Trump is clearly not happy with many of his key hires during his first term in office, regularly slamming former lackeys like Attorney General Bill Barr, Chief of Staff John Kelly, and National Security Adivser John Bolton. Axios reported in 2022 that Trump planned to ensure the loyalty not just of his high-profile appointments, should he win in 2024, but of thousands of mid-level staffers working throughout the government. Political views, rather than credentials or experience, are driving the process.
The outlet reported on Monday that the effort is well underway — and it’s sophisticated. The campaign is contracting “smart, experienced people, many with very unconventional and elastic views of presidential power and traditional rule of law,” according to Axios, to ensure new hires are fully onboard with the brutal policy proposals Trump has floated. It’s also using AI to vet potentail staffers, including by srubbing their social media.
Would be nice if Democratic leadership took this as the threat it is. Instead, they see it as an indication that they can do even less, move even further to the right, and demand even more from voters.
deleted by creator
It’s probably best not to engage the “both sides are bad” trolls.
deleted by creator
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
It’s not “both sides are bad”, it’s pointing out the Democrats are basically letting it happen without much of a fight. You can criticize both sides without being a centrist
Yup, that’s bullshit. It’s not that the Democrats are letting it happen without a fight. It’s that the media aren’t reporting on what Democrats are trying to do as much as they’re reporting on the juicy details of Republican corruption. Better ratings.
In the end, it comes down to elections. Democrats will follow the rules. Republicans won’t. So if we don’t want the worst case scenario, we have to do our part and let the Democrats do theirs.
Like nearly every single “both sides” argument in all of online history, this fulfills one of these two roles:
Detract from something good about Democrats
Deflect from something shitty about Republicans
You’ll hardly ever see a “both sides” argument in the wild that does one of these things:
Detract from something good about Republicans
Deflect from something shitty about Democrats
You may draw your own conclusions from that, gentle reader.
Credit belongs to be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
It’s a really poignant observation. If you’re constantly putting down only one side to try and argue it’s the same as the other side, the two sides are very obviously not the same.
I also wanted to touch on this – the very nature of Good versus Evil is that Good is always handicapped. Evil can let bystanders die as collateral. Evil can abandon its allies and those it claims to protect. Good can’t. Good is bound by rules even when it’s being morally questionable. It’s what separates Good from Evil, in usual circumstances.
This isn’t to say that we should sit and twiddle our thumbs if Trump creates concentration camps for “vermin” and his undesirables. At that point, it’s not usual circumstances anymore. Good cannot do Good unless it breaks some of those rules for the bigger picture. We can’t rig elections preemptively, but we sure as hell can rebel against a legally, duly elected president.
I’m not saying this out of idealism, but because of what we want to protect. If we readily abandon the institutions and laws we want to protect, that weakens those even further. The best outcome that will protect and preserve a peaceful democracy just be accomplished through that peaceful democracy. When that isn’t possible, you’re still going to protect it, but if you succeed the democracy will be considerably weakened. Change through violent rebellion just makes it more likely that the change will be overthrown in a new violent rebellion.
If the party doesn’t take this opportunity to move right and demand votes anyway like they’ve been doing for half a century, I’ll be happy to be wrong.
deleted by creator
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it’s unclear which party you’re talking about.
They’re talking about the California democrat senator Dianne Feinstein who remained a senator until her death at 90yo. She was by no means fit for office for several years leading up to her death.
Not American, so I was confused because there’ve also been stories about McConnell, Biden and Trump having lapses in international media.
To be honest, Biden has never been a good public speaker. He’s had “gaffes” his entire career. But nothing as bad as Trump’s off-topic rants or McConnell’s blank mini-stroke moments.
Yeah, the whole ‘no term limits’ thing is starting to become a huge problem across the board since we have people making decisions that they’ll never live to see the consequences of.
Maybe they mean the presidential candidate that keeps forgetting he is (still) not up against Obama
I think they meant the Senator who keeps having mini-strokes during press briefings
deleted by creator
I’m not American. Here’s a list of US politicians who have had ‘senior moment’ gaffes or incidents based on international(!!!) coverage of US politics:
Biden, Trump, Feinstein, and McConnell.
I know US politics is hyper-partisan, but please don’t disingeniously deny they’re too old to govern, based on party preference. A turd is still a turd, even if it’s better than a bag of vomit.
This is sarcasm, right?
If this surprised Democrats, they weren’t paying any attention at all. They’re not taking the threat seriously. They’re just going to try to take advantage of the situation. It’s idiotically reckless.