the same. You guys do have a vote of no confidence which theoretically is easier to pull off then impeachment (majority vote)

          • By FireBeyond 2025-06-0819:23

            Only with a lot of effort. I'm old enough to remember the ICAC in NSW and the CCC in Queensland (Joh Bjelke-Petersen was a bit before my time)... the widespread "travel expenses" fraud that permeated for YEARS.

          • By emptysongglass 2025-06-087:191 reply

            Your government recently mandated technical capabilities for breaking encryption. Australians let that fly. There is nothing special about Australians, just as there is also nothing special about the British people who also did nothing when the UK mandated technical capabilities to break encryption.

            One could even make the argument that the people of these two countries are even more pliant than Americans when they enable a key capability for totalitarian surveillance states without a blink.

            • By Gigachad 2025-06-087:43

              There was nothing blatantly corrupt or illegal going on there, it went through the normal process and was unfortunately supported by both major parties. I’m not saying objectionable laws never get implemented. I’m saying the Prime Minister is not a dictator with limitless power.

          • By jamil7 2025-06-0811:19

            The corruption in state government, especially WA for example is pretty blatant but I get your point.

        • By gambiting 2025-06-0721:57

          I remember when certain social media networks argued that having a real name policy will lead to a more polite, kinder internet, because people won't be as rude with their real names attached to their posts. Turns out, people really don't care. I see the most vile, disgusting, racist, xenophobic shit on Facebook every single day, with real names and pictures showing smiling happy people hugging their kids on every one of them. Like you said - people don't feel any need to care about honesty, character, or even appearance of politeness or good manners.

        • By SoftTalker 2025-06-0721:502 reply

          I think they might have figured out that a lot of that honesty and character was a facade. Is the false appearance of morality better than just showing yourself as you really are?

          • By dasil003 2025-06-0722:08

            You mean that people lie and cheat? That's always been the case. The point of honesty and character is precisely that they reflect a person's ability to value a higher good than their immediate self-interest. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

            The fact that reputation has been subjected to unprecedented arms race in the face of the internet and social media doesn't fundamentally change the game, it just makes it more exhausting and overwhelming to pay attention to.

          • By cycomanic 2025-06-084:23

    • By motorest 2025-06-088:501 reply

      > It's wild that a president can say, "I don't like Elon anymore, so out of retaliation, I'm canceling all his government contracts," and ~40% of the country doesn't see that as corruption in any way, shape, or form.

      This is what a fascist dictatorship looks like. You have a leader who adheres to the persona of a strong man perpetually fighting against enemies who are both too weak and too strong, and at the drop of a hat their enemies change. Then of course rule of law doesn't apply anymore because the strong man in charge is the law, so he is supported in arbitrarily abusing and corrupting the state for his own personal benefit because his personal victories are sold as a show of stength.

      The US needs to wake up to the fact that they are now living under a totalitarian dictatorship. The rest of the world is already well aware.

      • By curt15 2025-06-0810:46

        >Then of course rule of law doesn't apply anymore because the strong man in charge is the law,

        Is it any accident that JD and Elon keep calling for "rule of the people" instead of "rule of law".

    • By the_af 2025-06-0715:014 reply

      Agreed.

      It's also wild that someone who was a major contributor to the election campaign and a major advisor to the president now declares "well, the president is a pedophile" and nobody bats an eye either. I mean, Musk supporters now have to believe Musk knowingly supported a pedophile but only turned against him after he had a falling out for unrelated reasons? In the eyes of his supporters, what does this say about Musk?

      (Note: whether the accusation is true or not is irrelevant; what matters is that Musk supported someone whom he claims to know is a pedophile).

      • By BLKNSLVR 2025-06-0720:57

        That's a great point about both the pettiness and corrupting influence of power.

        Trump and Musk are trash human beings and the world would be better off if they were both 100% occupied with trying to destroy each other, with the hope being that then some adults could come in and run the country / companies.

        I think Trump was probably always trash. Musk may have had redeemable qualities at one point, but, well, as per my first sentence.

      • By aisenik 2025-06-0716:034 reply

        Musk is a known pedophile-accusation-maker and affiliated with the Epstein child rape organization through his Kung-Fu lessons with Ghislaine Maxwell. Prior supporters will be less reactive for the first reason and more likely to perceive the situations as unfounded petty accusations for the latter (the dissonance of both Trump and Musk being connected to child rape is resolved this way).

        • By jordanb 2025-06-0720:561 reply

          Not only that but Musk was able to successfully argue in court that he's such a well known liar that a reasonable person wouldn't take his accusations of pedophillia seriously

          • By the_af 2025-06-0721:212 reply

            Wow, I didn't know this.

            I didn't even know this was a possible defense at all, "everything I say is bullshit, so if anyone takes it seriously, that's on them".

            • By xnx 2025-06-080:151 reply

              Fox news attempted this defense in court "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

              • By casefields 2025-06-080:581 reply

                Maddow and MSNBC made the same argument in court. It’s a very useful defense for these entertainment news programs.

            • By fhdkweig 2025-06-081:001 reply

              My memory is a bit fuzzy, but that was also Trump's family's response to the financial statements related to his businesses when it came up in court. But I don't remember which court case it was.

              • By FireBeyond 2025-06-091:42

                That was the one where he told the IRS the buildings he owned were worth $(x)M for tax purposes, but was simultaneously having them valued at $(10x)M for loan collateral purposes.

        • By amiga386 2025-06-0721:152 reply

          > Musk is a known pedophile-accusation-maker

          Laughably so.

          Musk: I can save those boys trapped in the cave! We can use this stupid submarine thing of mine.

          Hero: No need, I and my Navy SEAL cave-diving pals have got this.

          Musk: How dare you! You're a pedo.

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44779998

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50695593

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45418245

          • By lostlogin 2025-06-080:12

            Would you bet against accusation in this instance?

            The existing recordings and convictions against Trump don’t seem to have hurt him. Why would this?

          • By thrance 2025-06-0811:431 reply

            He was sued for that by the guy and won his trial by convincing the judge that "pedo" is actually common Afrikaner lingo, and it was a casual insult. This country is a joke.

            Also doesn't remove the fact Trump was one of Epstein's closest friends, and everything points to him being involved in some way or the other in those affairs.

            • By ZeroGravitas 2025-06-0813:14

              Musk's brother was introduced to his girlfriend by Epstein.

              Epstein mentored a young model who went onto be a neurosurgeon and married Microsoft's Sinofsky.

              Bill Gates had a meeting with Epstein during which an ex-girlfriend of Epstein's who was once Miss Sweden just happened to turn up with her 15 year old daughter.

              I'd quite like someone to investigate if our billionaires are being honeypotted left, right and center because it appears you can control a big swathe of the world's wealth if you get old rich nerds laid.

              It's still not clear if Epstein made his money by blackmailing yet another Billionaire.

        • By majormajor 2025-06-0720:521 reply

          Trump/Epstein connections have been reported on for years with photos and videos so anyone who cares probably was already on the anti-Trump side.

          While Musk has a bigger megaphone than most media, he also has a credibility issue - and now especially for the Trump-true-believer crowd that is likely the only group whose bubble would be so shielded that they'd see it as news.

          • By redeeman 2025-06-0721:22

            trump was one of the people that originally provided all they knew about epstein to the prosecutors, and once he realized what epstein was, he was banned from all trump venues. What did other do?

        • By drivingmenuts 2025-06-0718:29

          It's kind of his pointless go-to A-bomb insult, yet, this time, it's within the realm of possibility. I mean, I don't not believe it and I don't think I'm alone in that.

      • By randomcarbloke 2025-06-1013:33

        theoretically he might have discovered this after he had paid for Trump's win. I despise the guy but it's entirely possible that he was blind to the publicly available evidence before seeing the secret evidence.

      • By Geee 2025-06-0716:044 reply

        He supposedly learned it after the fact.

        Also, he didn't say that, although he surely implied that. However, he only said that Trump is in the "files", which has actually been public information for a long time. It's known that Trump had some relations with Epstein, but there's no evidence he went to the island or did something wrong.

        It's quite obvious that Elon knows that Trump is not on the actual "list", i.e. the list of Epstein's clients who went to the island. That's why the message reads like a silly insult, rather than a serious accusation.

        • By the_af 2025-06-0719:542 reply

          > He supposedly learned it after the fact.

          When exactly? He was friends with Trump and working in his administration until a few weeks ago (they hugged in his going away ceremony), and he broke up for reasons explicitly not about any pedophile rings.

          So to lob this accusation now doesn't seem like it's because he just learned of it.

          I don't know what Musk really believes. The guy behaves like a mentally unstable person, but maybe it's an act? What is true is that accusing the president of the US of being linked to a pedophile ring is not the same as accusing some random scuba diver of being a pedophile.

          The scuba diver cannot really fight back, but I think the president of the US might.

          (Based on replies to my comments elsewhere, I feel compelled to clarify I'm in no way defending Trump. I think this is a fight between two nasty people).

          • By evan_ 2025-06-0722:58

            I think having 400 billion dollars earns a person a measure of resp- well, whatever Trump is capable of that would equate to respect

          • By wefinh 2025-06-080:151 reply

            Trump is very interesting critter to observe.

            >>>What is true is that accusing the president of the US of being linked to a pedophile ring is not the same as accusing some random scuba diver of being a pedophile.

