#unelectable

[markfaustus]

[hazellvsq]

less discourse about whether the roman campers are child soldiers more discourse about how reyna/jason/percy/frank consistently tried to topple the democratic process of camp jupiter

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 20, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov 20, 2024

Remember how American voters so hated Project 2025, the playbook for a second Trump term written by the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing institutions, that Trump said he had nothing to do with it, and then one of its key architects, Russell Vought, told undercover filmmakers that Trump was only running away from the project as political cover? 

It appears Vought was right and the story that Trump had nothing to do with Project 2025 was, indeed, just political cover. Ed O’Keefe and Major Garrett of CBS News reported today that two sources close to the Trump transition team have told them that they expect Trump to name Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Vought wrote the section of Project 2025 that covers the presidency, calling for “aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch” to “bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will” and identifying the OMB as the means of enforcing the president’s agenda. Vought was Trump’s OMB director during the end of his first term and tried to remove the civil service protections that have been in place since 1883 to protect federal workers from being fired for political reasons. That plan, known as Schedule F, would have affected about 88% of the federal workforce. 

One of the first things Biden did when he took office was to rescind Trump’s executive order making that shift.

Like that earlier attempt, Project 2025 leans heavily on the idea that “personnel is policy,” and that idea illuminates the choices the Trump team is making. Trump has refused to sign the official documents required by the 2022 Presidential Transition Act. Those documents mandate ethics commitments and require the incoming president to disclose private donations. They also limit those donations. Without the paperwork, Trump appointees cannot start the process of getting security clearances through the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the team says it is planning to do its own vetting of its candidates instead.  

Claiming they have a mandate, Trump’s people have said they are launching “a hostile takeover” of the American government “on behalf of the American people.” But as voting numbers continue to come in, Trump’s majority has fallen below 50% of voters, meaning that more voters chose someone else than chose Trump on November 5. These results are far from being in “mandate” territory.

The U.S. Constitution charges Congress with writing the laws under which the American people live, and the president with taking “care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Since 1933, Congress has created an extensive system of agencies that regulate business and provide a basic social safety net. Congress will say, for example, that the U.S. needs an agency to protect the environment (like the Environmental Protection Agency, established under Republican president Richard M. Nixon), appropriate money for it, oversee its leadership, and then trust those leaders to hire the personnel necessary to carry out its mission. 

Regulations and social welfare programs and the agencies that provide them are broadly popular—think how hard it has been for members to get rid of Social Security, for example—so Congress trims at the edges rather than abolishing them. As the U.S. budget has grown, they often bear the brunt of accusations that the government spends too much, although what has really caused the budget to operate deeply in the red is the tax cuts for the wealthy put into place by Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump.  

Right-wing leaders who want to continue cutting regulations and taxes are newly empowered by Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, and they are turning to a quirk of the government to enable them to work around Congress. 

Since the first administration of President George Washington, agencies created by Congress have lived in the Executive Branch. If, as Vought and others argue, the president is the absolute authority in that branch, Trump can do whatever he wants with those agencies and the civil servants—the bureaucrats—who run them.  

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy laid out their plans for cutting the U.S. government. Neither of them has ever held elected office, but they see that as an advantage, not a downside: “We are entrepreneurs, not politicians,” they write. “We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees.” Trump has named them to the “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE. Despite the “department” name, DOGE is not an official government agency—which would require ethics disclosures—but rather an advisory panel. 

Their op-ed begins by redefining congressional authority to create agencies to suggest that agencies are illegitimate. “Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees,” they write, “but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.” This, they say, “imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers.” 

“Thankfully,” they continue, “we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.”

While “politicians” have “abetted” an “entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy,” they write, they will work with the OMB to identify regulations that, they claim, Trump can issue an executive order to stop enforcing. “This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy,” they write. Should Trump want to cut things that Congress wants to fund, they claim that Trump will simply refuse to spend those appropriations, challenging the 1974 Impoundment Control Act that declared such withholding illegal. 

Musk and Ramaswamy reiterated their support for cutting programs that are not currently authorized, although budget experts note that such a lapse is a tool to permit adjustments to programs Congress has, in fact, authorized and have also pointed out that one of the top items on that list is health care for veterans. Cuts to all these programs will naturally mean extensive cuts to the federal workforce. 

“With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6–3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court,” they write, “DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action.” 

They conclude by asserting that “[t]here is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud,” which is one heck of a conclusion to a blueprint for taking the power of American lawmaking from the Congress, where the Framers put it, and delivering it into the hands of an extraordinarily powerful president acting on the advice of two unelected billionaires, one of whom wasn’t born in the United States.  

