He won the popular vote. Afaics majority of America prefer to be ruled by the rich. Honest even DEM won, it can be seen as ruled by rich too. To not to be ruled by the rich, so much legislation change is required, I don’t think that’s feasible democratically/peacefully.
Winning elections does not mean they get to do whatever they want. There are laws, rules, and norms. When the Dems won, the Republicans did everything in their power to stop them from implementing their platform (some of that setting up the violation of norms, rules, and laws we see today).
norms don't even mean anything. Slavery was a norm once upon a time. So was colonialism. As long as the elected have constitutionally specified majorities, they should be allowed to change rules.
And it is the other side's duty to stop the winners from implementing a partisan agenda. Either way.
Without these struggles, democracy is pointless. It's just some kind of theocracy with extra steps.
Assuming I did my sums right, DT won by approximately 1.5%. Hardly a ringing endorsement. He got 31.59% of the voter-eligible (VE) population. I count active yes votes as for a candidate and non-voter passive no votes. Some non-voters support a candidate, but since they didn't vote, their non-votes count against each candidate.
%of ballots %of VE population
Democratic Kamala Harris Tim Walz 226 42% 75,019,230 48.34% 30.66%
Republican Donald J. Trump J.D. Vance 312 58% 77,303,568 49.81% 31.59%
voter eligible population 244,666,890
non-voters 89,278,948
> “I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on July 5. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”
> A week later, on July 11, Trump again took to Truth Social to further distance himself from the plan.
> “I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump wrote. “I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it, and, unlike our very well received Republican Platform, had nothing to do with it. The Radical Left Democrats are having a field day, however, trying to hook me into whatever policies are stated or said. It is pure disinformation on their part. By now, after all of these years, everyone knows where I stand on EVERYTHING!”
> 37 ways Project 2025 has shown up in Trump’s executive orders
his policies and mates are wildly unpopular, so he just lied about it and then did it anyway. obviously people - and in particular the media - are extremely dumb for believing him, but it's not unreasonable, most politicians don't fully lie about nearly their entire policy program.
> ...his policies and mates are wildly unpopular...
It is too early to say. He'd actually doing pretty well in favourability polling [0] and is certainly doing a lot better than the Congress. But it is proper to wait another month to see what people think when the situation has calmed down a little. From a distance it looks like he is attempting to implement policies he campaigned on but who really knows. And that approach would be a bit unusual in the US public's experience so it isn't obvious how they will react.
It is unfortunate 538.com doesn't seem to have the comparisons to former presidents available. It'd be fun to check how he is doing vs Trump I.
I’m watching the horror show of US politics unfold from Western Europe, where I know every outrageous step that Trump takes, unchallenged, will only empower and encourage those would-be dictators who are attempting to take over and possibly dismantle our political systems too. But to call this “important news” isn’t really a fair description. It’s an opinion piece, which at surface level (hopefully) echoes the opinions of many readers who are recoiling in horror about the apparent destruction of democracy before their very eyes; however it is also a propaganda piece from one extremist celebrity leader against another, probably just as selective in its facts as all the guff that comes from the “other side”. The solution to right-extremism is not left-extremism, the real question is how can we talk reasonable people at both ends of the spectrum back from the ledge and attempt to form a new era of collaborative politics that aims for balance and fairness?
The biggest problem is that we'd like our leaders to be exceptionally smart in order to efficiently govern the country, but at the same time we don't want the leaders to outsmart the voters. These two expectations are mutually exclusive, and most democracies just end up praying that whatever politicians get elected, they turn out to be benevolent, instead of focuing on self-interest. Whoever wields the power, how do we keep them in check, and what kind of power do we use for that?
In the US they have the check & balances mechanism to ensure against "Who will watch the watchmen" problem. Still with the current president they are already being put through their paces. The constitution could be weakened by amendments or even disregarded if you have enough power in your grip.
Musk was on stage with Trump and said he wanted to slash spending and the US people voted them in winning every swing state. Not sure it's a good idea but that's what 'we the people' chose.
If the democrats earnestly cared about USAID they wouldn’t have painted a giant target on it by treating it as a slush fund for partisan pet projects.