            I think you might have bigger issues here. Trump has links to mafia - and that is a fact. I'm more interested on what he was doing in regards to Ukraine, as post Soviet mafia(Georgian-Soviet Jewish mix in NY) via NY US Italian? mafia helped him a lot and gave him loans for his projects. Over the time Kremlins took over Soviet mafia and incorporated it - it might sound like a joke, but it is the truth - all the countries have mafia, but in Russia mafia is running country.

            So, from the actions of Trump on how he is dealing with Ukraine, Trump is no better than Biden and Democrats that were frozen by fear because of the threats that Putin said. Which is good... if you want to see fireworks of nuclear weapons in action, because US actions(and inactions) are enabling that. Putin will use nukes on US - for many reasons - mainly because Putin is not at fault here and is misunderstanding American mindset, which is not completely decommissioned by Democrats.

            From what I understand Musk simply has no leverage what Kremlin mafia has over Trump, also Musk is autistic who has no training on how to influence other people the way how Putin(could be slightly autistic, as he is mirroring what Russians want - just like Hitler did) does as he is blunt and uses brutal force, which people as social beings does not appreciate.

            There is also significant difference between Trump and Musk - Trump can say things bluntly, but he also can operate on personal level and have different attitude to very important people - also he likes flattery. Musk has only one of those qualities - he can say things bluntly(but without confidence and aura of power), but as autistic he is completely unaware of when he should really shut up when he is not in control of situation.

            PS Trump, Musk, even the opposition to me are insects and entomology of humans is just a hobby to me. Unlike most of people from US(and apparently people that can't understand that they are not part of US) I have my own thoughts, that I don't have a need to resonate and change in frequency according to some general line of one side or other.

        • By thrance 2025-06-0811:50

          Trump was Epstein's best friend according to the latter, in his conversations with the ghostwriter that would write his memoirs. There are videos of the two at 1990s parties, judging women and laughing together. Trump was also mentioned in Epstein's black book.

          I feel like you downplay their relations with your "Trump had some relations with Epstein". There is definitely something fishy as to why they still haven't released the entirety of the files, and lie about having done so.

        • By krapp 2025-06-0716:171 reply

          To be fair Elon claimed that Trump is mentioned in the remainder of files which have yet to be released. Presumably what evidence there is of wrongdoing, if it exists, exists there.

          "Pedo guy" Musk being Musk, though, who knows? What is the likelihood Musk would even have access to those files if they were so damning to Trump and still sealed?

          Nothing about this is "quite obvious." It could go either way. To be honest I wouldn't put it past either one of them to be on Epstein's "list."

          • By Geee 2025-06-0717:101 reply

            I think the tone of the message would be way more serious if it was a serious accusation based on actual evidence. Now it reads like a kindergarten level conspiracy theory, which almost seems like a joke. The silly claim was that Trump being in the files is the reason why they aren't released.

            And apparently he has now deleted the tweet.

            • By krapp 2025-06-0720:23

              Without seeing the unreleased files we can't know how silly the claim is.

    • By sega_sai 2025-06-082:102 reply

      It is also interesting, that many people here somehow have no issues with trump cancelling federal contracts with Harvard, prohibiting student visas for harvard, firing entire sections of NSF, NIH, NOAA, but when it comes to contracts with spacex, they react.

      • By handoflixue 2025-06-083:362 reply

        There's plenty of threads about all of those issues here on Hacker News - why do you think the people reacting to SpaceX didn't also react to the rest?

        • By sega_sai 2025-06-084:473 reply

          Some people do react to all, but the parent comment that I commented on just mentioned the spacex situation, like it's something new, while this is just the continuation of what's be going on for months.

          And I've certainly seen people on HN trying to defend grant cancellations, Harvard attacks, NSF firings etc. I obviously can't be sure what those people's opinions are on the spacex threats, but I conjecture, that many of them don't like them, while they were ok with the attacks on universities, science agencies.

          • By matwood 2025-06-086:28

            Cancelling contracts out of spite or for revenge without due process is wrong in all cases. Including SpaceX. Though I have to say it’s entertaining to see Musk’s own companies be effectively DOGE’d.

          • By inglor_cz 2025-06-086:29

            "I obviously can't be sure what those people's opinions are on the spacex threats, but I conjecture, that many of them don't like them"

            Your original comment didn't mention that you were conjecturing anything, you just stated your conjecture as an observation or a fact.

            Less charitably, this is called building a straw man.

          • By jrflowers 2025-06-0823:57

            > I conjecture, that many of them don't like them, while they were ok with the attacks on universities, science agencies.

            This is a good point. If you imagine something in your head in a particular way, it is not the same as if you imagine it differently in your head. For example, if I imagine that all dogs are boys and all cats are girls, it paints a different picture of the world than if I imagine that there are both male and females of both animals.

            It is a curious phenomenon

        • By insane_dreamer 2025-06-096:11

          Nearly all of them were flagged (at least initially).

      • By inglor_cz 2025-06-086:27

        "Not commenting" does not necessarily translate into "having no issues".

        Too much stuff is happening, not everyone comments on everything, and frankly your comment is only helpful to the administration by dividing its opponents.

        If you want to see any efficient pushback at all, don't apply purity litmus tests to your potential allies.

    • By jmyeet 2025-06-0715:422 reply

      6 of the people who think all this is completely fine are Supreme Court justices.

      All of this is enabled by the completely illegitimate Supreme Court decision that made the president a god-king by inventing out of thin air the concept of "presidential immunity".

      Not only is the scope of "official duties" so broad to make prosseuction next to impossible but the majority went out of its way to say you can't even examine the communications between the president and the DoJ.

      • By nradov 2025-06-0720:521 reply

        This contract dispute has nothing to do with Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Cancelling SpaceX contracts for political reasons would be wrong but not criminal.

        • By catlifeonmars 2025-06-0721:381 reply

          The point is we won’t find out because presidential immunity also protects against discovery. Cases that previously could have been decided on the merits won’t even make it to adjudication.

          • By nradov 2025-06-080:052 reply

            No, that's not how it works. The Trump v. United States case had no bearing on civil discovery.

            • By overfeed 2025-06-081:10

              Bur it protects against criminal discovery, Civil cases can be quashed by current president uaing methods that used to be criminal for a president.

            • By cosmicgadget 2025-06-080:56

              What about Nixon?

      • By peterfirefly 2025-06-0720:461 reply

        It was not out of thin air. There's a reason why the impeachment process is in the Constitution -- and why it's perfectly normal for countries to have Parliamental Immunity and processes quite similar to the US impeachment for government ministers.

        • By cosmicgadget 2025-06-0721:571 reply

          We have legislative immunity called the speech and debate clause. It doesn't shield lawmakers from other crimes, nor should it, and it certainly doesn't imply some sort of expansive executive immunity.

          The founders were rebelling agaisnt an untouchable executive, remember?

          • By voidfunc 2025-06-0723:232 reply

            If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such rather than leaving it to interpretation.

            • By dragonwriter 2025-06-0723:31

              > If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such

              They did; by writing in explicit immunities for some constitutional officers for certain activities, they implicitly rejected other immunities for those and other constitutional officers, by the legal principle “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”.

            • By wqaatwt 2025-06-086:561 reply

              That the opposite of how laws work..

              • By voidfunc 2025-06-1016:161 reply

                Opposite of common law, but exactly how the Constitution works.

                • By wqaatwt 2025-06-115:47

                  Well if the constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right it can’t just appear out of nowhere? At this point it’s about the “spirit” of the constitution not what is in the document itself since there is no mention of presidential immunity.

                  On the other hand it does grant the members of congress immunity under certain circumstances so it’s unlikely they just forgot about the president when writing it.

    • By JCattheATM 2025-06-0722:402 reply

      ~40% of the country sees that as strength.

      Democracies only really work with an educated and altruistic population, and the US is only getting further away from that.

      • By inglor_cz 2025-06-086:253 reply

        This sounds like an utopian take or a case of "the grass is greener on the other side".

        Americans believe that Denmark or Switzerland has an educated and altruistic population. But if you talk to a Dane or a Swiss person about politics, they will laugh and tell you that their country is full of evil and stupid idiots, too.

        I am inclined to agree with Acemoglu that good institutions are more important than virtues of the population.

        • By Barrin92 2025-06-0810:31

          >This sounds like an utopian take or a case of "the grass is greener on the other side".

          Well, it wasn't. It's a take made by the 2nd president of the United States, John Adams:

          "John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[1] Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free. Virtue is an inner commitment and voluntary outward obedience to principles of truth and moral law. Private virtue is the character to govern oneself according to moral law at all times. Public virtue is the character to voluntarily sacrifice or subjugate personal wants for the greater good of other individuals or the community. Specific moral virtues include charity, justice, courage, temperance, reverence, prudence, and honesty"

          This is in a sense self evident because any self governing society can only function if its people are equipped with the reason, morality, and temperament to sustain it. Appealing to "good institutions" is tautological. The reason why some places have good institutions and others have bad institutions is precisely because of character of the people who build and maintain them.

          https://www.johnadamsacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_I...

        • By JCattheATM 2025-06-0815:28

          > But if you talk to a Dane or a Swiss person about politics, they will laugh and tell you that their country is full of evil and stupid idiots, too.

          They're right, but it's a significantly smaller percentage than the US, small enough to not do nearly as much damage as the US counter-part population does.

          That Dane or Swiss person will also readily agree how shocking the average education level of the average American is.

        • By danans 2025-06-087:17

          > Americans believe that Denmark or Switzerland has an educated and altruistic population. But if you talk to a Dane or a Swiss person about politics, they will laugh and tell you that their country is full of evil and stupid idiots, too.

          It seems like both of those can easily be true at the same time.

