Musk's Illegal Control of the US Government

[pfife]

Doge is a pile of hot trash 

https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3lqx6mj6ck22i

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Sure he was.

He was a bigger star than any of us here (other than Bert), but most of his fans don't even remember that version of Trump, so he couldn't have been that big of a star.  

[Edman85]

19 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Clinton was a pig, but he was a smart pig!  We have had presidents who were stupid and presidents who were pigs, but I think Trump is the one president who has excelled in both traits!

I don't think Trump is dumb. He plays dumb because his base is dumb, but no way can he manipulate as many people as he has without any intelligence.

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

He was a bigger star than any of us here (other than Bert), but most of his fans don't even remember that version of Trump, so he couldn't have been that big of a star.  

The Apprentice was already a Top 10 show on NBC.

[Tiger337]

16 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I don't think Trump is dumb. He plays dumb because his base is dumb, but no way can he manipulate as many people as he has without any intelligence.

I don't think he has any intellect.  He has some skills.  Intelligence involves deep thought and intense reasoning.  I have seen no evidence that he has that.  Trump is a good salesman which requires some intuitive smarts, but not necessarily intellect.  

Edited 19 hours ago by Tiger337

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The Apprentice was already a Top 10 show on NBC.

I thought the quote was further back than that, but I could be wrong.  

[Tigerbomb13]

Big Brother is watching you

[chasfh]

All this feels like such old news, which I'm sure is part of the design to turn us into a fascist autocracy de jure as well as de facto.

[ewsieg]

6 hours ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Khanna has always been a Musk fanboy for some reason. It’s gross. 

I have two responses for this and I'm not sure which one is more appropriate.

1) Tell me you don't know about Ro Khanna without saying you don't know anything about Ro Khanna 

or

2) This goes back to MB complaining about Tlaib.  He represents Silicon Valley, it simply makes sense that he's going to be more empathetic to issues that tech companies face, which employs the people he represents.  If Dem politicians can't represent their constituents if those constituents happen to do something the DNC claims to dislike, then stop even bother running Dem candidates to represent Silicon Valley, or anything rural, or anything down south, or any area that has large businesses, especially if they are financial or pharmaceutical, or don't employ union jobs, or employ union jobs but also have CEO's that make a fat paycheck, or..... on and on.  

[mtutiger]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

No they aren't. When you can't hold the House in the off-year with your guy in office you are not fine. Unless your idea of fine is to be able to squeak into the White House by 1 electoral vote. They aren't fine when it comes to being able to actual govern at all.

I get your point, but historically, in-power Presidents struggle in Midterm cycles. That's basically a precedent at this point.

In order to break that, it's important to acknowledge that reality and not just pretend it doesn't exist.

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I have two responses for this and I'm not sure which one is more appropriate.

1) Tell me you don't know about Ro Khanna without saying you don't know anything about Ro Khanna 

or

2) This goes back to MB complaining about Tlaib.  He represents Silicon Valley, it simply makes sense that he's going to be more empathetic to issues that tech companies face, which employs the people he represents.  If Dem politicians can't represent their constituents if those constituents happen to do something the DNC claims to dislike, then stop even bother running Dem candidates to represent Silicon Valley, or anything rural, or anything down south, or any area that has large businesses, especially if they are financial or pharmaceutical, or don't employ union jobs, or employ union jobs but also have CEO's that make a fat paycheck, or..... on and on.  

Regarding Point 2, Elon Musk's popularity is somewhere on level of George W Bush in 2007-2008. His intervention in Wisconsin in their Supreme Court election turned out to be a dumpster fire for the more conservative candidate.

Khanna is entitled to his opinion, but just on the politics alone, it seems pretty clear that his interests (as you suggest, influenced by his own experiences in his district) probably don't align with a greater strategy of winning the kinds of districts that will be decisive in the next Midterm

[gehringer_2]

53 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I get your point, but historically, in-power Presidents struggle in Midterm cycles. That's basically a precedent at this point.

In order to break that, it's important to acknowledge that reality and not just pretend it doesn't exist.

Mid term losses are standard, but lose of majority doesn't have to be. You have to win big enough to be able to lose some of the margin of your majority without losing your majority. Otherwise you really don't have a governing coalition nationwide. 

It's part of the wider aspect of why politics in the US is broken. When a party is at a point where it's own supporters are so conditioned they can't even think in terms of absolute majority wins as a reasonable target, you have party politics that aren't working. 

There are no doubt a lot of reasons - but whatever the causes, the symptoms are all there to see. It apparently isn't possible to construct a centrist party in the US anymore. The money isn't there, the energy is all at the fringes, primaries (and now social media) are too easily controlled by the extremes, we know all the diagnoses. So far we can't figure out the cure.

Edited 17 hours ago by gehringer_2