Wasn’t the stated goal to eliminate 2 trillion in spending? So, he’s destroyed the government’s ability to function and compromised the security of the government’s computer systems he’s only reached 2.75% of his stated goal? But not actually?
I want off this ride
In comparison, Reyes said, Trump needs only to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice and a written explanation to remove an inspector general.
She cites the legal procedure in her comments declining the motion. If that’s not an acknowledgement of the illegality of what happened instead, what is?
So putting a stop, even temporarily, to plainly illegal actions by government official(s) is unreasonable if the illegal actions aren’t illegal enough? And “illegal enough” doesn’t include “taking one of the biggest ever steps to remove one of the largest barriers to corruption”
And that’s… Reasonable?
Ordinarily you’d need ground for dismissal, yes. But one of the first things Trump did was follow the plan for Project 2025 which included, amongst other things, reclassifying a fuck ton of government jobs as political jobs, enabling Trump to hire and fire people for political reasons.
They either have a death wish, they’re stupid or there’s something else
You know what they say. Everything that comes out of their mouths is either a confession or projection!
I want to be clear that I disagree with the EO; it’s not well written, has holes, and (most importantly) is ethically abhorrent. Your first paragraph gives many examples, good job.
But accurate understanding is crucial to effective resistance.
“Sex at time of conception” can ONLY be interpreted as chromosomal sex, as there is no other means of determining sex at that time of development.
The EO doesn’t concern itself with which gametes a person ACTUALLY produces, only which ones they WOULD produce based on the zygote’s (chromosomal) sex.
Unfortunately this isn’t true, which is too bad because it’d be hilarious if it were.
The “everyone is female” thing doesn’t apply until the embryonic stage, weeks after fertilization, while the EO specifies “at conception” which is the germinal stage when the offspring is only a zygote. As a zygote it has no phenotypical sex, only chromosomal sex.
“Everyone is female” may be funny, but bad information doesn’t help anyone and it certainly doesn’t save trans lives.
The only unintended consequence of the EO that I can see is that anyone who’s infertile (specifically anyone who doesn’t produce sperm or eggs) as a direct result of their DNA is now legally unrecognizable by the federal government.
Thank you!
I hate these “gotcha” responses like the “everyone is female” thing.
Of the many MANY ways that “biological sex” can be determined (phenotype, hormone, etc) the ONLY one that exists at the time of conception when we’re not even talking embryo stage yet because there’s only one fertilized cell (or two if you want until mitosis begins) is chromosomal sex.
“But we’re all female at first” isn’t going to hold up in court, and it’s NOT going to save trans lives. We need to do better.
Yeah, hypothetically anyway. I technically count as being “in the thousands” because I own my home and car but I have no savings, no retirement, and have only 3 digits in my bank account which will go down to 2 digits soon enough.
That’s the tricky thing about “net worth.” It can be a very descriptive deceptive way of measuring things.
Edit: is the autocorrect error why I was getting down votes? I can’t figure out what else people would be objecting to :(
Agree 100%
The biggest reason we (the USA) are losing to fascists is because half of Americans are fascists, whether they realize it or not. And it’s been that way for a hundred years (and they were proto fascists, aka Confederates, before that)
Hence “with all due acknowledgement” because I understand that 10 mil is nothing, comparatively.
But I also understand that, to the Amazon warehouse worker with a net worth of a few thousand, or the disabled person who isn’t allowed to have a net worth greater than 2 thousand, 10 mil is a a fuck ton of money. You know, comparatively.
Man worth 10 million dollars warns of rule by the rich.
I guess he would know.
(With all due acknowledgement that 10 million is chump change for the likes of Elan and Musky)
I’m sure it doesn’t apply to only the 1st amendment! They’ll apply it to all the other amendments too (unless they don’t want to)
So what they’re saying is that times have changed and things that used to be considered rights guaranteed by the Constitution need to change with the times.
I’m sure this logic can be applied to other rights as well, as long as those rights aren’t laid out in any amendments that come after 1 and before 3.
The cold war was against the Soviets. We’re losing to fascists.
Which is much worse (imo)
I’m not claiming otherwise, so I’m not sure what your point is
Not me!
I cry in the shower at night after work.
What’s taught in schools: the parents should have a say! Don’t let the government decide what to teach our kids!
Books in libraries and content on the internet: the government must step in and make certain content illegal!
Of course, fascists don’t care if they’re hypocritical. They say whatever gives them the most power in any situation, so calling out hypocrisy won’t stop them. It’s still good to do, though.
I like to be more nuanced with ideas like this, because I like to acknowledge the widespread voter disenfranchisement that happens in our country.
If a person could have voted and didn’t, then I agree; they made an active choice and that counts.
If a person is eligible to vote but can’t–maybe their voter registration was wrongfully purged, or they genuinely can’t afford to take time off work, or something else valid I dunno–then that’s not an active choice to not vote and I don’t think “not voting is voting” can be applied.