      • By dinkumthinkum 2025-06-081:081 reply

        [flagged]

        • By goatlover 2025-06-084:481 reply

          [flagged]

          • By dinkumthinkum 2025-06-085:123 reply

            [flagged]

            • By edoceo 2025-06-085:33

              Ignoring the Constitution is authoritarian, right?

            • By aorloff 2025-06-085:38

              I guess you haven't been paying attention:

              Trump's attacks on Judge Boasberg for example

              JD Vance saying judges cannot check the President's power

              This is basically exactly what they are saying : the president has ultimate unchecked power, and the judges cannot keep ruling on these pesky laws.

            • By cmurf 2025-06-086:37

              The delusional conspiracy theory Trump won the 2020 election, in order to justify January 6 violence and then pardoning those criminals as his first act as POTUS redux.

              Trump sent a mob to assassinate the vice-president of the United States when he (Mike Pence) refused Trump’s order to overturn that election.

              Trump’s longest serving chief of staff said Trump is, A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

              The bigotry of low expectations is thinking people are too stupid to know this, rather than understanding 1/3 are anti-American illiberal shitbirds.

              Just because they failed to get it once before doesn’t mean they didn’t try and keep on trying.

              A vote for a rapist, a felon, and vile insurrectionist is voting in support of abuse. And now we’re getting abused.

    • By sandworm101 2025-06-081:001 reply

      The new reality. Every corporate decision made today now must involve an analysis of the local and national government authority, thier political leanings and thier tendancy towards vindictivness.

      Does anyone not think that every major corporation is not commissioning psychological reports on certain US leaders? They have public affairs and social media consultants to gauge public reactions. Now they need head shrinks to tell them if and how the guy in the big office might react, be that a state governor, the president, or any number of politically-minded media owners.

      • By brookst 2025-06-081:11

        Why pay shrinks when you can pay baksheesh to political underlings who claim to be connected? Sure, most of them aren’t, but corruption is a statistics game. You spend $100k on that one guy who really does sleep with the masseuse of the astrologist for dear leader, and it can be a 10,000% return in days.

    • By protocolture 2025-06-085:401 reply

      Everything you say is true.

      That said I think SpaceX is the only service even in the running for said contracts. Nasa doesnt have the capability, and Boeing is quite a way behind. There was already speculation that SpaceX would have to take on Boeings commitments for Artemis.

      • By slimebot80 2025-06-086:143 reply

        It's murky. NASA outsources a lot of money to SpaceX because Musk could burn through risk and money at levels NASA would get cancelled for.

        At what point is SpaceX's benefiting from tax money and NASA technology become a reason to fold into a national asset.

        China didn't achieve its Great Leap Forward by pandering to wealthy celebrities who cosplay as geniuses.

        • By hollerith 2025-06-0812:06

          >Great Leap Forward

          Altough most readers will catch your meaning, that phrase does not mean what you think it means.

        • By protocolture 2025-06-0822:53

          >At what point is SpaceX's benefiting from tax money and NASA technology become a reason to fold into a national asset.

          Was speculating that this might be the outcome. If you wanted to punish musk this would be the way to do it.

          You would need to pay off Boeing at the same time but it could work.

        • By inglor_cz 2025-06-086:311 reply

          The Great Leap Forward (1958-62) was an absolute disaster that resulted in widespread famine.

          • By antifa 2025-06-0813:01

            It's a great example of Move Fast and Break Things applied to government.

    • By cameldrv 2025-06-0721:061 reply

      Likewise that Elon can say Trump is “ungrateful” that be received $150 million in campaign donations because he withdrew the nomination for Elon’s NASA administrator. It’s just open bribery.

      • By sigmoid10 2025-06-0721:282 reply

        American democracy died on the day the supreme court overturned campaign finance restrictions. Since then US politics is a mere playground for billionaires and corporations.

        • By intended 2025-06-094:341 reply

          Nah, America was on this trajectory from watergate. The day the other party decided they wanted to give up on bipartisan efforts, and started primary-ing their own for bipartisan behavior, you took a step down this path.

          With the advent of Murdoch’s papers and news efforts, the infinite money and credibility glitch allowed for these specific circumstances to occur.

          The question is whether the information economy is downstream of the political economy, or vice versa.

          • By sigmoid10 2025-06-099:281 reply

            That's a different problem. Toxic bipartisanship has been around for a long time with supporters and opponents. But a single billionaire outright buying a candidate to the point where he can claim that the president would not be in office without him is madness.

            • By intended 2025-06-0910:37

              This is madness from the perspective of a general citizen point of view.

              The mechanisms which were broken, that let these events come to pass - these began with the decision to end bipartisanship by republicans.

              This isn’t about toxic bipartisanship, which isn’t even an issue. Unadulterated partisanship as a political strategy, is the start.

              The enablement is the news ecosystem that was set up to defend these actions, and eventually launched the conversations entirely out of the gravitational well of facts and norms.

        • By WalterBright 2025-06-0723:274 reply

          Harris outspent Trump 3:1. Hillary outspent Trump 2:1. It's not that easy to buy an election.

          • By dragonwriter 2025-06-0723:401 reply

            This is misleading (it is approximately correct if you look only at candidate committee spending, but it excludes outside spending—where the advantage went the other way, and the outside spending in 2024 exceeded campaign committee spending.)

            • By mindslight 2025-06-085:50

              Even if the figure itself weren't misleading, basing the argument around it is. The problematic dynamic isn't that the most money makes for a guaranteed win - rather it's that whomever does manage to win will be inclined to work for their major sponsors, especially if they will be up for reelection.

          • By brookst 2025-06-081:131 reply

            Elon spent more on behalf of Trump than the entire official Harris campaign spent. This is a terrible argument.

            We know the Supreme Court legalized unlimited campaign spending, and we’re not dumb enough to think Elon’s money wasn’t part of the Trump campaign.

            • By WalterBright 2025-06-0819:45

              Elon spent well over a billion dollars on the campaign? You'll need a cite for that.

          • By stevenwoo 2025-06-0723:432 reply

            That figure does not include outside supporters spending campaigns. It's disingenuous to not include dark money spending. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/final-price-t... It's closer to 1.8 billion for Harris supporters versus 1.4 billion for Trump supporters in 2024. That also does not include various media outlets bought in the past decades, including One America News/Fox/Sinclair sandbagging for Trump for the last eight years, at this point, shouldn't one include the budget for Fox News and OAN and Sinclair not to mention the spiking of negative news stories/opinions by LA Times/Washington Post? Even CNN was bought in past year by conservative and the leading story last month for a while was Jake Tapper's book about Biden.

            • By xnx 2025-06-080:07

              Strong upvote. The Murdoch succession drama is one of the most important things affecting the future of US democracy. There are a lot of smaller and even more radical networks, but I don't think they have the reach and influence of Fox.

            • By WalterBright 2025-06-085:233 reply

              FOX is indeed all in for Trump. But on the other side of the ledger, there is the media that was all in for Biden - NPR, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NYT, etc., during the same time period.

              • By intended 2025-06-094:43

                Oh heck no! This is the error in comparison that is allowing an unfair competition between the left + center vs the Right wing information economies.

                The whole point of journalism and freedom of speech was to create a market place of ideas that allows for competition between ideas.

                The right side of the information sphere insulates its viewers from the left and center. They do not get punished by their own for platforming inaccurate or fringe theories. Instead they compete on getting the more viral narrative platformed, while voices that counter the inaccuracies do not get platformed.

                They are a demagoguery machine. The political party and news media are the same entity.

                The left and center are largely stuck with the ideas of being relatively true to facts, getting punished by members for getting things wrong.

                There are people on the left which are trying to recreate the success of the fringe right, which has become the core base on the right.

                They are starting a decades long process, that began around watergate.

              • By rat87 2025-06-087:391 reply

                The counterpoint is that there is no rational or sane defense of Trump. The rest of the media criticized Biden plenty, arguably way too much in their attempts to be seen as neutral. Meanwhile there is almost nothing good about Trump. So if they write like 90% stories that seem to be against Trump it means they're biased towards Trump.

                Almost regardless of political positions it's hard to argue Trump is fit or qualified to be president. He is openly corrupt, persuing an economic policy the vast majority of Conservative economists think is idiotic, and has called our veterans losers. Has never held any other government post has no knowledge of government policies and worse doesn't care to learn. Even though his ignorance is causing a lot of damage including to his voters he doesn't seem to care to learn about how any policy stuff works.

                To counter that you need media like Fox or worse OAN/News Max to put out propaganda because it's impossible for even the most partisan person to defend him if they're an honest and thoughtful person

                • By WalterBright 2025-06-0819:49

                  > The counterpoint is that there is no rational or sane defense of Trump.

                  The point is about does spending buying an election, not rationality or sanity.

              • By SonOfKyuss 2025-06-090:46

                I invite you to spend an hour watching Fox News and then an hour listening to NPR and still claim those are just two sides of the same coin. The level of bias, propaganda, and active misinformation is so much greater on Fox News and it’s not even close. They’re not even pretending to factually report the news anymore. Every single piece is straight propaganda for the Republican Party. The best example of this difference is how mainstream media responded to Biden’s disastrous debate performance. The New York Times and CNN were covering it pretty blisteringly from the get go. There was no sugar coating it. Compare that to how Fox News spins the daily depravity of the Trump administration, and it speaks for itself

          • By boojums 2025-06-087:29

            I vouched for this comment because it sparked an interesting discussion chain on candidate vs. third party spending.

