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
People say that about the rich in America too. "Don't tax them, they'll leave and take all their money with them!"
But I dunno, maybe we shouldn't let people get so rich we're terrified of them leaving with their money? Just a passing thought...
But also I call bullshit. Doing business in America is, for the foreseeable future, profitable. The rich aren't going to leave because they're making less profit as long as "less profit" is more than "how much profit will I have if I leave"
Of course, now that they've completely captured the US government, the conversation is kind of moot.
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?
A strike that has a scheduled end date is a strike that's has scheduled its own failure. A ten day strike would achieve nothing except the suffering of it's participants.
Yes, the economy would grind to a halt, yes people would likely die, yes it would financially hurt the powerful people in charge.
But do you really think those powerful people will give a shit? They know after ten days the gravy train will resume, but only for them and not the people who lost their jobs, got arrested, were injured, etc. The rich and powerful can afford to be patient, meanwhile everyone who sacrificed for ten days is going to have to question whether they can survive doing it again.
No, we're way past the point where our society can afford another failed effort to affect change. We need a general strike that doesn't end until the government capitulates to the needs of the people. It's all or nothing, now. ☹️
Not anymore :(
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.
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.