In the vein of getting rid of regulations, today the chief executive of Delta Air Lines said he expected the Trump administration would be a “breath of fresh air” after the Biden administration’s consumer-protection laws that he called government “overreach.” 

Meanwhile, in Washington, the Senate has been confirming President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees, with the absence of Republican senators making the confirmations easier.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[hjemne]

The French are so funny because instead of having art as a general category meaning a creation with beauty, they listened to Hegel about there only being 6 distinct categories of art, but then as the world develops people kept on going 'well THIS is artistic, but it's distinct from those other kinds of creative categories' and then adding new categories. Like, my guys, there is beauty to be found in all of mankind's creations. Give up on the number system. If you can get your head around the holy trinity being one god in three forms, you can also get your head around there just being ART despite its many forms. But they won't change because their govt and society are conservative and white supremacist and adding increasingly bizarre numbers of art forms to a Eurocentric and classical model is preferable to any form of fluidity and change in the culture

[ravenkings]

“how could anyone possibly comply with all these ~~laws~~”

if you’re wondering what the game is for these slimy motherfuckers…………

[dittography-direwolf]

I do love that the only response progs have to "Well why didn't Trump go Full Dictator and eliminate democracy and elections in his first term if he wanted to or could do that?" is to say "He had to wait until his second term when he wasn't worried about reelection!"

Right. He was worried about reelection. In his voting-free dictatorship. He didn't want his poll numbers to go down. In his absolute monarchy.

[marchofthewitchhunters]

michelle federer the woman you are

[gl1tchr]

I love mentioning unions at work and watching every manager turn into a glassy-eyed robot and start spouting off taught union-busting bullet points like corporate zombies. truly fascinating

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Aggressive tribalism and doubling down on a broken system aside, it's always struck me as a bit arrogant that the "vote blue no matter who" crowd attributes every non-vote/third-party vote to someone who would otherwise support the Dem's chosen candidate but got cold feet at the last minute. My guy, you keep banging on that "lesser of two evils" drum all you want, but I don't think you're gonna like the outcome if you ever successfully convince a lot of the people who voted third party in 2020.

[lesbianralzarek]

if i was that gunman i wouldve just voted him out instead

[thekingofwinterblog]

You know something I find hilarious?

One of the main motivation of MHA's villains is that they hate the status quo and want to change it by any means necessary, ripping down the world because it has flaws, and throwing it's virtues(stability, peace, economic prosperity, etc) out with all the rest.

Mass destruction, hundreds of thousands dead, the social cause of Quirk users with non human features set back decades, the a bit under 17 000 revolutionaries(not counting the ones shigaraki killed to take control over the group) effectively ruined their lives, and to add insult to injury, judging by what we see in the final span of chapters, the Hero system will emerge from the conflict better and stronger than ever, not only meaning it was all for nothing, but in fact from the villains perspective, worse than nothing.

Except for one, single point.

Re-Destro killing off a bunch of unnamed, unelected, shady government officials from the Hero Public Safety Commission, that has a massive impact in how society is run despite having no oversight by any outside body, is the only thing the league ever did that seems like it's going to lead to lasting, positive change in the direction they wanted it, as Hawks takes the reins of power to reform it.

I just find that absolutely hilarious.

[chaos-has-theories]

You know - the Revolution moral of "sometimes the adults won't do what's necessary, so sometimes you have to be the one to step in. Maybe you're the adult now" gets a bit... muddled... by the fact that it's also about "haha imagine Chloé as mayor even though she's 14? Oh look finally her father stepped in and put his foot down".

[changing-my-username]

[all-seeing-ifer]

making posts about other uk politics issues to distract myself from the somewhat more pressing problem that i still haven't decided how i'm voting in the genny lec tomorrow lol. currently two equally loud voices in my brain one of them's yelling "hey isabel seeing as the tories are like. definitely getting kicked to the curb maybe you could vote for the party you actually want to vote for this time" and the other is yelling "isabel can you please remember that you literally live in tory central and while the chances of The Current Tory somehow clinging on to his position of mp are very low they are also not as low as you'd like them to be. also tbf your labour candidate seems kind of alright all things considered". neither is emerging as a clear winner. help.

[notaconservative]

I'm pretty sure every pro-biden blogger on here is an AIPAC/idf/israeli sponsored bot who just wants to make sure we don't elect someone who will stop genocide. What could bots designed for that purpose say that would be any more effective or different than what these people are saying?

[thetimelordbatgirl]

Government in one breath will act like it has no money to help the country's people with, but in the next breath, reveal they wasted £8 million on a scheme to have an official portrait of the king in public institutions.