this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
164 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3014 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump’s recent cabinet picks, including controversial figures like Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., signal a deliberate effort to upend norms, bypass accountability, and impose a new reality on American governance.

By ignoring FBI background checks, exploiting legal loopholes, and sidelining Congress, Trump aims to consolidate power, destabilize democratic institutions, and govern unilaterally.

This strategy echoes authoritarian tactics, where truth and law are manipulated to serve power.

Critics warn of a growing “kakistocracy,” threatening U.S. governance and fostering public disorientation and disengagement.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 61 points 5 days ago (1 children)

For decades Republicans have been weakening the government, then using the weak government as an excuse for why we need less government.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

Standard strategy

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 36 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

He picked people he has dirt on is my guess. So they stay in line this time.

[–] Wytch@lemmy.cafe 17 points 5 days ago

He's not that clever. They kissed his wrinkled old ass

[–] _core@sh.itjust.works 25 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Anyone who thinks that America as it was can be returned to after Trump isn't paying attention. Trump and the right wing have been tearing America apart for the past eight years. The right wing for even longer. The Rs as of now are a very organized well funded domestic threat that will restructure America so they are in power indefinitely.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I’m pretty sure it’s to sort the congress-critters into those who will confirm whatever nonsense he picks and those who are “traitors”…

[–] Quill7513 24 points 5 days ago (6 children)

i don't think it's that deep with trump. these are people he likes, respects, and agrees with. they're who he views as aligned with his political aims

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Nah he wants cult deputies who he has leverage over so their loyalty is synonamous with their survival.

BTW, it doesnt have to run deep, Trump leaves all the thinking to his handler, Putts

[–] Quill7513 11 points 5 days ago

oh for sure. america just voted that the hell in eastern Ukraine seems great and we want some of that in Mississippi too, please. it's deeply… sad? funny? upsetting? hysterically perturbing? definitely something

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I actually 100% agree that he hasn’t thought it through that far but also 100% believe it will play out how I described.

He’s an instinctual fascist.

[–] Quill7513 7 points 5 days ago

i can cosign this view. it's just the fallout against his "enemies" will also not be strategic. the whole thing will be a grand tragedy

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Yep, this is my read on it too. I don't think he did it on purpose, but it's what's happening, and it'll work out for him, because everything does. Seeing the R congressmen suck his dick on live TV has been disgusting and terrifying

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

I imagine a dimly lit room with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone telling Trump with a grin "pick Gaetz, that will really piss off the libs". Then he smiles, thinking he's the big man making all this happen, as he takes another bite of his McDonald's.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago

also, don't forget that, these are people willing to work with him. i imagine that is not big club.

[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Also people that will do what he wants without question. His first time around, he had actual grownups that would talk him out of stuff. This time around, we may not have that luxury and and he might actually nuke hurricanes.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

It's not so much about alignment of views as it is pure loyalty. He wants people who will unquestioningly follow foolish, immoral, or illegal orders. And the best way to do that is to pick people who are completely dependent on Trump himself.

Think of someone like Gaetz. He was likely about to be kicked out of the House. Or Tulsi Gabbard, someone with zero political future on either side of the aisle on her own. He's not just looking for people he likes; he's looking for weirdos and political wash-outs who have zero future prospects without him. If Gaetz is working for Trump, and Trump fires him, where exactly does Gaetz go from there? The pro-Trump folks will see him as a traitor. The anti-Trump folks will still see him as the sex pest he is. He ran for Congress right out of law school, so he can't really just go back to practicing law.

Gaetz's only real path forward in life is complete subservience to Trump. If he gets and stays in Trump's good graces, he can be supported through the Trump regime, and then, if he leaves on good terms, he'll remain popular among the MAGA-set going forward. At that point he can always get a high-paying consulting job at some Trump-friendly company.

Compare Gaetz to Trump's previous AG, Bill Barr. Prior to Trump's first term, Barr had a decades-long legal career in multiple presidential administrations and in indsutry. I'm sure he was already well off enough for quite a comfortable retirement prior to becoming Trump's AG. If Trump had ever told him to do something that he absolutely would not do, he could simply retire to life as a private citizen quite contentedly.

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Because he's incompetent, and has a non-existant vetting process beyond checking for loyalty to him?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 7 points 4 days ago

The article makes other points than that. Namely "upending norms" which is its own flavor of Teflon.

[–] GroundedGator@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

The preferred Plan A is probably to bully and pressure at least 50 of the likely 53 GOP senators into supporting his nominations, to establish dominance over Congress and castrate its role as a check on presidential power while making the notion of “advise and consent” an 18th-century anachronism.

How many people rotated through his cabinet the first term? How many staffers walked away?

This is a loyalty test. A hazing. Get on board and confirm the worst possible choices or be relegated to the trash heap with Cheney and Kinzinger.

Trump's ego requires that these fools be confirmed but I doubt half of them make it to the midterms.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 7 points 4 days ago

The only hope for the future is that his council of evil is too incompetent to do much damage.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

They agree with Trump. That is what he cares about.

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

Because anyone of competence knows better

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

You know, the single "disrupt the norms" part is actually perfectly legit. We need that desperately in some departments. The people he chooses and why they are chosen are terrible dogshit, though, obviously.

Harris was threatening to put Republicans in some of these positions, which isn't equally bad but still a terrible idea. I personally would love to see a progressive shake-up cabinet, although my priority is always education. Depts of Education are often led by establishment figures (and even Dems have picked donors for it as a reward for service) and it's a big reason we see little movement at both federal and state levels.

There are a lot of very progressive, research-backed education specialists who would absolutely rock my world. But they're always Socialist, if not Marxist. Turns out to be a good worldview when addressing public school effectivemess, but they won't ever be picked unless the dems get more progressive.