Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

[wmheel1287]

I know its precisely the role of the courts to determine the legitimate power of the president. A court ruling may or may not do that. He is talking about activist judges ruling just to impede his actions. He isn't talking about SCOTUS issuing a ruling and trump disregarding it. He isn't saying trump is above the law and shouldn't following court decisions.

And how do you know what he's talking about any better than I do? Do you have some sort of direct thought line to JD Vance?

Also, it doesn't need to be a SCOTUS ruling for it to be a legitimate limitation on executive power. Thats not how the judiciary works.

And Vance damned well knows he's talking out of his ass.

 

[nycfan]

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

nope, not in the least

Yep. Totally woke. You must have one of those MAGA bibles.

 

[nycfan]

“… When asked if he’d accept rulings by judges who he complained have slowed his shock-and-awe start to his second term, the president said: “I always abide by the courts.” His comment may temporarily cool fears of a constitutional imbroglio. But this is a man who ignored court orders meant to tame his rhetoric during his criminal hush money trial. …”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/12/politics/musk-trump-oval-office-analysis/index.html

 

[nycfan]

“… Musk’s success so far is the fruit of his decision to pick the easiest targets – like USAID and CFPB. Foreign aid is rarely popular with voters, especially in an era when an “America First” president runs the White House. And the consumer bureau has been in the sights of Republican lawmakers for years.

But the next targets could be more politically painful for Trump and his base. He’s hinted that the Education Department is high on the list – and he could pull off a feat dreamed of by several GOP presidents with a closure. But any disruption to student loans or important education programs in the states could anger voters beyond those upset about the gutting of USAID.

Trump called on Tuesday for the dismantling of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which he’s been softening up for months with his inflated claims that it failed North Carolinians after a hurricane hit last year. A new system of sending disaster aid directly to states seems like a great money-saving idea that could cut through bureaucracy. But the loss of FEMA’s institutional knowledge and infrastructure could rebound politically against the White House if the response to a future natural disaster fails.

Musk is posing some searching questions for the federal government and will inevitably find waste in such a large organization – even if many of his claims are not backed up by full weight of evidence to allow voters to judge for themselves. …”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/12/politics/musk-trump-oval-office-analysis/index.html

 

[nycfan]

Out of curiosity, how do you find these random tweets or skys?

I look

I have a fairly extensive list of follows that curates my following feed

That informs what appears in my feed

In addition I can further narrow using search functions on specific topics

 

[ZenMode]

I agree that it's absurd for anyone to reflexively label someone 'racist' for wanting to have a more secure border or border enforcement policies. I also think that it's equally absurd to pretend that the Republican Party has any desire to secure the southern border. If they did, it would be done. They had majorities in both houses of Congress for the first part of Trump 1.0, and have majorities in both here in the first part of Trump 2.0. If they wanted there to be a border solution, there would be a border solution.

I think that there are a lot of Republican voters, and some Republican politicians, who want a more secure border.

Texas, in particular, is not an impoverished state. Arizona is not an impoverished state. You can say that blocking the Republican-generated bipartisan border bill- one that was the stuff of Republican wet dreams and was a total surrender by the Democratic Party- was smart election year politicking (if not incredibly cynical). But then why, with majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the executive branch who will rubber stamp any bill that passes the Republican Congress, is there nothing being done (and nothing going to be done) except performative border outrage theater?

I don't think being a border state is automatically synonymous with being impoverished. Arizona, given how fast they are growing, probably benefits from it's population of illegal immigrants. They provide a much needed labor force.

 

[nycfan]

 

[CFordUNC]

I think that there are a lot of Republican voters, and some Republican politicians, who want a more secure border. I don't think being a border state is automatically synonymous with being impoverished. Arizona, given how fast they are growing, probably benefits from it's population of illegal immigrants. They provide a much needed labor force.

Right, that’s my point, I definitely believe there are a lot of Republican voters and some Republican politicians who want a more secure border. I’m not a Republican voter nor am I a Republican politician and I want a more secure border. But I’m saying that actual bonafide beefed up border security is not a legislative priority of the Republican Party, because if it was, they would have done something about it when they had all levers of power in 2017-2019, and they would do something about it when they have all levers of power right now (maybe now that they’ve won the election we can dust off Jim Lankford’s bill!).

But it’s not going to happen, because as soon as the border is secure, the Republican Party loses perhaps its single most effective electoral wedge issue.

 

[wmheel1287]

Being able to see both sides on many topics doesn't mean I don't sometimes take a side on specific topics.

For example, I can recognize the need for some number of Mexican immigrants to do to specific jobs, while still recognizing the stupidity of having a largely open border that has allowed millions upon millions of illegals into the country.