    • By yongjik 2025-06-0718:519 reply

      On the positive side, Trump is so unstable that he'll trash your business one day and then the next day he'll reverse course. So, "if people kiss your ass enough, they get contract" does not seem to be a long-term viable strategy. (Exhibit A: Musk.)

      I'm 90% sure it will lead to America's ruin, but it might not quite be the same path that led the USSR to ruin. Hey, at least it looks more entertaining! :/

      • By rchaud 2025-06-0721:268 reply

        > but it might not quite be the same path that led the USSR to ruin.

        The end of the Soviet Union as a political and geographic entity was not its ruin. What ruined it and opened the door for a strongman ruler was:

        a) an inexperienced President (Yeltsin) who lacked a unifying vision for the newly formed republic and wasn't respected by its business elite or by foreign leaders

        b) the 'free market liberalization' reforms passed overnight, with minuscule oversight that predictably led to the open looting of the nation's resources by well-connected elites who quickly absconded abroad with their riches, leaving the country at the mercy of international creditors looking for deals heavily tilted in their favour

        c) multiple economics crises triggered by a loss of confidence in the country's currency and ability to service its foreign debt. The Russian bond default of 1998 famously led to the collapse of the American hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management.

        Present circumstances in America aren't that different. All it's currently missing is a civil war to call its own, like Chechnya.

        • By vkou 2025-06-0722:40

          Yeltsin was the strongman ruler of the 90s. When parliament wouldn't kowtow to him, he launched a bloody coup and then rewrote the constitution to consolidate power in his office.

          The only thing that he was truly unsuccessful at as a politician was failing to shrug off some bullshit credit card bribery scandal.

          When you've deployed tanks and mortars against the lawful government, and everyone's fine with that I can't understand why you'd let a few thousands dollars that you put on a company credit card bring you down.

          > Present circumstances in America aren't that different.

          They are different, in the sense that all the damage happening right now is both unnecessary and self-inflicted. Russia needed to do something to transition from the USSR. Shock therapy was a terrible 'something', but it's at least possible to see how it got there.

          2025 is... Something else entirely.

        • By cma 2025-06-0722:46

          > an inexperienced President (Yeltsin) who lacked a unifying vision for the newly formed republic and wasn't respected by its business elite or by foreign leaders

          Probably can't mention Yeltsin in the context of strongmen without mentioning the shelling of the parliament building.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_cr...

        • By dh2022 2025-06-0722:10

          If you really want to find out the reasons why USSR failed I suggest reading “Collapse the fall of Soviet Union” by Zubok or “Collapse of an Empire” by Gaidar. They are easy to read books. Said reasons are quite different from what is going on in USA at the moment.

        • By jajko 2025-06-086:391 reply

          You are completely missing Gorbachev, the fall began with him. He was a good guy, but a bit naive within soviet situation. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY hated russians. That's where brutal oppression came from for rest of soviet republics, that's where eastern Europe satellites were invaded and controlled from via strong firm hand (and many military bases). I know this damn well as I was raised thre and saw first hand the continuous destruction of what we would call normal society that russians brought along with them everywhere they went.

          When the soviet empire twitched a bit and seams became just slightly more loose, everybody run the fuck away from them. You can't be literally enslaved for 2 generations and ignore whats around you and whats happening to all your citizens, family, friends, yourself. Not when you clearly see how west has technological, moral and societal advantage in its approach and its getting bigger every year. The only exception is Belarus, and the only reason is that the dicktator there needs desperately strong continuous backing or he would be brought down in quick coup.

          • By tpm 2025-06-0815:52

            The fall didn't begin with Gorbachev, it began with the communist party being clueless at adapting to new situations, essentially what China managed to do after Mao, the Soviets didn't after Stalin and the rest. The regime ossified and fell apart, at first slowly and then rapidly. Gorbachev just refused to spill even more blood.

        • By SpicyLemonZest 2025-06-0721:452 reply

          Present circumstances in America are very different. When Putin took power, Russia's economy had been declining rapidly for a decade; then over his first decade, the GDP dectupled. If the US were to somehow achieve $600,000 GDP per capita by the end of Trump's current term, yeah, Americans would probably want to reevaluate their conventional wisdom about what good governance looks like. But I'm pretty confident that won't happen.

          • By decimalenough 2025-06-0721:59

            Well, there's an easy way to get to $600,000 GDP per capita, just crash the value of the US dollar by 10x. And this may well be in Trump's reach.

          • By woke_ai_god 2025-06-080:01

            The GDP rise your talking about is to some extent an exchange rate phenonomena. Russia's currency collapsed in the early 90s, by the 00's it was able to strengthen and stabilize. Quality of life went down, but it was not proportionate to the collapse in GDP. Thinking about similar phenomenon occurring in the United States is kind of pointless, that would require a collapse in the dollars reserve currency status which would have dramatic ramifications world wide. The Dollar is the yardstick, if another currency became stronger, it would be the yardstick, and that's an entire regime change kind of for everybody. While Russia's currency can collapse in strength vis a vis the dollar, and then increase a great deal, but it was weaker than the dollar at every point. The collapse in its strength meant that it was difficult for the country to trade in that period. But Russia still had its domestic industry through the entire period, which wasn't affected to the degree that the collapse in trade and currency value would suggest,

            Also the volatility of economic growth of smaller countries tends to be much higher than anything experienced by developed countries. When you start from a small scale, GDP jumps of 10x are hardly unheard of. While increases of such magnitude in an already developed country would be unprecedented.

            Also, the Russian economy is just a series of frauds run by lawless oligarchs stacked on top of each other. The only limiting factor on them is when Putin randomly decides to throw one of them out of a window. It's a pure patrimonialist system, which is a system sustained by lawlessness, manipulation, and fraud. This is of course the truth of the fascist system itself, its simply an attempt to wrap the whole of society in one big patrimonialist network. There's a reason they had to invade Ukraine - the bills were coming due, and they knew the only way they could make good on promises they otherwise couldn't keep was a sustained program of national subjugation and exploitation. This was inevitable from the moment the system was set up. This system is inherently unstable.

            The words of the participants in the system while it is ongoing are meaningless. They are wrapped in some kind of patrimonial network or another, supporting some kind of overhyped fraud or another that represents all their dreams and aspirations. They are censored, subject to constant manipulation, and deliberately manipulated with false flags and psy ops. Their whole society is designed as a giant cartwheel to shove people into various frauds. I can be sad for victims of fraud, yes, but that doesn't make them any easier to deal with before they give up on their expectations and stop believing the lies of the one who is defrauding them, who frequently sicks them on anyone who attempts to combat the fraud, telling them that "Actually that person is the one who's keeping you from getting your money!" Hitler arrayed millions of German youth upon fields of slaughter with such tactics once before, why would we expect any different outcome now? We should've known better.

        • By insane_dreamer 2025-06-096:16

          You’re not wrong but those all happened _after_ the fall of the USSR. They weren’t the cause of its fall they were the cause of post-USSR Russia becoming an oligarchy.

        • By fransje26 2025-06-099:011 reply

          > Present circumstances in America aren't that different. All it's currently missing is a civil war to call its own, like Chechnya.

          Speaking of civil war -and asking from abroad-, what the heck is happening in LA?

          • By msgodel 2025-06-099:10

            Hopefully the beginning of part or all of California seceding.

        • By paganel 2025-06-0722:111 reply

          By 1998 the shit had already hit the fan big time for the common people in Russia, all "thanks" to Shock Therapy (which you allude to at your point b)). That was the real tragedy, nothing a more "experienced" president could have fixed (other than doing what Putin ended up doing, which is trying to reverse some of the craziness of said Shock Therapy).

          I write this from direct experience, as I grew up as a kid/adolescent in nearby Romania in the '90s, where we had our very own Shock Therapy. In fact my present political stance (a return to nationalism and a reversal of what globalisation has brought about) is heavily marked by that very traumatic period in my life (and the same thing is valid for many of my compatriots).

          • By cycomanic 2025-06-084:391 reply

            So you want to reverse the development in Romania over the last 3 decades [1] ? I agree that the way the transition from the Ceauşescu regime was handled was less than ideal to say the least. But let's not forget that rampant nationalism and isolism was what got Romania into the mess in the first ace. I would even argue that every time a government/regime is bringing out the nationalism card it is to cover up for rising inequality, decreasing quality of life and all sort of other issues. An appeal to the "nation" is just not necessary otherwise.

            [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/fig3_330480915

            • By paganel 2025-06-1014:16

              > So you want to reverse the development in Romania over the last 3 decades [1]

              Not sure that "reverse" is the best word for it, but, yes, I want the huge societal inequalities that have been created during the last three decades to be "levelled" again. I know that this will probably suck (to use light language) for the winners of those last 3 decades, but that is life.

      • By blibble 2025-06-0720:092 reply

        > Hey, at least it looks more entertaining! :/

        did people expect any different when they elected a reality TV star to be president?

        one that's such an incredible businessman he managed to bankrupt not one, but two casinos

        • By martin-t 2025-06-0720:594 reply

          He's first and foremost a narcissist (strongly grandiose subtype, and all over the place on the communal/malignant axis).

          That condition should make him ineligible for any position of power. This is what a society gets when it elects someone mentally ill (in the harmful-to-others rather than the typical harmful-to-ill-person sense).

          I am continually astounded by how many people, even if you explain the symptoms to them, will be unable to see it - not just in this one case but in general. There is something in many people that makes them attracted to those who treat them awfully and consider them only slightly above things.

          • By goatlover 2025-06-084:56

            People can just listen to his biographer or many former aides, but they choose to believe what they want. Many religious supporters still think he's a Christian.