Trump and Musk were crystal clear ahead of the election that they intended to stop exactly this type of partisan funding, and the public agreed at the election.
While I can appreciate there are some legal ambiguities around the specific techniques used to enact that mandate, the left appear to be attacking the mandate itself, which is undemocratic and risks creating the impression that they are attending to subvert the will of the public.
Watch this [0] interview with a former USAID diector. He states you dont blow up the organization and attack the non-political civil servants, you install a director that works with you on your policies. Also their IG was investigating starlink, which may be related and is certainly a conflict of interest [1].
The Starlink contract is almost certainly immaterial. It's only a temporary arrangement to support Ukraine and the contract value is under $1 million per year.
If you remember Starlink even initially provided the hardware and services to Ukraine for free.
USAID is a key plank in the US overseas propaganda and regime change system. If moving further towards oligarchy [0] involves shutting that down and promoting global stability then it may well be worth it. Indeed, it'll be interesting to see if any evidence is uncovered that operations funded by it were also influencing the US. It is hard to see how they could operate without spreading domestic misinformation, we live in an era where communication networks are global.
Although given all the attention that Elon attracted its way it'll probably have to rebrand even if it does survive the Trump administration. It'll have the same problem as the National Endowment for Democracy in that too many people will know which names to keep an eye out for.
[0] In practice the US has always been quite oligarchic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter... - the general pattern for the US-backed coups is propaganda->protests->revolt. USAID seems to be providing the funding for the early phase, if not the entire pipeline to a colour revolution.
"That thing you [defunded] isn't important to me; it's the [regime change] unit. It makes shoes for orphans... nice job breaking it, hero."
~ GLaDOS, Potal
Your basic point is a bit off. A lot of those refugees are because of the destabilisation the US is responsible for. If there is a cover organisation for something terrible and it does a little good in the process it is still terrible. Take that line could justify an entire invasion because they secure peace for the survivors.
The real outrage here is Bernie Sanders defending the organisation. They should have sent in someone who isn't trying to brand themselves as principled, maybe Schiff.
Someone always fills the void, in this case it would likely be China. USAID only gets $50 billion, that's hardly enough to control the world on the scale that I think you're saying is happening.
Against a top-20 economy, sure. $50 billion doesn't look that big to somewhere like Korea with a GDP of around $2 trillion. But against the ones outside the top 30 it is a lot of money. Malaysia @ 34 [0] only has a GDP of less than $500 billion and they're a pretty big country economically speaking.
An annual budget of 50 billion and a defeat-in-detail strategy can get a lot done over the years. Picking a random country like Ukraine, their peak GDP never reached $200 billion. And there is a suspicion [1] that 80-90% of their journalists are being funded by foreign grants with involvement from USAID. It isn't entirely fair to compare the entire USAID budget to Ukraine's GDP, but the point stands that if USAID wanted to reshape Ukraine they have the resources to do it.
I'm very opposed to DT and Musk's operations for what I feel are reasons I've seen validated over time.
At the same time, I wholly agree about the CIA and USAID; my introduction was migrating several web systems for some USAID-funded groups which led me to look at what they were doing.
As far as I can tell, the groups just generally were doing what they were putatively trying to do, mostly education and disaster relief. Which seems to me to be much softer than, say, attempting the assassination of a Lamumba, Castro, or Sankara.
What gives me pause in celebrating what appears to be a rather large attack on the CIA is that I generally don't trust Trump, either his motivations or his political abilities, in dealing with these kinds of institutions.
I worry that even if he disbanded the CIA and FBI the function of the foreign and domestic secret police agencies will still need to be performed by someone or other, as they seem like the kinds of functions that a lot of folks have naturalized as being part of the modern capitalist state. And it may be the case that a modern capitalist state cannot work without its secret police.
In any case, it seems likely that whatever they replace these groups with, new institutions won't have the same cultural commitments as the existing groups, which at least have a pretense of supporting "US Democratic Principles". For all the internal contradictions that allowed those folks to justify commiting crime after crime, my feeling is that replacing them with some post-truth nihilists will result in the naked application of authoritarianism.