Northern Democrats, sitting in their ivory towers, sipping their Malbec and saying how much they loooooove migrants, while conservative southern states bear the brunt of migration, is why I support bussing migrants to NYC and other liberal cities/locations.

This characterization of Northern Democrats versus Southern Conservatives is so doltishly stupid. It's really pretty sad that anyone would think like that and say it out loud.

You know, there just MIGHT be a correlation in the fact that southern state economies are growing faster and the fact that they have more immigration. Whether that's a direct correlation or not I can't say, but I think we can all definitively say that higher immigration rates have not hindered southern states from being desirable places to live, work, and do business.

Be careful of the problems you "fix" because you might just break something else in the process.

 

[nycfan]

Elon Musk targets Lutheran Social Services of Illinois​

Elon Musk targets Lutheran Social Services of Illinois

On February 1, Elon Musk said his Department of Government Efficiency was going to rapidly shut down what he called “illegal payments” to Lutheran Social Services, including the Lutheran Social Services of Illinois. Peter Medlin reports…

www.northernpublicradio.org

“… Musk didn’t show any evidence of why these payments would be illegal. But LSSI President and CEO Mark Stutrud said in a statement that they’re likely being targeted because some Lutheran Social Service groups receive funding for refugee resettlement or Head Start. It doesn’t provide those services in Illinois, which Stutrud says are vital.

The social media criticism of Lutheran Social Services was originally started by former Trump advisor and conspiracy theorist Michael Flynn. The president's former National Security Advisor posted a list of federal grants awarded to Lutheran organizations.

That list included a nearly $3 million grant from the Department of Health & Human Services to Lutheran Social Services of Illinois. Jajko says that grant is to support a move to a new model of support with their community behavioral health clinic. She says the clinic is meant to be a "one stop shop" that integrates their substance use and mental health services. …”

 

[finesse]

Would any of you define what border security actually is? I personally think it's a chimera than no one can really define and that no one really agrees with. If you don't think we need the labor and human potential , you're misguided and if you think that what's happening is any kind of invasion, criminal or not, you're misled. Look at the real numbers of immigrants, look at our labor needs, look at the fact that they traditionally have a lower crime rate than native citizens and quit being complete idiots and equating immigration and drug trafficking and then give me an answer.

 

[ZenMode]

Right, that’s my point, I definitely believe there are a lot of Republican voters and some Republican politicians who want a more secure border. I’m not a Republican voter nor am I a Republican politician and I want a more secure border. But I’m saying that actual bonafide beefed up border security is not a legislative priority of the Republican Party, because if it was, they would have done something about it when they had all levers of power in 2017-2019, and they would do something about it when they have all levers of power right now (maybe now that they’ve won the election we can dust off Jim Lankford’s bill!).

But it’s not going to happen, because as soon as the border is secure, the Republican Party loses perhaps its single most effective electoral wedge issue.

I really think you'll see border legislation passed within the next month or so. It's not going to stop illegal border crossing and it's not going to stop asylum seekers coming to ports of entry, but Republicans, if they want to continue to win, have to take action the border. To not take action would be political suicide.....

But we shall see.

 

[ChileG]

My fear is that all this spending that at least ostensibly is to help people is cut and then just redirected to the pockets of people like Musk and Trump. That doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t even really help the uber wealthy who stand to get the tax cuts.
We will have to wait and see, but if all these cuts don’t lead the budget surpluses because of tax cuts to the most wealthy among us, are the Trump voters on this site going to be happy about that?

 

[altmin]

Canada and Mexico tariffs risk inflating US housing crisis, Trump is warned

Exclusive: Dozens of congressional Democrats urge president to reconsider threatened import duties on US’s two largest trading partners

www.theguardian.com

In a letter to Trump seen by the Guardian, Democrats noted that the US imports key construction materials worth billions of dollars – from lumber to cement products – from Canada and Mexico each year.

“Given the severe housing shortage, compounded by rising construction costs, persistent supply chain disruptions, and an estimated shortfall of 6m homes, these looming tariffs, while intended to protect domestic industries, risk further exacerbating the housing supply and affordability crisis while stifling the development of new housing,” they wrote.

In a statement, the White House claimed Trump would use tariffs to “usher in a new era of growth and prosperity” for the US.

Trump has repeatedly vowed to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico, a move he has said will spur his country’s neighbors to work harder to reduce the number of immigrants crossing into the US, and stem the flow of fentanyl.

The proposed duties are sweeping, however – hitting all imports from both countries – raising concerns that they could raise prices throughout the US economy. Trump pulled back from the brink earlier this month following 11th-hour talks with Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico and Justin Trudeau of Canada.

US officials are in talks with both countries ahead of the new deadline, 4 March, when tariffs are now due to be enforced.

More than 40 Democrats in the House of Representatives, led by Jim Costa of California, urged the White House to consider housebuilding industry estimates that the proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, paired with duties already charged on Chinese goods, will raise the cost of imported construction materials by up to $4bn.