          • By btilly 2025-06-0721:08

            In order to see it, you must recognize the ways in which he fooled you. People would generally rather be fooled again than face the thought that they were fooled at some point in the past. And the more that they have been fooled, the stronger this bias is.

            Trump is an absolute genius at fooling people in small ways, then over time ratcheting up the cognitive dissonance until he fools them in big ways. See https://specialto.thebulwark.com/ for a detailed explanation of how he did this with one of the many people that he has turned into puppets.

          • By thoroughburro 2025-06-0721:072 reply

            Narcissists are over-represented as CEOs and such, as well. I think a fair number of Americans like narcissists.

            • By brookst 2025-06-081:22

              This is a good observation, but I think causality is reversed: narcissists by nature develop whatever skills will attract the most adoration.

              Trump plays the strongman / oppressed white man card. If the populace valued different things he would happily parade around in negligé. He’s just playing to the audience, and it’s not narcissism so much as bullshit archetypes that they want.

            • By rbanffy 2025-06-0810:311 reply

              Corporate politics doesn’t adequately punish the traits narcissists and sociopaths present. Quite the contrary, those traits can easily become assets in their careers.

              • By martin-t 2025-06-0812:581 reply

                Exactly. It's an evolutionarily beneficial trait. We're no longer competing with other species (why social traits developed), we're competing against each other (where the right amount of anti-social traits works best).

                • By rbanffy 2025-06-0813:051 reply

                  We desperately need to fix those incentives for society and civilisation to survive.

                  • By martin-t 2025-06-0820:21

                    Unfortunately that is way outside too many people's Overton window. And, also unfortunately, I don't think the average human is sufficiently intelligent to understand why he should care.[note 1]

                    Throughout history, we see cycles of freedom and oppression, separated by either collapse or revolt.

                    - Collapse happens when anti-socials gain so much power in an organization (whether it's a corporation or state) that it starts to function so poorly that it's overtaken by competitors (or even destroys itself).

                    - Revolt happens when they gain/use that power too blatantly and people notice. Peaceful revolt is possible on the surface but ultimately, all true power is backed by violence - sometimes that violence is just thinly veiled behind multiple steps of action and reaction (unarmed protesters attacked by police will bring rocks and Molotovs next time which will cause even more attacks from the police which might escalate into civil war).

                    But right now we're at a point where oppressors have enough history to learn from. They don't care about collapse and revolt only happens when people are willing to act. So what they're doing right now is conditioning everyone that violence is wrong. This comes in many forms: bans on social media (every TOS forbids promoting violence these days), forced self-censorship (just watch a couple youtube shorts, good luck finding one where "kill" isn't spelled "k*ll" and bleeped out), zero-tolerance policies (school will punish both aggressor and target when they get into a fight), ...

                    Trump is a fascist (https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...). Last time people like him got into power in the civilized world, one was shot and hung upside down from a gas station, the other killed himself in a bunker. But this time when people reached for the 4th box of liberty, they were almost universally shunned. So he got into power, elected by the stupid people, and to nobody's surprise immediately started dismantling the system which exists to keep him in check.

                    He will do it slowly enough that each time he takes a step towards his goal, he will only piss off a small portion of the people and there will never be enough organized opposition at once. At least this time the dictator-elect is so old he might snuff it from natural causes before he does too much damage.

                    But the average person will not learn from it. The idea that a group of people as large as tens or hundreds of millions needs one special individual at the top is the peak of human stupidity.

                    ---

                    [note 1]: Some people see this as too arrogant to be said openly but them it becomes just an excuse for them to shut down their logical faculties and reject what I say based on primitive instincts, proving my point.

                    - Anyway, look at how many democracies use the plurality/FPTP voting system which is known to be pretty much the worst possible (https://rangevoting.org/).

                    - Look at how many people in the west will say that democracy is obviously good and dictatorship obviously bad but don't question why nearly all corporations have hierarchical (dictatorial) power structures.

                    - Look at how many people are OK with spending a third or half of their salary on rent, which is just free money that goes to people who contribute nothing to society.

                    - Look at how many people are unable to differentiate between morality (what is right) vs legality (what the state will penalize you for) and how even the language is warped to mix them (people saying "I did nothing wrong" when they are talking about breaking the rules, whether they are laws or whatever screed a subreddit mod came up with).

          • By randomNumber7 2025-06-0722:171 reply

            > There is something in many people that makes them attracted to those who treat them awfully and consider them only slightly above things.

            It's the slave moral and if you think the majority of people would be better (given the opportunity) you are naive

            • By tilne 2025-06-080:481 reply

              Like of the Nietzschan philosophy? So in the case of trump the idea is that his voters like him because he’s different from the “evil” aristocratic class that trump claimed to oppose (eg “drain the swamp”)?

              • By randomNumber7 2025-06-086:251 reply

                > Like of the Nietzschan philosophy?

                Yes, but the rest I disagree.

                I just think that most people (on both political sides) are not really better. If they would be given the position of power they would be corrupted and incompetent too.

                So in a sense you got what you deserve - and your democracy is working.

                • By tilne 2025-06-0820:341 reply

                  How does it connect back to the Nietzschan philosophy you mentioned?

                  • By randomNumber7 2025-06-1321:42

                    The idea that the oppressed would be morally better when given the position of power is naive.

                    They are oppressed because they are already morally corrupted. Otherwise they would rather die for their freedom in the first place.

                    Nietzsche called this slave moral.

        • By brookst 2025-06-081:19

          I miss the days when I wasn’t an extra on a b-rate tawdry reality show.

      • By dehrmann 2025-06-0720:55

        > he'll trash your business one day and then the next day he'll reverse course

        TACO, as the saying goes.

      • By Phenomenit 2025-06-0720:08

        That’s the key right? It’s world as content. Nothing means anything anymore as long as it gets spread on media platforms. The easiest way for the US to get out this downward spiral is to just ignore the medias coverage of ”politics”. But that’s not gonna happen is it? Gotta se what happens next!

      • By jordanb 2025-06-0720:49

        > Hey, at least it looks more entertaining! :/

        The revolution wouldn't have been televised but the polycrisis will be live streamed.

      • By WalterBright 2025-06-0723:303 reply

        America's ruin will be spending itself into bankruptcy.

        • By matwood 2025-06-086:43

          If you truly believe that, the fix is the opposite of what the GOP is proposing. Freeze spending at today’s levels, raise taxes (uncap SS, add higher tax brackets, add a wealth tax, etc…), then let the economy grow naturally.

        • By brookst 2025-06-081:261 reply

          This wouldn’t be possible as the world’s reserve currency and provider of political stability. At incredibly low interest rates, most investments are positive ROI.

          But by destroying the US’ position as reserve currency and establishing the country as too untrustworthy to do business with, Trump has made your statement true.

          We can’t afford what we spend without those special economic benefits. And we just threw them away for no reason.

          • By 6figurelenins 2025-06-087:04

            The geopolitical stability is now cheaper[1] than the debt service.

            Naturally, that calls into question the incredibly low interest rates, and the reserve currency status.

            If you need to blame Trump, the last straw was COVID.

            > At incredibly low interest rates, most investments are positive ROI.

            Step 1: Hold short term rates at zero, forever Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit Step 4: Wow, that's a lot of debt

            [1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/first-time-us-spending-more-debt-in...

        • By dashundchen 2025-06-080:25

          Trump and Republicans had a great hand in this (Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, Bush tax cuts, Trump tax cuts, PPP helicopter money for the rich), and are looking to double down with their current disaster of a bill. Hope you're opposing that.

      • By n2d4 2025-06-080:02

        > So, "if people kiss your ass enough, they get contract" does not seem to be a long-term viable strategy. (Exhibit A: Musk.)

        But Musk initiated it, by going against Trump's bill. The new conclusion is "to get contract, you must kiss ass so much and you can't say anything bad, ever"

      • By cypherpunks01 2025-06-081:52

        "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

      • By netsharc 2025-06-0723:13

        Somebody needs to make memes about Elon looking forward to some taco and get Trump to see them...

    • By vkou 2025-06-0722:36

      > It's wild that a president can say, "I don't like Elon anymore, so out of retaliation, I'm canceling all his government contracts," and ~40% of the country doesn't see that as corruption in any way, shape, or form.

      They didn't see it that way when he was doing it to people he didn't like, why would they see it that way when he is doing it to a person he just decided that he didn't like?

      Elon, of course, as usual, is responding to someone upsetting him with accusations of pedophilia.

      So far, all of this is quite normal.

    • By LatteLazy 2025-06-0820:31

      What does a democracy do when people willingly and knowingly vote for fascism? “Vote for me and you’ll never have to vote again” won…

    • By bobthepanda 2025-06-0722:33

      Part of the problem is that

      * those who were concerned about it happening to others have seen it happen so many times now that they are jaded and it's a bit schaudenfreude. Those earlier cases (Harvard, law firms, etc.) have yet to actually finish going through the courts

      * there is a subset that is just super cult of personality around the current president and will bend over backwards to justify actions

    • By 1vuio0pswjnm7 2025-06-081:08

      https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/new-wa...

      https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/130_days_of_elon...

      https://cepr.net/publications/corrupt-control-of-the-trump-a...

      If Musk is engaging in corruption with respect to the US government, then what could be done to stop it. Whatever the answer, almost certainly Musk's ties to the government would need to be broken, including contracts and funding.

    • By anon291 2025-06-086:10

      It's not like the previous party in charge didn't threaten the exact same thing. People still aren't seeing that both parties are descending into the sort of third world mindset while accusing the other of being the sole cause. This is a doom spiral in the making.

