• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

MilEME09 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1911945860717662350

This about sums it up as of now, here we are watching democracy burn down
Click to expand...

Fire Burning GIF by Manel
 
This should be good. I hear they've got a pretty good legal department ;)

Trump officials cut billions in Harvard funds after university defies demands​

Education department says $2.3bn in funds to be frozen after university rejects slew of demands as political ploy


The US education department is freezing about $2.3bn in federal funds to Harvard University, the agency said on Monday.

The announcement comes as the Ivy League school has decided to fight the White House’s demands that it crack down on antisemitism and alleged civil rights violations, including shutting down diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

“Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws,” said a member of a department taskforce on combating antisemitism in a statement.

The education department taskforce on combating antisemitism said in a statement it was freezing $2.2bn in grants and $60m in multi-year contract value to Harvard.


www.theguardian.com

Trump officials cut billions in Harvard funds after university defies demands

Education department says $2.3bn in funds to be frozen after university rejects slew of demands as political ploy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
brihard said:
That’s some seriously scary shit. They’re at the point of talking about sending citizens to foreign prisons. As soon as they’re there, the administration would just shrug and say “they’re in sovereign foreign custody”.

Obviously it would immediately be blocked by the courts- but do they get a few planes in the air first? Or do they simply ignore the courts?

The Trump regime is quick-marching into autocracy, and starting to give totalitarianism some suggestive sideways glances.
Click to expand...
Miller is probably the most fascistic sycophant involved with Trump. He would be the first volunteer to gas the brown people, guaranteed.
 
brihard said:
I didn’t expect so much of the legal profession to cave and bend the knee immediately. That’s been frightening.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s not like history has an example of a populists who failed to take power through a putsch yet was subsequently allowed to run in an election, who promptly started breaking down barriers to authoritarianism once in power and who also started putting undesirables into concentration centres. How could they have guessed the dangers of capitulation? Even the average citizen (who will suffer the most under an authoritarian kleptocracy) doesn’t care enough for mass sustained protest.
 
Czech_pivo said:
He will keep doing this with the ultimate goal of not having anyone in the press gallery dare to ask him any tough questions, effectively muzzling the press.
Click to expand...
The "norm" for answering questions and providing opportunities to answer questions is whatever the previous administration did and the media establishment went along with, until the present administration changes it. Compared to Biden, does Trump take a lot of questions? Are more of the questions open questions, or are cheat sheets of questioners and expected questions used? Are opportunities to pose questions more or less frequent?

The focus is not what a person thinks about whether Trump or Biden allowed enough opportunities, or took enough questions, or took enough open questions. The focus is what the media establishment goes along with. If their expectations are inconsistent, they are just whiners to the extent they criticize one or the other.

On any particular point of criticism, the first question to ask yourself is: compared to what/who?
 
Brad Sallows said:
In any particular point of criticism, the first question to ask yourself is: compared to what/who?
Click to expand...
I would have thought that the first question to ask in regards to any particular point of criticism would be "Why?"

Why something happens, or why someone does something, has a significant influence on "what" that problem actually is. Intentions always matter.
 
CBH99 said:
I would have thought that the first question to ask in regards to any particular point of criticism would be "Why?"

Why something happens, or why someone does something, has a significant influence on "what" that problem actually is. Intentions always matter.
Click to expand...
Or why is it a point of criticism in the first place.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
That is a very narrow approach to critical thinking that restrains analysis of options by tying the problem to previous solutions.
Click to expand...
My point is about how people judge politics and politicians, and political decisions and acts.

We could try to state the flaw in my thinking with a simple phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right". This is the essence of most uses of "whataboutism".

My theme/thesis, though, is that high-minded principle and reason don't work if not all players in the game are equally and unfailingly high-minded. Co-operation becomes difficult to impossible. Faced by a player that defects in order to secure payoffs, it becomes rational for other players to defect to protect themselves or to encourage the defecting player to stop.

What I observe playing out on various issues:
  • faction A does something undesirable and exacts some advantage/benefit
  • supporters of faction B complain; neutrals and faction A supporters are approximately silent
  • faction B employs the same approach, or is held to a higher standard for less undesirable behaviour
  • critics of faction A sound off on the specific instance, and neutrals join the chorus this time
  • supporters of faction B point to faction A's prior behaviour in similar circumstances
  • critics of faction B claim "two wrongs don't make a right"/"whataboutism"

We could then apply all the usual caveats that amount to "let's behave like lawyers and examine this one bad thing in isolation using only the relevant facts". Of course we're going to conclude that it should not be done. That doesn't solve the political power imbalance. Suppose faction B concedes the points and reforms. What is to be done about faction A? What guarantees could possibly be made to ensure faction A would not defect in future, leaving faction B looking like chumps (and knowing it)? Hence a "rule" I've mentioned before: if reform (restoration of "norm X") is desired, faction A has to move first (give up some advantage in the same circumstances, thus concretely demonstrating good faith).

Charlie Brown and Lucy and the football. I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. Turn the other cheek.

I note that critics of faction B aren't bound to also be vocal critics of faction A. This is common in politics. I can guess that some people who don't like the Trump administration's treatment of media also didn't like the Biden administration's treatment of media, but if for personal reasons they wanted Biden to succeed more than Trump, or they just didn't care enough, they just passed the fault silently. But to pass the fault is to normalize it.

There was a little bit of bitching among establishment media (other than Trump supporters) about Biden's availability for questions, and the crib sheets, and the obnoxious ways staffers blocked access to Biden and shut down reporters' attempts to ask impromptu open questions. But not much, especially the longer the behaviour was tolerated. I suppose now that the tell-all tales about Biden's infirmity are emerging, we can't pretend not to know why control was so tight. Some of those observers must have known for themselves, which makes their acquiescence worse. The final nail was the spate of comments from some of those same people about the remarkable change in accessibility after the change of administrations. If people who manifestly don't like Trump and did support (even passively) Biden have noted the changes in positive terms, it's hard to pretend otherwise.
 
Lumber said:
White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, and Stephen Miller:

"Yes he will, as will anyone who preaches hate for America," Miller said. "Under this country, under this administration, under President Trump, people who hate America, who threaten our citizens, who rape, who murder, and who support those who rape and murder are going to be ejected from this country."

So... Fuck 1A I guess?

Now, he didn't specify whether he meant for this to apply to ALL people in America, or just those here on some kind of status, and you could assume that since this had to deal with an immigrant that it only applies to immigrants, but given the way things are going down there, especially Trump's recent statement about going after "home grown" criminals, the could absolutely see this being something they want to apply to ALL citizens.

One step closer to fascism.
Click to expand...
Or maybe not...

I think being ejected out of the United States if one rapes or murders people while there, in the interests of protecting other Americans, is a perfectly valid, reasonable consequence (one of many)

...

We're talking about illegal immigrants, who entered the United States illegally, being removed from the United States with prejudice if they commit serious crimes against American citizens...

I'm struggling hard to see how this is "fascism"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top