 

[CFordUNC]

Would any of you define what border security actually is? I personally think it's a chimera than no one can really define and that no one really agrees with. If you don't think we need the labor and human potential , you're misguided and if you think that what's happening is any kind of invasion, criminal or not, you're misled. Look at the real numbers of immigrants, look at our labor needs, look at the fact that they traditionally have a lower crime rate than native citizens and quit being complete idiots and equating immigration and drug trafficking and then give me an answer.

I'm with you 100% on the importance of immigrants in our country for 100% of the reasons you stated.

To answer your initial question, I'll answer how I personally would define border security. To me, border security is investing in more personnel and more technology (AI, biometrics/facial recognition, transportable surveillance towers, cameras, radar/sensors, etc.) at the southern border. But just as important, ans perhaps more so, it's investing in more immigration system personnel (processing personnel, judges, etc.) to make our system of legal immigration quicker, more efficient, and more humane.

Anyone who thinks we can "close" the southern border or who thinks that 100% of illegal border crossings can be stopped, is delusional. But I do think that there are technological means to beef up border security in a way that isn't performative political theater.

 

[CFordUNC]

I was thinking about it last night, about what irritates me so much about DOGE. I was thinking to myself, "why am I so particularly opposed to this? Is it simple partisan haterade? Am I missing or misunderstanding something? Isn't attempting to make government spending more efficient a good thing? Shouldn't anyone, regardless of political partisanship, think that reducing or eliminating wasteful spending is good?"

I came to the conclusion that, for myself personally, it's not the "what" that annoys me, it's the "who" and the "how." The "what"- working to identify and correct wasteful or inefficient government spending- is generally a good thing regardless of political persuasion. But the "who"- Elon Musk, as an unqualified, unelected individual with clear conflicts of interest as one of the biggest government contractors- is problematic. And the "how"- essentially taking a chainsaw to the federal government with a "shut shit down and figure it out later" mentality- is potentially very harmful.

There have been no attempts to understand what positions and what agencies are needed and which are not. It's been "slash and burn first, ask questions later." His attempts to shutter statutory federal agencies is blatantly unconstitutional. The mass resignation offer that he tendered to the entire federal workforce is likely illegal. Slashing the size of the federal workforce so quickly and seemingly randomly, instead of methodically doing so over time after observation and analysis, is going to lead to, among other things, dramatic reduction in capability for critical agencies like the VA and others which are already sorely understaffed.

The conceptual idea of DOGE isn't bad at all, IMO. It's the person leading it, and the methods of execution, that are bad. If it was so important to streamline government inefficiency and reduce or eliminate wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars- and let me be clear that I think it is always very important to do both- then this should have been a 2-year project and analysis of where the most inefficiency and waste is coming from, and working to systematically reduce or eliminate programs that are deemed unnecessary. Instead, Musk has taken a giant chainsaw haphazardly to the entire federal government in 3 weeks, and the fallout is going to prove to be very detrimental to all Americans in the coming3, 6, 9, 12+ months.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

I really think you'll see border legislation passed within the next month or so. It's not going to stop illegal border crossing and it's not going to stop asylum seekers coming to ports of entry, but Republicans, if they want to continue to win, have to take action the border. To not take action would be political suicide.....

But we shall see.

You are so naive.

There is one, and only one, endgame for the Trump administration (and Republican Congress under Trump) regarding the border:

To put a stop to immigration. Period.

Notice I didn't say illegal immigration. I said immigration. They don't want illegals. They don't want legal asylum seekers. Bottom line: They don't want brown people coming across our border.

They will gladly accept white South Africans, though. Go figure.

 

[finesse]

You are so naive.

There is one, and only one, endgame for the Trump administration (and Republican Congress under Trump) regarding the border:

To put a stop to immigration. Period.

Notice I didn't say illegal immigration. I said immigration. They don't want illegals. They don't want legal asylum seekers. Bottom line: They don't want brown people coming across our border.

They will gladly accept white South Africans, though. Go figure.

They are white and well to do. Only one percent of them are below the poverty level in South Africa. They are a disadvantaged class, indeed.

 

[ZenMode]

There is one, and only one, endgame for the Trump administration (and Republican Congress under Trump) regarding the border:

To put a stop to immigration. Period.

Notice I didn't say illegal immigration. I said immigration. They don't want illegals. They don't want legal asylum seekers. Bottom line: They don't want brown people coming across our border.

They will gladly accept white South Africans, though. Go figure.

Based on what?

Trump has said he plans to implement his "Wait in Mexico" program. That doesn't imply stopping legal immigration. That implies handling asylum seekers in a different way.

He's also never said, as far as I know, anything implying completely stopping legal immigration.