    • By _heimdall 2025-06-081:021 reply

      > If you can cancel contacts not based on merit

      That's a hard argument to hold in the context of recent history. Maybe for the better, maybe for worse, merit has taken a back seat in many cases as we prioritized other factors.

      What's interesting to me here is that the executive branch has authority to change these contracts. I do understand that's how it has worked for a while, and you could argue that these contracts are part of executing on congress's mandate, but I personally would prefer the executive branch not have this power.

      If it were up to me congressional committees would be responsible for this as part of budgeting responsibilities, and the executive branch would be much weaker than it is today.

      • By wrs 2025-06-081:051 reply

        As with so many other things the executive branch is doing right now, it doesn’t have exclusive power to do this. Congress sets the rules for how procurement works.

        • By wat10000 2025-06-081:371 reply

          It’s not supposed to. It sure looks like it does. Power is more than what the written rules say you can do.

          • By _heimdall 2025-06-084:051 reply

            I think you're getting to the distinction between power and authority. Congress may have the authority to decide procurement (I'm not 100% sure on this, going with the discussion), but functionally the president may have the power to force their will through the system.

            • By inglor_cz 2025-06-086:311 reply

              Congress has been too deferential to executive power for decades.

              • By wat10000 2025-06-0815:23

                And nobody listened to the people saying that this concentration of power would be a disaster if the office was ever held by a craven jerkwad. And guess what happened!

    • By absurdo 2025-06-0820:222 reply

      > This is literally the path that led the USSR to ruin.

      Or China to current-day prosperity. It’s hard to admit but it’s a double edged sword and there are winners and losers.

      Choose your poison wisely.

      • By insane_dreamer 2025-06-096:13

        Incorrect. It was liberalization (to some extent) of the otherwise heavily centralized economy that led China to its present day prosperity.

      • By intended 2025-06-094:26

        Saying this was not the path to China’s current-day prosperity is to place a VERY heavy weight, on a very thin branch.

    • By exe34 2025-06-0917:34

      At this point I'm just happy these two are turning on each other - the more they hurt each other, the less time they have to focus on the rest of us. 6 months was a long time to wait, but I suppose dismantling the machinery of state that was trying to force his companies to follow the law wasn't going to be a quick job.

    • By bhouston 2025-06-080:371 reply

      This is what Trump is doing to Harvard right now. He even is pushing legislation to tax their endowment and also has an executive order to deny them and on them foreign students.

      • By overfeed 2025-06-080:571 reply

        ...and to law firms before then, US government contractors (worldwide[1]). If OP thinks thinks this is a nee Trump play, they haven't been paying attention.

        2. The US embassy tried to get a Swedish city to agree to some anti-DEI clause in a vendor agreement. Using government money to win ideological arguments is S.O.P. for the Trump II admin.

        • By DaSHacka 2025-06-084:121 reply

          > Using government money to win ideological arguments is S.O.P. for the Trump II admin.

          This is literally also what the dems were doing with USAID discrediting gamergate and funding bias news networks, neither party is above it.

          • By overfeed 2025-06-085:262 reply

            I remember when Obama threatened Fox Sports mergers due to how Fox News covered his first term in office, and trued to get the Saudis to sign a pro-choice vendor agreement with the embassy. Biden also threatened law firms that represented Trump and threatened to ban them from government buildings and revoke security clearance. It was the standard thing for dems to do when dealing with political opponents.

            Both sides are totally the same thing, there's nothing to be done.

            • By bhouston 2025-06-1112:121 reply

              > Biden also threatened law firms that represented Trump and threatened to ban them from government buildings and revoke security clearance.

              I did a few quick searches for more information about this claim of yours. I also asked Claude and ChatGPT to research it. I can not find any sources to back up this claim of yours. Can you source it for me?

              For example:

              https://claude.ai/share/d36c7a89-adff-4625-9cd6-89e60b254ea1

              https://chatgpt.com/share/684972cb-0140-8006-9f0f-9075537bf2...

              • By overfeed 2025-06-1222:09

                It was a rhetorical device ascribing things Trump actually did to Democratic presidents to show parent's false equivalency. Everything I listed were things Trump did, though I changed the other parties involved to preserve the political dynamics as best as I could.

            • By mschoch 2025-06-086:17

              [dead]

    • By scotty79 2025-06-090:20

      That's no more (or less) corruption than him saying I like Elon so I'm awarding him all this government contracts

    • By steveBK123 2025-06-0715:371 reply

      July 4th we commemorate getting rid of one mad king overseas and replacing him with.. oh wait.

    • By mcv 2025-06-088:20

      Everything about the current US government is wild. Yes, cancelling government contracts because of this stupid fight is corruption, but so is everything else. There's not much that either Trump or Musk do that's not corrupt.

      I'd like to see both of them lose their power, because they only abuse it.

    • By popalchemist 2025-06-087:061 reply

      They see it as the guy on their side having more power, therefore they, by extension, have more power.

      Primate brain go brr.

      • By thrance 2025-06-0811:381 reply

        More like fascist brain, those who haven't bought into the decades of propaganda recognize this benefits no one. Fascism is not a natural state of mind.

        • By popalchemist 2025-06-0819:32

          On the contrary, I think it appeals to our baser instincts. Primates, from whom we evolved, settle their power disputes in EXACTLY the manner of "might makes right," and that isn't just about the individuals competing for power, but the dynamics of the crowd and how their allegiances and values shift according to who is in power.

    • By ahf8Aithaex7Nai 2025-06-083:30

      That is true. But the dubiousness of the whole thing starts a long way before that. Why is Musk there at all? Because we are sliding into neo-feudalistic conditions in which a court of the richest people steer the affairs of state and shape them in their own favor. And we've known what Trump is like all along. We didn't have to deduce that from the fact that he is now quarrelling with Musk.

    • By palmfacehn 2025-06-086:38

      I'm not sure this is a new phenomenon. Graft has been a part of governance in every era. Typically, pandering to special interests is proportional to the government's slice of the economic pie. As the state interventions increase, so does the ability for bureaus to grant favors.

      What is somewhat unique here, is the brazen and flippant nature of the funding cut. I'm sure if we looked, we could find similar cases in US history.

      Author Patrick Newman has written on the topic of cronyism in US history. It is interesting to read the historical narrative framed from the perspective of who was lobbying and looting.

      Here's a recent lecture on the Marshall Plan:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBGo2WbAoPI

    • By martindbp 2025-06-087:24

      I think there has always been this type of corruption. The interesting thing this time is how open it is, and how clearly visible it is in the stock market, where who is president results in swings of hundreds of billions of dollars. This includes both Trumps corruption for (and now against Tesla/SpaceX) and Bidens lawfare against his them.

    • By drivingmenuts 2025-06-0718:27

      That 40% are in a cult about 1 mad rant away from an ivermectin Jonestown.

    • By panick21_ 2025-06-087:30

      So far this is all talk, in effect non of the contracts got created because of that and so far non have been canceled because of that. This is all just media whoring around.

    • By nkrisc 2025-06-080:37

      They see it; it's why they voted for him.

    • By lostlogin 2025-06-0723:33

      It’s pretty incredible. NYT now:

      “President Trump said on Saturday that he believed his relationship with Elon Musk was over after the two sparred publicly on social media this week, and he warned there would be “serious consequences” if Mr. Musk financed candidates to run against Republicans who voted in favor of the president’s domestic policy bill.”

      So the president can decide who someone supports?

      Two truly awful humans fighting it out.

    • By belter 2025-06-0718:11

      1 Musk = 13 Scaramuccis . Please update your SI unit tables accordingly.

    • By HocusLocus 2025-06-087:53

      It's just wild that ~40% of the country wouldn't just wait and see what actually happens.

    • By chrischen 2025-06-084:56

      Maybe what you think of as corruption is not what your opposing party thinks of as corruption?

    • By jchook 2025-06-085:06

      Exemplifying the meme.. "[Doing American things Americanly]: What are we, ASIAN???"

    • By sneak 2025-06-082:25

      You are taking this at face value. It’s all farce.

      Elon helped Trump get elected. Now Trump has to help Elon get the Trump stink off so people stop calling it the swasticar.

    • By xnx 2025-06-0723:31

      Every accusation from Trump/Fox/Republicans is an admission. This is the "swamp" they were going to drain. It is now overflowing.

    • By tempodox 2025-06-0720:192 reply

      I've said before that by the time Trump is through America will lie in ruins. I may have been too optimistic, it might happen earlier.

      • By BLKNSLVR 2025-06-0721:02

        I agree entirely.

        Higher education and research are already being affected. Those reputations aren't quickly rebuilt.

        Same with trust on trade and reliability as a defence ally.

        Even when Trump is replaced, he had accelerated the exposure of the fragility of the base US system of government. The fact one bad actor can upset many long established apple carts is not something really forgotten.

      • By FergusArgyll 2025-06-0721:381 reply

        > by the time Trump is through America will lie in ruins

        If you had to make that concrete, what would that look like?

        GDP growth under 2% annually for >3 years? Dollar losing >50% of its value against a basket of major currencies? Credit rating downgrade below AA- by major agencies? Loss of reserve currency status (measured by <40% of global reserves in USD)? Interstate commerce disruption lasting >30 days? Mass emigration of >2 million Americans annually?

        I'd happily take the other side on any of those, name your price.

        • By bix6 2025-06-0723:361 reply

          I’d argue we’re already there with all the social fragmentation but I reckon we’ll see a measurable decline in scientific output / discovery.

