I don't, but you do because you simply can't cope with the idea that that many people could vote for him, let alone that he could win an election comfortably.Originally Posted by phonics
His win was democracy working, just as it did when he lost the time before.
He literally won the vote by a smaller margin than any election in the last 20 years against a snap candidate picked without a primary because the actual candidate was suffering from dementia.
It's hardly a mandate to enact yourself as King.
He did win the election by the rules as they stand. Musk doing what he is now doing is not by the rules.
If Trump said he was going to cut your wife's head off and fuck it on the lawn of the White House and people still voted for him would you just be like "the people spoke"?
Saying you'll do something illegal then winning an election and doing the illegal thing shouldn't mean there are no longer any consequences for the illegal thing you've done.
So, to return to it, what's your point? RL can't be worried and think a 25 year old having read and write access to the social security details, budget and payment systems is bad?
TBF he's probably had to replace the brooms head once or twice in the past few election cycles anyway.
And nobody liked it at the time! And he didn't have massive financial conflicts of interest in doing it!
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/u...ts-system.htmlThe Musk allies who have been granted access to the payment system were made Treasury employees, passed government background checks and obtained the necessary security clearances, according to two people familiar with the situation, who requested anonymity to discuss internal arrangements. While their access was approved, the Musk representatives have yet to gain operational capabilities and no government payments have been blocked, the people said.
Seems like these lads have been vetted and undergone background checks. Crisis averted lads, pack up your stuff.
This is more equivalent to if Dominic Cummings was given access to the nuclear codes.
Has any court actually deemed what is going on illegal? Don't really pay much attention outside of what is written in here.
Woah there cowboy, back to this bit you missed first:
Now the way you've worded that makes it sound like he exploited a loophole rather than did something illegal. So which is it?
It's both. He exploited a loophole to created a new department and then illegally made Musk head of it.
Yeah, that is what I am wondering about. A lot of people calling it illegal, but has a court (the Supreme Court for this, I am guessing) said so?
EDIT: Quick Google search only shows me Democrat congresspeople (lol) and 'academics' (double lol).
Last edited by Pepe; 04-02-2025 at 09:58 PM.
Thanks for clarifying.
And I'd agree, that he absolutely did not say that he was going to illegally crown musk, so to have done that is bad.
What I don't get is why isn't this story front and centre on the BBC? They did publish it, but it looked like they'd just lifted the piece from those forest people's article and I've seen nothing on it since. It's absolutely ripe for them so I'm a tad confused. Who is actually reporting on it?
Next executive order coming along is to eliminate the Department for Education.
Wonder why a government could possibly want an uneducated public? Hmmmm. Difficult.
Wired did a good article on it, however this being modern media, it's behind a paywall. This is kind of the intrinsic problem with a non existent entity with undisclosed goals and employees. The only people who are going to be able to get to the bottom of it are boots on the ground investigative reporters, a job that's been largely gutted and replaced with people who rewrite Press Releases.
I love this concept that an instrinsically political project like the Supreme Court is the burden of proof.
In data security terms it's the equivalent of asking "yeah but have the Supreme Court deemed it's illegal to blow up the White House with a homemade bomb?"
I think they want to go back to local authorities being fully responsible for education rather than not educate people. Anyway, if the Department of Education was only founded in 1979, chances are the average Trump voter is a result of its failure.
The department of education does not provide education.
I am genuinely interested on this one. Will have to read up on it when details are provided. I am assuming and hoping that protected loans for college will be cut, which will be a very good thing.
They are the final word on whether something is legal or not, yes.
What's actually in all this for Musk and Co? Seems like a lot of effort and fucking about for a continuation of the kickbacks he was already getting. Are they planning to 'succeed' and commercialise this sort of swingeing government cutting to essentially co-opt/gain control of all Western governments? It's obviously not altruism so it must be something.
His idea of solving the issue of the Palestine by, ostensibly, building them a golf course/resort somewhere else and, presumably letting Israel annex the West Bank is, erm, interesting.
1) The last 3 republicans admins have done as many tax cuts as they can afford. They need to slim the state to get another one.
2) they view literally any government spending as their money.
And the key part which is
3) it is immensely harder to put something into law than it is to remove it. If they eradicate 100 things they dont like it will take decades to reenact 50.
Surely you can't believe that.
Yes. Bush could literally only get away with the creation of PEPFAR due to 9/11 ratings bump.
Do you think you could get 7 billion a year funding for HIV medication in Africa past this current congress and then senate?
Do you think once removed as it clearly will be the CPFB a branch dedicated to sueing people who rip off consumers will be recreated without the 2008 recession?
You cannot pass anything through the current congress, whether additive or subtractive. Hence the executive decision ping pong that was mentioned earlier.
So your you cannot be serious actually meant if they eradicate 100 things they dont like none of them will ever come back and thought that was refuting my point? You contrarians that think youre the realists might be even dumber than the base voter.
Pepe since youre very smart and believe that if the Supreme Court deems something illegal then it is fixed overnight. You dont need anyone to enforce it it just becomes illegal.
If so, Brown v Board which ruled that segregated schools were illegal in 1954, why were 1 in 6 schools still segregated 25 years later?
Hey since were being taught how things work lets just go to the education sector seeing as thats next on the chopping block after foreign aid and protecting consumers.
What does the department of education do? It has no say on the syllabus and the majority of its budget is spent on financing low income schools that couldnt exist without it as the property taxes in bumfuck Mississippi dont cover it. Better get rid of that because its making the kids trans.
The rest of it is spent on disabled kids and special education and the rest on scholarships for smart kids from backgrounds that cant afford to pay their way into the insanely expensive college system. Sounds terrible.
The people against the three sectors Ive listed are either manevolent actors or idiots being taken for a ride by the former.
Not sure what you're on about, so I will just carry on.
Jesus. Do none of you cunts sleep?
Ok I'm ready to argue the details with spikey for the next few hours. Thanks for tuning in listeners.
Is this true?
https://youtu.be/Pdw31c6HPCI?si=Vu17lBp0zzP9lAIl
They've been open for a while about what the goals are. Dismantling of the federal state. This video is making the rounds now and looks pretty prophetic having been made last fall:
$47k on a transgender opera or $5 trillion dollars on tax evasion by Americas richest. I know what I'd rather stop!
USPS also refusing all parcels from China.
What are we debating today?
How smart is a 25 year old really? And is Rolling Stone a good source of news?
How do you pronounce 'Reuters'?
It's almost impossible to say in a Scottish accent.
Royters
I also say Royters, but in the interest of keeping the thread going I am willing to start saying Rou-ters.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...ets-rcna190711
That'll teach them.
The people have spoken alright?
Rrrrrrraychhhhhurrrrsss.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1911...ernment-breach
Good summary.
You know how Trump is actually quite funny? Musk is beyond the opposite of that. What a desperate loser.
US flag being hung upside down at the US state department.
Reply With Quote
