A bit hyperbolic on my part but I think Trump and Elon are quite a potent combination for the money and media influence they have between them. Members of congress and senators with opposing views are very unlikely to stick their heads up for fear of the immense amount of money that could be used against them in the midterms and beyond.
Michael Bloomberg could personally fund an entire presidential campaign. There’s a newspaper named after him. How did he wield that power?
The real problems with the DNC campaigns are complex. They have a poor model for how to run national campaigns, clearly. All this equities wealth was made under Democrats, including Elon’s wealth, so it’s not so simple as to say, chasing money. There is some consensus that Democrats need to run media personalities instead of experienced politicians. But not enough consensus to move away from demographics-based election modeling. Suffice it to say this thread could be an interesting conversation about anything but has become a magnet for fringe theories.
>> The real problems with the DNC campaigns are complex. They have a poor model for how to run national campaigns, clearly.
The DNC didn't even have a primary last election. They just propped up Kamala and said "here's our candidate" and expected the sheeple to vote for her. Meanwhile one of their best candidates was kicked out of the party a while back and is now Trumps DNI. And if you want to say "they didn't have time" well that's because they figured it was OK to leave a declining old guy in office beyond his sell-by date - yet another poor choice by the DNC.
> Meanwhile one of their best candidates was kicked out of the party a while back and is now Trumps DNI.
Maybe most electable (though I'm not sure I buy that either), but certainly not best. The simple fact that she's now Trump's DNI makes it clear that she'd been playing for the other team even before her official party switch.
Not the person you're replying to, but my take on it is that the checks and balances -- embodied by the legislative and judicial branches -- are only effective if a) they take action against the executive branch, and b) the executive branch respects them.
Congress is sitting on its hands and seems to be enjoying the view so far, for the most part. Republicans in Congress seem to think it's fine that Trump is usurping power vested in the legislative branch. Or at the very least they're afraid to speak up; every time they do, Trump threatens to primary them during the next election cycle. (I'm honestly not sure which is worse.) Democrats are "waiting for the right pitch to swing at" (paraphrasing Jeffries), as if doing nothing is some sort of strategy. And it's not like they can do anything anyway; certainly they have the power to get proposed legislation passed/not passed if Johnson loses a few GOP votes, but they can't get new legislation on the floor (y'know, like something that says "get DOGE out of the government's computer systems, right now") without the permission of GOP-controlled committees and Mike Johnson.
The courts are doing some things so far, but by their very nature, they're slower to act. But even if they tell Trump he can't do something, Trump doesn't actually have to listen. The executive branch is responsible for the enforcement of laws... and court orders. Let's say a court orders Musk to stop doing something, and he ignores it. Let's then say the court finds Musk in contempt, and orders him jailed. Who is going to arrest him? Not Trump's US Marshals Service, not Trump's FBI, etc.