          • By FergusArgyll 2025-06-0810:391 reply

            Patents? Journal articles published?

            • By bix6 2025-06-0812:50

              Funding is already falling ie NSF disbursements so I’d expect the h-index to fall off significantly. So sure patents will fall, journal pubs will fall, enrollment will fall, staff count will fall, total experiment count will fall, grant count will fall.

    • By Aeolun 2025-06-085:51

      I think this was always true, it’s just that most presidents add a few extra clauses to the requirements instead of blatantly saying they’re going to cancel contracts.

    • By randomcarbloke 2025-06-1013:31

      he appointed him, and it saves the taxpayer money...

    • By scarface_74 2025-06-0722:34

      It’s not they don’t see it - they don’t care. This has always been the moral compass of the US.

    • By delusional 2025-06-087:11

      Not American.

      > ~40% of the country doesn't see that as corruption in any way, shape, or form.

      I'm definitely in agreement with the 60 percent. This should be unthinkable and political suicide. Openly speculating on if you can use the government as personal retaliation is absolutely undemocratic.

      So why is it so hard for me to care in this case? Because Elon Musk has used the government in the exact same way. He just got done cancelling random contracts he didn't like. He just circumvented democracy to play his little doge game.

      It is really hard to care about cheating when it happens to a cheater. Disgust at this move against SpaceX or Tesla has to start with consequences for Elon. If this is wrong, then Elon must be jailed.

    • By onetimeusename 2025-06-0721:44

      This whole article is speculation about a war of words on social media from two days ago. You are further stretching the chain of inference and adding in some statistics without any citation.

      >One industry source, speaking on background, dismissed the exchanges as “bluster” that neither Musk nor Trump would actually implement

    • By CalChris 2025-06-0716:471 reply

      Did this only become 'wild' when it applied to Elon? Also, this Elon that you speak of, isn't he the DOGE Elon? Isn't he the Nazi salute Elon? Or perhaps there's some other Elon that I'm unaware of.

      This is literally the Department of Goes Around Comes Around. Elon is Trump's Berezovsky.

      • By deeg 2025-06-0717:231 reply

        I have absolutely no sympathy for Musk but the president--any president--shouldnt be able to do this.

        • By consumer451 2025-06-0718:411 reply

          The biggest self-indictment in that post by POTUS was "I was always surprised Biden didn't do it!"

          I am not surprised that Biden didn't cancel all SpaceX contracts for political reasons, neither are most rational people.

          • By jyounker 2025-06-0720:441 reply

            Trump doesn't believe that smart people with power can have ethics or morality because he doesn't have them himself.

            • By majormajor 2025-06-0720:561 reply

              It's not ethics or morality, it's just "not being a child." A president not personally retaliating against a critic doesn't need to have anything to do with ethics, it's just requires a post-middle-school mentality of "I may not be happy with this person but I [my country] can still benefit from things they do."

              • By ithkuil 2025-06-0721:041 reply

                The property of "being a child" in an adult is effectively a matter of ethics and morality

                • By randomNumber7 2025-06-0722:282 reply

                  No, it can be justified with rationality alone.

                  • By ithkuil 2025-06-089:111 reply

                    I phrased it poorly:

                    Being an adult child has moral and ethical consequences.

                    Behaviours and emotions that are totally legit and tolerated in a child are no longer so in an adult.

                    An adult that has all the privileges and freedoms of adulthood over childhood, like the ability to vote, drink, drive and hold an office, also has to abide by the moral obligations of being an adult.

                    • By majormajor 2025-06-122:251 reply

                      But if you're rich enough (or poor enough, hah) nobody's gonna hold you to "adult behavior" standards. Is there really a moral or ethical aspect to "don't get into a shouting match on Twitter"? Or is it simply childish?

                      • By ithkuil 2025-06-129:40

                        > But if you're rich enough [..] nobody's gonna hold you to "adult behavior" standards

                        but that's a problem, isn't it?

                        That's on us. Why on earth did we stop expecting adult behaviour from ultra-rich people?

                  • By lostlogin 2025-06-080:16

                    Rational and ethical have a lot of overlap.

    • By cedws 2025-06-088:481 reply

      Trump is good at revealing the cracks in US democratic process, or lack thereof.

      • By lotsofpulp 2025-06-090:281 reply

        In 2016, that would have been the case due to popular vote and electoral college vote not matching. However, 2024’s popular and electoral college match show the cracks are in the racist and sexist and apathetic voter base.

        • By acdha 2025-06-090:321 reply

          It’s not just the democratic process itself, but the institutions around it. The main reason Trump isn’t in jail is because the Republican Supreme Court repeatedly protected him, even to the point of inventing new ahistorical doctrines. Once one of the major parties is no longer committed to of law we’re in uncharted territory.

          • By lotsofpulp 2025-06-090:34

            My point is Trump also won the popular vote, which means the people don’t want the traitor in jail either. Institutions are only as good as the people that compose them, in this case the institution is the country as a whole.

    • By nickpsecurity 2025-06-0723:04

      It's been going on a long time. Democrats and Republicans, especially in the Pentagon, have bought influence of politicians to get billions of tax dollars.

      So you should change the comment to say "most Democrat and Republican voters in the primaries apparently wont vote out those who give or take bribes." That would be correct.

      Jethro's advice to Moses in God's Word is still good advice for voters today. If a politician ever meets this criteria, then we'll see amazing things happen. That's below with verse 21 highlighted:

      "19 Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, 20 and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.” (Exodus 18:19-23) (ESV)

  • By thinkindie 2025-06-0721:123 reply

    At least Berlusconi didn't have access to nuclear warheads.

    Seriously, I visited the US few times between 2005 and 2010 and each time people were raising the topic of Berlusconi. How can you have a president like that, who voted for him, bunga bunga etc etc.

    Now you know how you can have such personality in power too. With even more power.

    • By andrepd 2025-06-0721:296 reply

      The Italians truly invent everything first, eh? Fascism, trumpism, etc

      • By mousethatroared 2025-06-083:111 reply

        Western civilization.

        Oh, and before Berlusconi there was Menem. He's the original clown turned president.

        • By cenamus 2025-06-086:171 reply

          Greece?

          • By mousethatroared 2025-06-0811:441 reply

            Argentina.

            • By 4gotunameagain 2025-06-0819:501 reply

              Ahaha I'm pretty sure he meant that it was Greece and not Italy that invented everything first.

              • By mousethatroared 2025-06-0823:531 reply

                Ah, I thought he was referring to the clowns they have in Athens.

                But, no. The Greeks didn't create Western Civilization because the only non-awkward definition of Western Civilization is that scion of the Roman Church.

                Surely the cultural exchange with Greeks contributed to this.

                Greece was always eastern facing as far back as before Alexander. It is only with the Cold War that they glanced West.

                Aside for Magna Grecia, Greeks have very scant presence in Western Europe.

                • By 4gotunameagain 2025-06-097:071 reply

                  I don't know why you are angry at history and frankly I don't care, but you should read a bit more. Even the Roman pantheon was practically a copy of the Greek one, Greek was the language of science and philosophy, the first people to study mathematics in the west and so on and so forth.

                  All the great Romans revered Greece and Greek.

                  Anyway I don't know why I'm explaining history to some random angry kid online, have a nice day

                  • By mousethatroared 2025-06-0911:101 reply

                    Yes, Athens is a part of the West. I never denied that. But how about Jerusalem? How about Rome? How about uncivilized (ie without a city) barbarians?

                    How about the over 1600 years of history since the split of the Roman empire?

                    The 1000 years since the Schism?

                    The 500 years since the Fall of Constantinople?

                    The Eastern Roman Empire was of a completely different character than the Western one, follows a vastly different path, and one that started diverging (due to all the heresies [0]) as early as Constantine. Since the fall of Constantinople the Greeks had very limited contact with the West until independence in the late 19th century.

                    According to you the West didn't do anything, didn't evolve, in the last 1600 years since we've been de facto incommunicado?

                    For example, to say that the West of the Scholastics is "Greek" when the Greeks have always rejected them (with very poignant criticism might I add) is a laugh in the face of the Scholastic's transformational contribution to the West (above all our modern university system).

                    St Augustine [1] , Boetius [2], and the Papacy [3] create the West anew from of these ingredients.

                    [0] which (Russian Orthodox) Solovyev lays at the feet of a jealous Greek hierarchy [1] accepted but looked down on by the Greeks [2] the last of the ancients and the first of the Scholastics [3] the most foundational institution for the West and rejected by the Greeks

                    • By 4gotunameagain 2025-06-0911:391 reply

                      You are conflating different and irrelevant arguments. The discussion was never about Byzantium or modern Greece. It was whether we can trace the beginning of Western civilisation in Ancient Greece instead of Rome, which indeed we can. Far before Christianity, a topic which you seem blindly passionate about, with some apparent beef against Orthodoxy.

                      This has little to do with Christianity.

                      And I find little interest in this pointless discussion, therefore this is my last reply.

                      • By mousethatroared 2025-06-0917:111 reply

                        If we're tracing seeds, the Ancient Greeks openly acknowledged their debt to Egypt. Therefore the Egyptians invented the West.

                        But my point is that the West is Rome enlightened by Greeks and humanized by Jews.

                        What is Athens + Jerusalem? Eastern Europe. Orthodoxy. (No beef, btw. Ive been to Meteora and just missed a chance to stay in Mt. Athos)

                        What is Rome + Athens + Jerusalem? The Catholic Church.

                        • By 4gotunameagain 2025-06-107:09

                          Your perception of history is muddled by religion.

