> It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.

The problem is that the people in control of the power to impeach are also picked for being yes men/women. It's yes-men all the way down by design.

It’s Trump’s one true talent.

He got the Supreme Court and the judiciary leaning his way in his first term. Congress is controlled by either his Republican primary candidates, or Republicans who are too afraid to cross him.

Now he’s purging from the federal branch anyone who is not completely ideologically loyal to him. That is the true purpose of Doge.

For years I've been taught that US political system is based on checks and balances. Now I see that just like in any other country it was based on morals of people: voters, elected, and appointed.

Like running both your "redundant" fiber through the same conduit, there isn't a second backup public to demand better.

People demanded this and they got it eventually.

The power of controlling information marketplaces.

Also I suppose it’s crucial to point out that it’s not just controlling the marketplace for news, it also needed one party to be absolutely focused only on winning elections, and eschewing bipartisanship.

Yes and no: nowadays third-parties can steer the people demands themselves. It became much easier with internet and "web brigades" (recently started utilizing AI as well).

So on one side yes, people demanded it. But on the other side, they were manipulated to think one issue is more important than the other, to think that "the whole system is broken" etc.

Every political system is based on how much people believes on it. Laws are not magic incantations, and there is nothing forcing people to follow what they say.

Yes, and a big problem is that the belief itself can be manipulated easier by adversaries using internet.

You forgot the last check, a disgruntled person with a gun.

Gun is a good thing, but way more important is organization. I mean organization like "when order came everyone stands up and fights no slackers".

Even 10 organized people with no weapons are _way_ more dangerous than one armed person. That's why all autocratic regimes firstly jail/kill organizers (right now it's Turkey). Just having eyes in 10 different places is more important.

As Jefferson really liked (proposed by Franklin): "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God."

I think you estimate what a single person with a gun can do.

* assassinate the president of Japan

* assassinate health care CEO

* nearly assassinate the soon to be president

Vance' offices response is very telling of his priorities and supports this view.

Vance has to be the world's biggest boot licker.

I cannot understand at all the complete lack of self respect he must have, solely for the acquisition of power.

“My fear with Trump was always that he didn't have great solutions.”

  - J.D. Vance

“People listen to what their political leaders are telling them, and my view is both that Trump is tapping into some racially ugly attitudes, but also that he is leading people to racially ugly attitudes.”

  - J.D. Vance

“I’m a Never Trump guy”

  - J.D. Vance

“My god what an idiot”

  - J.D. Vance (on Trump)

“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”

  - J.D. Vance

“I can’t stomach Trump.”

   - J.D. Vance

“I think there’s a chance, if I feel like Trump has a really good chance of winning, that I might have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton.”

  - J.D. Vance

“Trump's biggest failure as a political leader is that he sees the worst in people, and he encourages the worst in people.”

  - J.D. Vance

This would have been an amazing Harris campaign ad. Missed opportunity.

As far as I can tell almost every current Republican politician is roughly tied for this honor.

The rest retired or got primaried.

How dare you!

Donald Trump "is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

Also known as the Golden Grovelers: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s8PdOgVMg48

If only the US had of had a real choice other than shite and shite-lite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oxQ5fmiI9M

>the Golden Grovelers

I don't know what those are. I'm sure they're whatever you think they are.

Even though it really kills the joke when you have to explain it, I'm guessing there are generational and national barriers to getting that reference.

I was comparing Donald Trump to Raymond Shaw[0]. You can assume I'm doing so facetiously or you can assume I'm serious. I'm not sure myself.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate_(1962...

"A Groveler is a surfboard specifically designed to make the most of weaker or smaller waves"

I’m going to respectfully disagree with you there. Trump’s success as a politician is solely down to three factors.

Firstly, he has an insatiable desire for attention, admiration, and generally benefitting himself. That’s what causes his drive.

Secondly, he has no scruples or adheres to any morals or ethics whatsoever, he is completely ruthless. This allows him to do and say whatever serves him the most in any given situation.

Lastly, he has a specific type of charisma that has purchase with a certain segment of the people.

That’s is the full extent of it. He has no other skills or useful attributes. Anything else, especially if it’s at all technical or practical, comes from the people he’s surrounded himself with.

To interact with your point, he’s not even particularly adept at enlisting sycophants. Remember his first administration, when numerous aides and associates had both public and private disagreements with him (as one example out of many, I’ll refer to Rex Tillerson calling him a ”fucking moron”). The reason things are different this time is that another set of people are running the show, and they’ve realized that including old establishment Republicans, that have to at least pretend to be serious members of society, would have been a barrier to their agenda.

Turning the judiciary red across the country is especially not something you can attribute to Trump. It’s been a systematic effort by the Republicans (and adjacent organizations such as the Heritage Foundation) over the span of decades. He just happened to be in the position to make the appointments.

Attention, lack of scruples and charisma, are prerequisites for ALL politicians. Obama, Reagan, Clinton were the same, no?

> Attention, lack of scruples and charisma, are prerequisites for ALL politicians.

Sure, to some extent. Trump is an extreme outlier though, at least on the first two. And my main point was mainly that he doesn’t have anything else.

> Obama, Reagan, Clinton were the same, no?

Again, to some degree. Obama and Clinton especially were also shrewd politicians and had skills and strengths in addition to the attributes mentioned above.

But what skills do any politicians have? Most are career politicians, without non-political experience. Reagan had his acting experience. As a property developer and TV personality, Trump does have real-life experience, in a way most politicos don't.

Many of them come from a background in law. Most of Trump’s experience is how to file in bankruptcy court.

