> An internal presentation on the 2021 strategy for TikTok describes the company as being in an *"arms race for attention"*
We have a collective psychological experiment in the form of social media, but short-form content combined with an endless scrolling feed is functionally identical to the experiment with the rat pressing the cocaine button.
It is not beneficial for the population to have an increasingly shrinking attention span. If you can't pay attention for 30 minutes to look up candidate position while voting, or you can't even be bothered to pay attention to that boring "politics stuff" in the first place, then we have a major problem.
There is no incentive to make up allegations against most of those people. But if you make up a false allegation against a presidential candidate, it could cost him the election and move national politics in the direction you favor. How many allegations did Trump have against him before vs. after running for president?
There is no incentive to make up allegations, period. Lying about sexual assault in court is perjury and jeopardizes victims as much as the defendant.
The simpler correlation is that most of the people on that list respect the law and do not consider themselves beyond reproach. Mind you, Tate was fleeing Interpol on human trafficking charges when he was arrested. These men know what they did wrong which is why they lash out when accused instead of respecting due process.
>There is no incentive to make up allegations, period.
That's obviously not true. For example, this woman confessed to making up an sexual assault allegation for political purposes:
>One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.
>Lying about sexual assault in court is perjury and jeopardizes victims as much as the defendant.
So what? If I make up an allegation against you, there is little risk to me unless you can PROVE I lied. But if the "evidence" against you is just my word, what can you do with that to establish that I am lying?
I think your argument is spot on, but there is important context which can be revealed by doing the same list for assassination attempts. Trump is qualitatively different from these other people - it just isn't because he is famous and polarising.
And Vladamir Putin (0), seriously? Good luck to anyone who attempts to make a public accusation against him. There will be a fatal fall through a window in their future. He could have raped 200 women and nobody would say a thing.
Then you should likewise believe that the legislative branch should continue to determine how funds are allocated, and which agencies and departments are created and continue to function.
I don't think these two things necessarily go hand in hand. If the head of the executive branch should have absolute control over the branch, as the above user suggested, then if congress wants to control government agencies that are currently in the executive branch, those agencies should be placed outside of the executive into a different category that is either under the legislative branch or shared with the executive. In the status quo, all of the large government agencies being cut by DOGE are technically under the executive.
The Constitution does not provide for agencies in the legislative branch with power over the executive branch. Congress itself does have power over the executive, but mainly in that only it can pass laws, only it can raise revenue, only it can appropriate funds for expenditure, and, of course, only it can impeach executive officers and the president. Congress does not have the power to limit the president's executive orders to the executive branch agencies, for example.
I'm not sure what you think you're adding here. That the legislative branch doesn't have power over the executive is the point of my comment and the above comment referred to in it.
The U.S. Digital Service (which is what DOGE actually is) does have a budget allocated by Congress.
DOGE is finding monies are being spent without Congressional authorization, and is stopping that, exactly as you asked for. The president is also stopping expenditures that are allocated by Congress -- many presidents have done this.
"Smart fellas"? The guy is a billionaire, and all he can find are a few 20-years old edgelords with names like "Big Balls" who make racist comments in online forums?
What is the point of all of this? Reducing federal income taxes? It seems to me that these people are pushing a rope if that's the goal.
For example, USAID is 1% of federal spending, but buys the US a disproportionate amount of soft power and good will for that investment.
Also, why 20-year olds? You'd think a person as resourced as Musk would have access to more capable people. When I was 20 years old I didn't know a thing about the Federal government or all the ways it benefits Americans.
I don't see DOGE solving an actual problem, and even if it did, this is a horribly incompetent way to go about it.
We have a collective psychological experiment in the form of social media, but short-form content combined with an endless scrolling feed is functionally identical to the experiment with the rat pressing the cocaine button.
It is not beneficial for the population to have an increasingly shrinking attention span. If you can't pay attention for 30 minutes to look up candidate position while voting, or you can't even be bothered to pay attention to that boring "politics stuff" in the first place, then we have a major problem.