      • By agumonkey 2025-06-0810:31

        desktop programmable computers with style ? https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...

      • By foobarian 2025-06-081:59

        Mafia!

      • By baxtr 2025-06-0722:05

        Don’t get me started on Roman Emperors…

      • By thinkindie 2025-06-0722:031 reply

        Trumpism is just another league I believe. You may say it's Berlusconism on steroids, but the global impact makes this a thing by itself.

        • By esafak 2025-06-082:132 reply

          It really isn't; Trump just has a bigger stage. Trumpism is a misnomer by itself; Trump has no ideology, no grand scheme that I can discern.

          • By root_axis 2025-06-088:201 reply

            > Trump has no ideology

            I wouldn't say it's a misnomer, the lack of ideology is the signature appeal. It's exactly what affords Trump unlimited flexibility among his supporters since there are no expectations of consistency.

            • By hn_throwaway_99 2025-06-0817:42

              Yeah, I would say "acquisition of and wielding power" is the signature feature of Trumpism, and why he appeals to so many.

              Whether true or not (and FWIW, I think it is, at least to some degree), the left largely took the mantra of "tsk tsking" for a long time - you should feel bad about using a plastic straw, bad about driving your car, bad about the US' treatment of Native Americans, etc. etc. So Trump's complete shamelessness is appealing to many

              I read a good post recently that explained that Trump and the Republican's rank hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug. It shows that Trump and his team are unbound by the constraints they want to apply to others.

          • By thinkindie 2025-06-0911:58

            bigger stage and bigger impact. Trump had more impact on the world trades in a few months than Berlusconi in 20 years as Berlusconi was limited to Italy and sometimes Europe.

      • By codedokode 2025-06-0722:372 reply

        And alphabet.

        • By ecesena 2025-06-080:34

          From the Italian letters alpha & beta :)

        • By wefinh 2025-06-080:19

          No, it is Google thing. Thread lightly, as people get offended by that...

          What a morons :D

    • By credit_guy 2025-06-0816:423 reply

      > How can you have a president like that

      Did people really think that Berlusconi was the president of Italy?

      • By moralestapia 2025-06-0820:111 reply

        Wasn't he?

        Unless you mean president !== primer minister, but that would be such a futile remark in this context.

        • By credit_guy 2025-06-0822:501 reply

          That's exactly what I meant. A lot of people in the US don't follow politics in Europe, but those who do are unlikely to think Berlusconi was a president when he was actually a prime minister.

          • By scotty79 2025-06-090:22

            Prime ministers in Europe have functions of US Presidents. Equivalent of European presidents I think is missing in the US.

      • By thinkindie 2025-06-0912:00

        Prime ministers in Italy are also called Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, therefore technically yes. He was holding the executive power, and although Italy is a parliamentary republic, most of the laws are driven by the Government.

      • By Ylpertnodi 2025-06-0820:08

        Mainly the people that voted for him.

    • By tdeck 2025-06-094:32

      I remember thinking this same thing during the first trump term as an American, with Berlusconi I used to be like "how the fuck can people accept this from their leaders" and then it came home. Obviously the string of war criminals we had prior weren't great either but Trump hits different.

  • By mystified5016 2025-06-0714:333 reply

    This reads like pretty classic infighting between a dictator and one of his more powerful cronies.

    I am surprised at how fast it happened, though. Usually this comes towards the end of a dictatorship. Maybe our dear leader is just as incompetent at being a dictator as he is everything else.

    • By awalsh128 2025-06-0817:15

      I was not as surprised. It is a lot like the pattern in his previous term with people that he brought on and then had a fallout with and they became the enemy like cabinet members, VP, etc. This second term is markedly different in that he appointed only due hard yes men. I think the only difference is that Musk was very useful for his money and independent sway.

    • By solardev 2025-06-0714:362 reply

      I hope it escalates into a pay per view cage match.

      • By BLKNSLVR 2025-06-0721:08

        Elon already has a black eye so I think the cameras weren't invited.

      • By tjpnz 2025-06-0715:032 reply

        The last time Elon proposed a cage match he pussied out.

    • By username223 2025-06-0714:492 reply

      > Usually this comes towards the end of a dictatorship.

      It doesn't seem that way to me, e.g. Putin arrested Khodorkovsky (the richest man in Russia) in 2003. The way I see it, the politician needs the oligarch's money to gain political power, but then he has actual state power, including guns and the judicial system. At that point the oligarch has no purpose -- after all, the politician can just make new ones -- so it makes sense to cast him out or destroy him.

      Trump could bankrupt SpaceX with the stroke of a pen and bleed Tesla dry by revoking EV credits. He could even try to revoke Musk's citizenship over (real or fake) issues with his immigration status in the past. If Elon thought he was buying the presidency in exchange for favors, he wasn't thinking things through.

      • By steveBK123 2025-06-0714:535 reply

        > If Elon thought he was buying the presidency in exchange for favors, he wasn't thinking things through.

        This is the funniest part to me, in the context of THIS president. The guy that demands fully loyalty but gives none?

        I can't imagine being the richest guy in the world, and embarrassing myself to such a degree all for.. what? He paid maybe $300M to help elect the guy, wore all the stupid hates, lavished orange man with praise.. and for what. What was ever the upside? The possible downside was obviously asymmetric to any clear eyed viewer.

        And so that asymmetric downside now begins.

        • By roxolotl 2025-06-0715:073 reply

          This crop of billionaires was created from a time when capital was ascendant and state power was on the decline. I think as a result they’ve come to believe that the state is mostly there for their benefit especially during Republican administrations.

          • By anonymousDan 2025-06-0721:04

            Haven't they ever seen House of Cards?

          • By steveBK123 2025-06-0715:111 reply

            I think it's also a mark of the self delusion some of these "Great Men" tend to have, before you even get into the surrounding yes-men & ketamine.

            Probably some sort of "well I am worth $400M, but if I can get that to $2M, I can do my Mars space colony with enough room for my harem, for sure".

            vs "Gee I have more money than one can ever spend and remain mortal.. I could go enjoy my life like Bezos before it all evaporates..."

            • By AlecSchueler 2025-06-0812:061 reply

              The Bezod who sat next to him at the inauguration?

              • By steveBK123 2025-06-0813:01

                Sure they all attended

                But few have tied themselves as explicitly to the man as musk. Funded. Wore the dumb hats. Went on campaign trail.

                It was like a deep romance. You don’t walk away from that stench.

                Meanwhile Bezos has been on his yacht in the Mediterranean lol

          • By elcritch 2025-06-0721:311 reply

            Not that both the Republicans and Democrats are very pro large business. Remember Harris raised at least _twice_ as much money from billionaires than Trump.

            They're just pro different big businesses, largely based on their demographics.

            Personally I'm still annoyed that Obama's administration had the DOE take over servicing federal student loans to "protect students" only for them to somehow be sold to a private company based in Chicago from what I can tell.

            • By Cipater 2025-06-086:171 reply

              Surely this is untrue?

              Isn't it the opposite? What are you basing this on?

              https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/01/billionaires...

              https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires-buying-elec...

              Billionaire spending heavily favored Republicans. Over two-thirds (70%) of billionaire-family contributions went in support of GOP candidates and conservative causes. Less than a quarter (23%) backed Democratic hopefuls and progressive causes. (The remainder went to committees without a clear partisan or ideological identity.

              • By elcritch 2025-06-0821:38

                I hadn't looked for a while, but Harris was out raising and out spending Trump substantially when I'd last read up on it. Much of that seemed to come primarily from big donors.

                Sure the more of the top richest people may have donated more to Trump or Republicans, but Harris raised much more overall.

                https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...

                Seems like they both raised about the same from their top 20 largest donors:

                > The Harris campaign received significantly more funding than Trump's, outspending the Republican advertising machine by more than 70 percent in the final stretch of the election.

                > According to data from Open Secrets, Harris received almost $400 million from her 20 largest backers. Trump received over half a billion dollars from his top 20, which included over $100 million from SpaceX, Elon Musk's rocket company.

                https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...

                My take of that is that Trump raised a bit more from concentrated donations from the richest billionaires, but Harris overall raised more from larger numbers of billionaires and millionaires.

        • By willhslade 2025-06-080:571 reply

          Didn't Musk dismantle the federal agencies that were investigating and suing his companies?

          • By username223 2025-06-0818:21

            Well... Sure, he got Starlink approved for rural broadband funding and ended some NTSB investigations into Tesla's "suicide mode." But those things can be reversed with a quickness if he's no longer on Trump's side.

            He also wrecked a lot more of the federal government that doesn't affect him one way or the other, and may have harvested a ton of data for his AI company. We'll see if anything comes of that.

        • By modzu 2025-06-0818:36

          maybe he wanted a ticket to the island, maybe he got it

        • By jyounker 2025-06-0720:51

          Everyone who consorts with Trump ends up covered in shit.

        • By hermitcrab 2025-06-0721:341 reply

          It was weird to see all those billionaire tech bros lining up to kiss his arse. What is the point of spending all that effort to be super rich and powerful if it means you have to grovel to a terrible human being like Trump? Does not compute.

          • By zitsarethecure 2025-06-0812:20

            "This time WE will be in control." is probably what they were thinking.

      • By root_axis 2025-06-089:07

        > He could even try to revoke Musk's citizenship

        At the very least, an arrest by ICE is a real possibility. His brother has admitted on camera that they were illegal at one point, and there is now a lot of precedent for "arrest first - ask questions later" even if you're a natural born citizen.

HackerNews