President Trump and US politics catchall

[Hugo]

The foundation that uses short dramatizations to promote Canadian history today reposted this old one which, I think, depicts the first time forces from the south (American colonial gov) tried to overthrow lands to the north (New France colony).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Quebec_(1690)

This is fascinating. How Canada has been able to sustain its independent national identity for so long whilst bordering the world's most powerful nation is a feat in itself.

A certain set of Canadians (right wingers) would appear to be ok with being the 51st state. From what I can gather their angle seems to be that if demographic change happens in Canada at the rate that it has been happening then there's no national identity to preserve so we may as well be an American state. On the face of it is a traitorous position but their response would be that our politicians have already sold us out so what exactly are we being loyal to?

[Uncle fester]

Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

[Biffer]

This is getting extremely worrying

The US president is sounding like a nineteenth century European imperialist, coercing and bullying their way into expanding territory.

The executive is issuing orders outside its powers, shutting down agencies who won’t follow illegally issued instructions and firing civil servants who have been involved with anything that doesn’t meet its ideology. That’s genuinely fascist.

They are burning bridges with allies and issuing threats to democratic nations.

People like to say Trump just throws around whatever is in his mind at the time, but this is something worse. This looks like a genuine concerted effort to turn America into an old school, aggressive and expansionist major power.

[sockwithaticket]

Trump is literally just signing whatever they put in front of him so they let him go golf. The fascists and neo-nazis writing the orders have never had it so easy.

[Hugo]

Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

Interesting. When did Reagan say that and who was he referring to? We're there people to the right of him in the GOP in the 80s?

[sturginho]

Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

Interesting. When did Reagan say that and who was he referring to? We're there people to the right of him in the GOP in the 80s?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronal ... trade-war/

[sockwithaticket]

Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

Interesting. When did Reagan say that and who was he referring to? We're there people to the right of him in the GOP in the 80s?

Milton Friedman.

[Flockwitt]

The point I made at the other place is that the US public has been living with cheap overseas goods for generations now. They don’t actually know what the flip side of the coin is. So it’s easy to sell them the rhetoric. The realities of a non-global economy is actually beyond their comprehension.

[Biffer]

Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

Interesting. When did Reagan say that and who was he referring to? We're there people to the right of him in the GOP in the 80s?

At that point in time, tariffs would have been considered a left wing policy.

[geordie_6]

This time in history does have some approximation to late 19th and early 20th century Mexico.

During the Porfiriato Mexico underwent a period of rapid industrialisation and modernisation but it's new found wealth went primarily into the hands of foreign investors and an microscopically small set of wealthy Mexicans. The average Mexican did not benefit at all. Hence the Mexican revolution.

Similarly, globalisation has benefitted a certain class of people but has also created a scenario where many people (or rather, their kids) are relatively worse off than they were in say, 1990. This whole America first, MAGA culture is a response to that and I think it is going to spawn a lot of copycats as politicians are under pressure to deliver for their constituents and compatriots rather than for people living thousands of miles away. Basically localism.

Not saying I agree with the MAGA movement but I think I grasp why it has gained traction.

The issue that the MAGA community don't seem to/want to comprehend is that it's the foreign investors and small set of wealthy Americans that they've climbed into bed with by backing the cockwomble.

[Niegs]

Like Al Capone and his taxes, would be funny if it's something like wrongful termination lawsuits that brings down Trump.

[Hugo]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

[Biffer]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

If these were reasonable, logical people, you might get it. They’re not. They’re fascists. Their thought process isn’t going to make sense to anyone who’s not a fascist.

[sturginho]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

Because they cancelled the Miss Canada contest, suppose something like that caught on here?

[Niegs]

Hopefully there's a bunch of Jack Ryans in the system to do the right thing... I guess the difference here is that the fictional president and his yes-men were doing this underhandedly rather in front of the public / press.

Well this is close!

In a message that circulated widely among bureau personnel, an FBI agent summarized what happened as: “Bottom line — DOJ came over and wanted to fire a bunch of J6 agents. Driscoll is an absolute stud. Held his ground and told WH proxy, DOJ, to F--- Off.”

The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment. A senior FBI official disputed the accounts of the current and former officials saying, “It’s not true.”

A former FBI official who knows Driscoll well said, “He pushed back hard.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... rcna190301

[Uncle fester]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

[Hugo]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

The Trump admin have been complaining about the border not being secure. The complaints are with specific regard to drugs going over. It doesn't seem like a good faith complaint because of course there is no way that a border that size (largest in the world?) can be secure to the extent that NO drugs come across at all. Its just not a realistic outcome.

Ofc "war on drugs" rhetoric has always featured heavily in the GOP playbook.

[Uncle fester]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

The Trump admin have been complaining about the border not being secure. The complaints are with specific regard to drugs going over. It doesn't seem like a good faith complaint because of course there is no way that a border that size (largest in the world?) can be secure to the extent that NO drugs come across at all. Its just not a realistic outcome.

Ofc "war on drugs" rhetoric has always featured heavily in the GOP playbook.

Okay thanks. Was very confused.

