this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
348 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19144 readers
6020 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
 

Donald Trump's transition team is taking an unprecedented step and refusing to file the paperwork that would be needed as part of the peaceful transfer of power should he win re-election in November.

According to a report from Politico's Hailey Fuchs and Meridith McGraw, the Trump team's "go it alone" approach does deny them transition funding and assistance to assume power swiftly and seamlessly, but by balking at doing the necessary paperwork, it allows them to keep hidden their plans and raise unlimited amounts of cash without disclosing who is making the donations.

As the report notes, "if Trump wins the election and continues to drag his feet on signing the agreement with the White House, it will limit the information he and his team can access to understand current federal operations and challenges."

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 121 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Back in 2016 the Obama team tried to do everything they could to help Trump's people take over.

They left a playbook outlining the best way to deal with a pandemic.

Trump's people ignored it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-team-left-pandemic-playbook-for-trump-administration-officials-confirm

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 54 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

IIRC from Michael Lewis' book Obama did this because W Bush did it for him and he appreciated it greatly.

Just pointing this out to show how really fucked it is to ignore that playbook

[–] Pieisawesome@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

It was the norm to help transition things smoothly

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That pandemic preparedness was nonpartisan, Bush did the same. Donald got rid of it out of spite. Yet another example of how he is too fragile for the job.

Donald was gifted a nonpartisan crisis in an election year, and he is so fucking stupid and fragile that he turned it into a wedge issue. Hundred of thousands of Americans died over his fragility.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 13 points 2 weeks ago

This is how brainwashed his MAGoos are.

During the pandemic I posted about how he was doing a terrible job reassuring people. Someone posted that it wasn't his job to mollycoddle the population.

He can do no wrong in their eyes.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 11 points 2 weeks ago

Paralleling how GWB's admin treated previous work on bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 84 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Further proof that this man has no real interest in governing this nation.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 47 points 2 weeks ago

Not democratically, anyway

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 65 points 2 weeks ago

Fuck this shit, appearing on the ballot needs to require such basic shit

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 2 weeks ago

Should straight up be illegal

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 38 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That's really strange. A true authoritarian power would want all knowledge of the previous administration, as it gives them complete power in specifically what they can subvert without risking their grasp on power.

This, honestly, sounds like Trump's team truly believes that the corporate hostile takeover can be used in the government to some effect. That's going to have consequences they can't even begin to predict.

That means they really think that people will only respond to fear, and never rebel against a superior power. But more importantly, before violence becomes the outcome, it means an economic disaster the size the world has never seen.

The billionaires supporting this are ultimately shooting themselves in the foot, because they can't see what happens when people don't value what they own.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

billionaires supporting this are ultimately shooting themselves in the foot, because they can't see what happens when people don't value what they own.

If they want to go back to dealing with rich people like the old days, we can, but I don't think they really want to go down that path.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I am actually surprised there aren't more assasination attempts on billionaires. It would likely have much more of an impact than killing a politician, and should theoretically be easier. At least until it becomes a trend.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

So I was thinking about this. When is the last time you were in a room with a billionaire in any sort of non-secure facility?

At least in the US, it's not like they go just anywhere. They also almost always have bodyguards.

I've been to a few conferences with a billionaire in attendance, and the event itself was very secure just because it had IP in the event center.

I later learned that the building itself had an entirely separate entrance and exit for VIPs. Not like run of the mill VIPs, VIPs that owned helicopters that took them too and from the airport.

Apparently it's very common. Most notably are hospitals with private entrances and exits needed protect patient privacy. I think it's a lot harder than we think.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

He hates homework and learning about... anything. To his mind, he's always already known all that he needs to know about anything, ever, now and forever.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 33 points 2 weeks ago

OK DAMMIT. WHO FORGOT ABOUT THIS GLARING LOOPHOLE AND WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

The report notes, "A person involved in the Trump transition said that they are exploring a 'spectrum' of legal options for working with the current administration, including signing and not signing the GSA agreements, and the potential implications," before ominously adding, "By not signing the agreement with the White House, which provides access to the agencies, the Trump transition can also avoid submitting an ethics pledge, whose requirements are outlined by the Presidential Transition Act."

[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 5 points 2 weeks ago

There should be such a thing as "preemptive discovery process", because you know any evidence of this will be destroyed by the time the legal system reacts.

[–] shasta@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

I didn't know she was transitioning. Good for her.

[–] tikimusic@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, no!

LOL.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago

Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Politico:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Raw Story:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.rawstory.com/trump-secretive/
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/18/trump-transition-distrust-feds-00184404
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-out-of-control-2669442324/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support