Sorry, I'm not being politically correct. Can I ask how many of the administration's executive orders you've read? This admin moved extremely aggressively on a such a large number of fronts that there are complaints that there aren't enough lawyers available at DoJ to defend all the lawsuits against the government. Strip all the rhetoric and attempts to dunk on the orange guy away from whatever side media you like to consume and ask yourself not what the stated goals of the admin were, but if there is a coherent and likely set of goals they had, and if they've executed on them.
From day one in the office these guys executed hard. Hundreds of executive orders. And if you read those orders, often up to half of them is calling out all the ways exec orders from 2016 were mutated or ignored and specifically banning them. They are in no way the work of dumb people. Legally and practically aggressive people? Yes. People with policies you might dislike or hate? For sure. People who are masters at engaging media and outrage? Yes. People headlined by someone who really loves self-enrichment and get-out-of-jail free rulings? Definitely.
Calling them dumb is radically misunderstanding the real situation in the whitehouse and to the extent journalists are calling them out as dumb it's because they're following the ball laid out by the street magician; watch the hands. The ball is all the sturm and drang and drama, the hands are actual practical outcomes.
On Signal -- the debrief there was truly hilarious; apparently Hegseth has an iPhone, that iPhone was using Apple's new and moderately shitty AI, the AI read an email (I think?) with two people's contact info in it, and offered to update the contact. Literally an Apple AI bug.
That said, I'm sympathetic to just clicking "update" on an ask like that from my iPhone. I don't think too hard about those if they pop up. Well, I didn't until I read the debrief. Geez Siri.
If that story is true and not, you know, complete bullshit to cover that Walz is one of the "off-the-record" sources that are American politics'constant news mill feeders.
My God, not only this administration is dumb, but you are too, and, in true Dunning-Krueger fashion, you think everyone but you is. Yes, I have read almost all the executive orders: they are challenged by "so many lawsuits there aren't enough lawyers at DoJ to defend" because they are stupidly written, are based on fantasies and aren't legally sound down to being patently unconstitutional. Nobody intelligent would have e.g. tried to revoque birthright through an executive order - a right protected by an amendment that has been confirmed again and again for more than a century; not only that, but the idea you could revoque a constitutional amendment by en E.O. wpuld that the same can be done for... The second amendment. Is that the can of worms this administration is trying to open?
These guys "executed hard" the whims of an incompetent, uneducated, psychopathic, certainly terminally senile President. Have you read Trump's speeches? Read, not listened to.
The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing. What has been accomplished in practice? Very little: the tariffs are in Schrodinger's cat state, the expulsions are lagging far behind their targets, the Army is loosing soldiers and equipment (Hesgeth is only renaming things), the transportation secretary is more worried about biblical paintings than fixing air controllers shortages, etc. etc.
But yeah, tell me how those guys executed a "coherent" strategy wrt. foreign trade. What's the strategy again?
> The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing
And countless abuses by police and ICE against immigrants with legal status and court orders protecting them. Being unconstitutional or otherwise impractical doesn’t stop the abuses. While EOs might be challenged, so will have the abuse instances. The goal is not to pass everything, but to overwhelm the defenses of their targets.
First thing to say is I distinguish Trump's personal goals from those of the people in his administration. I propose Trump's primary strategy/goal in the trade conversation is simple: create massive stock market volatility on a known schedule. It's super simple, it creates billions of dollars in value for allies and insiders, and it's dirt cheap to implement - just sort of talk a little to a news network, and voila, bob's your new billionaire uncle.
Internal admin policy wonk (Or Project 2025 insiders?) type strategy there seems to be to reset and expand the tools the State department has to work with -- it's been a long time since the US could credibly threaten war, for instance. That just doesn't sit right with some hawks.
Canadians took semi-seriously 51st state talks, enough that there are boycotts of American goods in Canada. Denmark took fairly seriously Greenland. Both of these took all of a day or two of talking to the media to get done, and in Canada at least will be grist for the mill in trade deals - having a crazy like a fox type throwing around random threats gives State some leeway.
Note that I'm not in any way condoning this strategy or saying it's perfectly (or well) executed, a good idea, or even that some or many people at the State Department like this strategy. But if you can get over blind rage on policy differences, a convicted rapist president, accepting gifts well in excess of the mandated $25 maximum, and on and on, and look at what they're saying and doing, I do think there's some coherence and execution in there.
Read those leaked signal chats -- that group is on the same page: They think the US is overpaying allies / getting a raw deal, and they want to set a clear message that they intend to change that. I think they got the message across.
From day one in the office these guys executed hard. Hundreds of executive orders. And if you read those orders, often up to half of them is calling out all the ways exec orders from 2016 were mutated or ignored and specifically banning them. They are in no way the work of dumb people. Legally and practically aggressive people? Yes. People with policies you might dislike or hate? For sure. People who are masters at engaging media and outrage? Yes. People headlined by someone who really loves self-enrichment and get-out-of-jail free rulings? Definitely.
Calling them dumb is radically misunderstanding the real situation in the whitehouse and to the extent journalists are calling them out as dumb it's because they're following the ball laid out by the street magician; watch the hands. The ball is all the sturm and drang and drama, the hands are actual practical outcomes.