[mat the expat]

The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment. A senior FBI official disputed the accounts of the current and former officials saying, “It’s not true.”

A former FBI official who knows Driscoll well said, “He pushed back hard.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... rcna190301




Good update there

[I like neeps]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

Because they can? And because they've been telling everyone tariffs will pay for tax cuts and Mexico and Canada are their largest trading partners?

I think that ultimately that linking inflation directly to Trump's tariffs will cause even MAGA voters to turn on him a bit. Who knows what tariffs will mean for the world but for his voters they will mean higher prices and that's not what they want.

[Yeeb]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I think he’s lumped those together at the start purely as they fall under the drugs pretext. Eu clearly in next wave but that excuse won’t work so he’s just used their don’t buy from us speil.
And as I had hoped and semi predicted with that madman , UK plc is off the hook for now, which could be a side benefit of Brexit but more likely because we have the surplus with them not other way around , and he’s got bigger fish to fry. Only a fool would be complacent, but is Starmer that fool ?

[dpedin]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I think he’s lumped those together at the start purely as they fall under the drugs pretext. Eu clearly in next wave but that excuse won’t work so he’s just used their don’t buy from us speil.
And as I had hoped and semi predicted with that madman , UK plc is off the hook for now, which could be a side benefit of Brexit but more likely because we have the surplus with them not other way around , and he’s got bigger fish to fry. Only a fool would be complacent, but is Starmer that fool ?

They aren't trying to fix anything that's the point, these are all just jumped up excuses to put in place tariffs to create friction. All they want to do is to create chaos and mayhem and break down what they regard as the deep state and the establishment! The creation and forthcoming 'battles' against their neighbors and allies is just to create a smokescreen for them to create anger and chaos amongst the population - these bad folk over there are putting your prices up! They see this as a necessary step towards creating the new 'Information Age'. They are trying to completely break the US state laws, structures and mechanisms and make the final step to where private companies provide services, but only those that people are prepared to pay for and are profitable, and the country is run by a group of oligarchs who hide their fortunes away using digital currencies and dont pay taxes to anyone. As a Rothschild banker said, 'The best time to buy is when blood is running in the streets.'

[Yeeb]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I think he’s lumped those together at the start purely as they fall under the drugs pretext. Eu clearly in next wave but that excuse won’t work so he’s just used their don’t buy from us speil.
And as I had hoped and semi predicted with that madman , UK plc is off the hook for now, which could be a side benefit of Brexit but more likely because we have the surplus with them not other way around , and he’s got bigger fish to fry. Only a fool would be complacent, but is Starmer that fool ?

They aren't trying to fix anything that's the point, these are all just jumped up excuses to put in place tariffs to create friction. All they want to do is to create chaos and mayhem and break down what they regard as the deep state and the establishment! The creation and forthcoming 'battles' against their neighbors and allies is just to create a smokescreen for them to create anger and chaos amongst the population - these bad folk over there are putting your prices up! They see this as a necessary step towards creating the new 'Information Age'. They are trying to completely break the US state laws, structures and mechanisms and make the final step to where private companies provide services, but only those that people are prepared to pay for and are profitable, and the country is run by a group of oligarchs who hide their fortunes away using digital currencies and dont pay taxes to anyone. As a Rothschild banker said, 'The best time to buy is when blood is running in the streets.'

Nah, that’s verging on tin foil hat, sorry - there is plenty Trump & the people who voted for him see as broken , and lumping (short term?) tariffs on those he has a surplus of flows with is a direct method of him solving those issues.

His stuff about Greenland, Gulf of Mexico - yes, deffo smoke and mirrors. Direct tariffs ? Nah

[TB63]

Ouch...

[Yeeb]

Ouch...

Pretty smalll drop tbh, hardly ouch - already back to 44490 of -0.12% on the day, a fairly normal daily swing

Unlike one of my mining stocks which has sizeable facilities in Greenland, down 18% today

:(

[Hugo]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I think he’s lumped those together at the start purely as they fall under the drugs pretext. Eu clearly in next wave but that excuse won’t work so he’s just used their don’t buy from us speil.
And as I had hoped and semi predicted with that madman , UK plc is off the hook for now, which could be a side benefit of Brexit but more likely because we have the surplus with them not other way around , and he’s got bigger fish to fry. Only a fool would be complacent, but is Starmer that fool ?

He seems to have struck an agreement with Mexico - there will be a one month grace period on tariff implementation whilst they hash out a deal to strengthen the border.

Presumably they will give Canada a similar grave period??? Unless he simply has it in for Trudeau.

[Blackmac]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

0.9% of Americas illicit fentanyl is flooding across it.

[Niegs]

Presumably they will give Canada a similar grave period??? Unless he simply has it in for Trudeau.

[Niegs]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

There are some legitimate border and port issues, but it seems kind of dumb to only focus on the fentanyl issue when these are more apparent and potentially dangerous issues if terrorists could walk across the border.




I can say ... ahem, with a bit of knowledge ... that there's a big effort to hire more border officers that began last year. And it seems they are focused on beefing up remote crossings / ports of entry.

[Guy Smiley]

Presumably they will give Canada a similar grave period??? Unless he simply has it in for Trudeau.