That's my worry, but hey, I get stuff wrong all the time and there are 3-5 points where my analysis could be off.
Part of Project 2025 was to purge those who would not swear feality to the new GOP regime. That is especially true in intelligence agencies like CIA and FBI. They want as many of those who are loyal to democracy to quit/get fired as possible so they can be replaced with brown shirt like cronies.
This is clearly a deliberate shock and awe campaign by Trump and his acolytes to cause as much chaos and damage as possible before they encounter resistance. Another objective is to likely bring a case about the constitutionality of the Impoundment act in front of a conservative supreme court.
What's sickening is that the norms might be permanently changed even if Trump and Elon are pushed back. The next president with an authoritarian bent will have plenty of precedent to justify similar behaviour.
When you cite an article by a very wealthy socialist, crying about oligarchy and a kleptocracy, you have no credibility from the outset. Further, I've yet to see anyone cite a Constitutional authorization for USAID. The US government is trillions in debt and spends massive amounts of our tax dollars on things for which there is no Constitutional authority. What is happening now isn't any of the things that folks here, in the media, and on the left are screaming. It's the exact opposite. And again, as history has shown, if Musk had been acting on behalf of democrats and had maintained the left wing Twitter echo chamber, he be hailed as the man that saved our "democracy". And BTW, the US is not and was never intended to be a democracy. It was founded as a republic though events have eroded that for more than a century.
Bernie Sanders if anything is a social democrat and certainly he is a poor man compared to Trump, Musk & affiliates.
His net worth is "only" 3 million dollars, if you serve half a century in Congress you could accumulate this kind of money (not to mention inheritance and royalties from all of the books he wrote).
What idea is that that a socialist needs to be poor? Is the Pope poor? Was Engels poor?
His net worth is more than $3 million. His homes are worth that much. You may claim that his declared net worth is $3 million. Citing Engels, the son of a wealthy textile manufacturer doesn't help your case either. History has repeatedly shown that socialism is a destructive form of government, beneficial only to the elites in the country and never the rest of the country. The US has become far too socialist in my 70 or so years. It's time to unwind it. And the last couple of weeks have been a good start.
Then we have read different canons of history textbooks.
Engels used his inherited wealth to promote socialism just as Bernie could use his moderate wealth to promote social democracy. I don't see any contradiction here.
> History has repeatedly shown that socialism is a destructive form of government, beneficial only to the elites in the country and never the rest of the country.
Couldn't the same be said about capitalism, to some degree? According to the article, Musk has become $154 billion richer since Trump is in power. How did this benefit you?
> Elon Musk and his unelected minions at DOGE have forced out officials at the Treasury Department and illegally shut down US AID – a program which, among other things, helps feed and provide medical help to starving and desperate children all over the world.
Unfortunately democrats should have thought about the consequences when they were pushing woke agenda, when they were too dumb and weak in external affairs, when they were busy dividing and polarizing society, waiting out instead of proactively solving hard problems and making hard choices.
They were investing in Trump’s popularity.
In similar way how communists and socialists were investing in hitler’s back in the days.
People were so fed up with all the nonsense and weak stupid leaders that they would fall for anyone with a tiny drop of sense, some patriotism and some balls.
That's simply not true, they all worked within the law. Trump has broken the law many times over just the past two weeks by exceeding his authority and completely ignoring the laws passed by Congress. Birthright citizenship, USAID, Firing people he can't fire, ignoring contracts, sending goons to take over the payments system; it has been hard for the judicial system to keep him in Check since Congress obviously is capitulating and burying their heads in the sand.
pelosi is neck deep in insider training. and biden's pardons for his son and others are also "legal" at best. just to give two examples off the top of my head.
It’s quite clear with DNC sabotaging Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016 and the way they handled 2024. Losing to Trump was an acceptable outcome compared to challenging the establishment.
Their whole schtick is based up "tell a lie often enough and most people will start thinking it's the truth". The vast majority of what they're doing has been unconstitutional and/or breaking laws laid out by Congress. There are also repeated lies over and over, "facts" made up on the spot, quoting tweets from psychos as if they're the gold standard for truth.