You need to meet more politicians, they come in all shapes and sizes just like the American people. Are there a lot of born-with-a-silver-spoon, never-worked-a-day-in-their-life types? Absolutely. But across this country at every level, even in Congress, there are people who overcame remarkable odds and chose to work in public service to make their communities, states, and country better. Look deeper than just the people who grab the headlines.

Now, an elected official friend who is a former teacher is fond of saying the following: when people get elected, they come with three tiers of knowledge. There's what they know personally - their career field, maybe their hobby, maybe they are ex-military, etc. Then there's secondary: something they observed in a parent or spouse. Finally, there's everything else. In any given session - legislative, congressional, etc, there are going to be thousands of complicated topics thrown at these people, where the issues are way outside their wheelhouse. The best politicians are the ones who not only are really good at synthesizing information, but they surround themselves with quality policy staff - that is, they build a good team to overcome their own lack of background.

Most politicians are sociopaths, whereas Trump is a narcissistic psychopath (aka malignant narcissist). You encounter sociopaths everyday, but a narcissistic psychopath is next level. Those are the Hitlers, Stalins, Saddam Husseins of the world. Or if you want to look outside of politics, the Charles Mansons of the world.

What an absolutely unqualified statement. "Politicians" aren't just the attention seekers in Congress who make outrageous statements to keep their names in the headlines. There are quality people in Congress, in state legislatures, in government at all levels who are there because of a calling to public service. Not only that, but there are people around the world in every nation's governments with the same calling to not only make their countries better, but often too with an eye toward protecting all humanity and civilization.

I said most politicians are sociopaths, which as a matter of magnitude is hyperbole. But it's absolutely true that 1) sociopathic traits are useful in politics and therefore 2) sociopaths are overrepresented in politics. We can disagree on the magnitude to which they are.

But in saying what I did, in no way did I imply politicians are "attention seekers in Congress who make outrageous statements to keep their names in the headlines", because that's not a description of what a sociopath is, as sociopaths can be quiet, calculating people.

It's not necessarily bad to be a sociopath, we need them in politics to be sure.

> The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!!

Are you suggesting that prior Presidents surrounded themselves with people directly opposed to their policy platforms?

I don't think so.

Every President selects a cabinet with people who agree with them.

It's a pretty big false dichotomy to present "people directly opposed to their policy platforms" as the sole alternative to people "picked on the premise of just one qualification: they'd be Yes Man/Woman".

Yes, I was using a false dichotomy to highlight the absurdity of the statement.

Every President surrounds themselves with people who are aligned with their policy platforms. For some reason, Trump is the one President where suddenly it's an issue.

No because Trump is interested in weasels who put loyalty to him above the law or the good of the country. Trump doesn't give a shit about policy. He doesn't know anything and can't be bothered to learn. Its just a viral racist corrupt scream all the way down

> For some reason, Trump is the one President where suddenly it's an issue.

Because Trump is the first president whose hirelings

1. Used Signal to violate laws requiring retention of communication 2. Got caught by incompetently inviting a journalist to their high security chat?

There’s a difference between (a) hiring smart people you respect and generally agree with to give you their own opinions and help shape your decisions and (b) hiring people who will go along with anything you say and holding their careers and families’ safety over the fire.

They pick competent, experienced people who are aligned with their policies. Not Fox News presenters and YouTube influencers.

Are we really looking at the best group of people that the current president could find to do these roles that agree with his policy platform? There was no one else with relevant experience willing?

Gabbard is actually a good pick for her position. JD is unconventional but bright, and you can't seriously argue that he's less qualified than Kamala was. Marco Rubio is a career politician with a lot of experience.

But of course none of this matters to a TDS sufferer.

No, that was not suggested. You are not arguing in good faith.

It's pretty easy to compare the backgrounds of every prior secretary of defense with Pete Hegseth. They're typically people with significant experience managing government agencies, retired 3 and 4 star generals, or senators/congressmen with serious foreign policy experience. The last person with as little defense policy experience as Hegseth was probably McNamara, and he was President of Ford, e.g. someone who knew how to manage a large organization.

most people generally agreed with them but they also tried to pick people of talent and courage who might disagree on a number of issues. Trump doesn't care about any of that

Donald Trump "is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

Please don't copy/paste comments:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478821>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42935580>

ah https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate_(1962... maybe I should watch it, if its not redundant

>maybe I should watch it,

I strongly recommend it. Not because of this context, but because it's a fabulous movie with an amazing cast.

It’s wild.

Trump beings people on, they are yes men.

Trump fires people, he doesn’t like people who disagree with him?

Which is it?

It's both. If you get past Trump derangement syndrome and realize he's rotten to the core and basically terrible in countless ways.

Take Former AG Jeff Sessions. He was a yes man but also when he did absolute bare minimum legally by recusing himself Trump fired him for insufficient loyalty

These are the same folks who scrubbed the Navajo Code Talkers from the DoD web site for being "DEI" or some such.

we replaced them with DUI hires.

That is brilliant, and it’s heartbreaking that it’s brilliant.

I can't take credit for it, I think it traces back to Lauren Tucker's substack, but someone certainly did before that. Then again, someone else popularized it given recent events.

https://dowhatmatters.medium.com/dei-to-dui-cronyism-undermi...

For those of us who are not used to the acronyms, DUI means Driving Under Influence. Similar term is DWI, Driving While Intoxicated.

>U.S. national-security leaders

Those aren't leaders, quite the opposite, nothing but typical Trump-like non-leaders disgracing leadership positions.

>those 18 people are just random folks

OTOH if you picked 18 random patriotic Americans, odds are none would be that far below average at defending what normal Americans have always held dear.

On the subject of a 'shack of clowns,' now do the Afganistan withdrawal.

Kind of off topic as that was the previous Trump administration, but they were also a 'shack of clowns'