[Hugo]

The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

There are some legitimate border and port issues, but it seems kind of dumb to only focus on the fentanyl issue when these are more apparent and potentially dangerous issues if terrorists could walk across the border.




I can say ... ahem, with a bit of knowledge ... that there's a big effort to hire more border officers that began last year. And it seems they are focused on beefing up remote crossings / ports of entry.

Also, I was thinking that the border (quite obviously) is a dual responsibility so it's pretty dishonest to frame it as an exclusively Canadian problem. Also, my guess is that a shit ton of drugs and guns and other bad stuff is transported INTO Canada from the US - it's not as if it's a one way street.

The whole angle seems to be based on a pretty dishonest premise IMHO.

[C69]

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

There are some legitimate border and port issues, but it seems kind of dumb to only focus on the fentanyl issue when these are more apparent and potentially dangerous issues if terrorists could walk across the border.




I can say ... ahem, with a bit of knowledge ... that there's a big effort to hire more border officers that began last year. And it seems they are focused on beefing up remote crossings / ports of entry.

Also, I was thinking that the border (quite obviously) is a dual responsibility so it's pretty dishonest to frame it as an exclusively Canadian problem. Also, my guess is that a shit ton of drugs and guns and other bad stuff is transported INTO Canada from the US - it's not as if it's a one way street.

The whole angle seems to be based on a pretty dishonest premise IMHO.

America is flooding Mexico and Central and South America with guns.
Lol oh the ironing

[Calculon]

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

There are some legitimate border and port issues, but it seems kind of dumb to only focus on the fentanyl issue when these are more apparent and potentially dangerous issues if terrorists could walk across the border.




I can say ... ahem, with a bit of knowledge ... that there's a big effort to hire more border officers that began last year. And it seems they are focused on beefing up remote crossings / ports of entry.

Also, I was thinking that the border (quite obviously) is a dual responsibility so it's pretty dishonest to frame it as an exclusively Canadian problem. Also, my guess is that a shit ton of drugs and guns and other bad stuff is transported INTO Canada from the US - it's not as if it's a one way street.

The whole angle seems to be based on a pretty dishonest premise IMHO.

I think the Canada drug and migrants reasons are largely excuses for the real reasons being the trade imbalance that Trump sees as a subsidy and many in Maga think they can lower income tax and make up the loss with tariffs. Also there's the bringing jobs back to America angle

[Sandstorm]

Canada drug “issue” is prescription drugs being cheaper up North. Someone in USA drug firm lobby is whispering in Trump’s ear.

[TB63]

Canada drug “issue” is prescription drugs being cheaper up North. Someone in USA drug firm lobby is whispering in Trump’s ear.

That'll cause an echo..

[yermum]

Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

[Paddington Bear]

Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

Can’t see how this threatens democracy - Trump won the election and has the right therefore to send his cronies in to run the government. Pretty much the purpose of voting to change a nation’s leader

[Raggs]

Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

Can’t see how this threatens democracy - Trump won the election and has the right therefore to send his cronies in to run the government. Pretty much the purpose of voting to change a nation’s leader

And now we have laws being pushed to make it illegal for public officials to vote against the policies he wants. He's trying to use executive orders to force through new laws that he shouldn't have the power to do himself.

Democracy has to have checks and balances to prevent itself from changing from a democracy to something else. Removing those checks and balances is what people trying to take over do, and it's what Trumps seems to be doing.

[Slick]

Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

Can’t see how this threatens democracy - Trump won the election and has the right therefore to send his cronies in to run the government. Pretty much the purpose of voting to change a nation’s leader

And now we have laws being pushed to make it illegal for public officials to vote against the policies he wants. He's trying to use executive orders to force through new laws that he shouldn't have the power to do himself.

Democracy has to have checks and balances to prevent itself from changing from a democracy to something else. Removing those checks and balances is what people trying to take over do, and it's what Trumps seems to be doing.

The Private Eye podcast this week had a good discussion about all this and signing of Executive Orders etc. They reckon its just performative nonsense that will never get passed and Trump is largely using it all as a negotiating starting point.

[inactionman]

Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

Can’t see how this threatens democracy - Trump won the election and has the right therefore to send his cronies in to run the government. Pretty much the purpose of voting to change a nation’s leader

But not to circumvent controls. The USAID directors refused to give access to protected documentations to some random unelected bloke - even if Trump decided it should be so - and marshalls had to override them*. That's not normal. Or good.

* I say 'had'. They could refuse orders if they considered them illegal but that would require some form of spine. US foreign aid departments don't figure that highly on your average MAGA priority list.

Democratic lawmakers have protested the moves, saying Trump lacks constitutional authority to shut down USAID without congressional approval and decrying Musk’s accessing sensitive government-held information through his Trump-sanctioned inspections of federal government agencies and programs.

I've no idea what his actual range of capacity is, but it would seem ridiculous that a foreign person (Musk is a saffa) could be given carte blanche access to anything just on the president's say-so. Although I am sure he doesn't give a shit anyway. The USAID directors were pretty certain Trump, Musk et al had no legislative basis for their actions.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/m ... adquarters