Why would there be consequences? The majority of voting Americans wanted this to happen. Let's not pretend this wasn't the likely conclusion and voters were solely focused on the price of eggs.

By modifying core systems, the attackers have not only compromised current operations, but have also left behind vulnerabilities that could be exploited in future attacks—giving adversaries such as Russia and China an unprecedented opportunity. These countries have long targeted these systems. And they don’t just want to gather intelligence—they also want to understand how to disrupt these systems in a crisis.

It's really hard to imagine this whole coup isn't some type of Russian / Chinese attack on the western world at this stage. It's too unbelievably good for them to just be a coincidence.

People were worried about the economy and inflation. To say that most voters wanted to dismantle the government is a bit of a stretch.

I remember all the posters here expressing their belief that Doge would do nothing and was just an advisory role.

I agree, but I lament how voters quickly forget the chaos from the first Trump administration, and how much they didn't care about the DOGE agenda. They think they voted for a lower inflation (which is a very questionable premise by itself), but they didn't realize they were voting for the whole package. I definitely wasn't surprised, and American people deserve this.

Hopefully the voters come to their mind in the next election, and hope it's not too late.

>They think they voted for a lower inflation (which is a very questionable premise by itself)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/u-s-inflation-increases...

And yet those people are so quiet at best. At worst they think "it has to get worse before it gets better".

But yes, I do wish some signifigant portion of the voter base would simply inquire one step further on their represenatives. Trump had no action plans for this, and when sworn in he passed 100 EO's and left Inflation as "tbd". Still is, as far as I know.

1) There is a group of voters, typically younger men, who would very much want to see things burn to the ground. A form of nihilism of outlook.

2) People never want the bad things, which is why voters tend to ignore information that tells them that things will be bad.

People didnt realize that Biden had stepped down after the election. Voters were not aware that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing.

Information that this was going to happen, was shared, repeated and told over and over again.

This is basically leopards-eating-face territory.

Sugar coating it, leaving people berefet of their own authorship of their life, of their choices? I have no idea how that results in anything other than a way to feel nice about each other.

I'd think they would be interested in healthcare and the economy and not necessarily that we place conspiracy theorists in high positions.

Unless the youth of today are that dumb.

Every conspiracy is being confirmed, so I wouldnt be too harsh calling these conspiracies

which conspiracies?

RFK Jr's book "The Real Anthony Fauci"[1], where he exposes the long history behind the creating custom designer viruses under the NIH umbrella, which led to COVID pandemic, and how every mainstream journo called him "conspiracy theorist". Turns out it was the lab leak after all, according to the CIA[2]

This is the most important one, once we get to the bottom of who created virus that killed millions and caused tens of trillions in economic damage, it will cause other more significant events.

Another one, how he explained the nature behind the Ukraine war, and how military industrial complex is stealing US government money and profiting off of artificially prolonging the Ukraine-Russia war[3]. Everyone called him conspiracy theorist, when he said BlackRock, Monsanto, DuPont have bought Ukrainian land, turns out it was true.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anthony_Fauci
  2. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWowuHMvpzU

new faces but we have the oldest president in history. anti-establishent so they root on the literal richest man in the world to take more money from them. Too poor but they aren't out on the street protesting hunreds of billions in tax cuts to the corporate chains they are binded by.

I completely get being rebellious. But is any of this "fun" for them? Just saying they are nihilistic makes more sense at this point.

it is what it is. As Marx said: "the working class people have nothing to lose, but their chains".

The Democrat party can blame the other side for being stupid, or they can blame themselves for losing, what could have been a slam dunk election win, had they understood and addressed the concerns of the voter base.

Which is weird because by the numbers, the economy was doing wonderfully. Maybe you meant to say. People were told an economy prophecy and believed it ?

Even during campaigning the republicans literally warned people their vision would incur economy hardships but that it would be worth it in the long run.

I get the frustration that the price of daily goods was too high but the incumbents did present an actual feasible plan to deal with it. So I’m not really sure it was about “the economy”.

Anyway everything outlined in this article seemed pretty likely to happen, they literally told people their plans ?

> I get the frustration that the price of daily goods was too high but the incumbents did present an actual feasible plan to deal with it. So I’m not really sure it was about “the economy”.

As usual, it's about the allocation of surplus value.

The US has enjoyed a great economy over the past four years, and really, even longer. I'm in my 30s and most of my life has been marked by economic expansion. The problem comes from the fact that we take all of the money generated by that economic expansion and pipe it to shareholders instead of labor. The average person cannot live solely off the returns from their equity investments; they have to work in order to pay bills. That work essentially started buying less over the last half-decade.

Now, is that partially because of the Biden administration? Yes. Any time you print money, it devalues the money that already exists.

But it's also, and more fundamentally, the fault of the first Trump administration. The PPP, funded with printed money, was a massive subsidy to upper-middle class Americans, and 35-ish years of GOP revenue policy made sure it has to be printed. The US had no reserves of cash to pay for an emergency like COVID. Why? Because we haven't had a real federal tax discussion since George HW Bush said "read my lips: no new taxes".

That, of course, doesn't matter: the buck stops at the Oval Office, and Biden didn't have the likely personality disorder necessary to shove the buck back in people's faces on the order that Trump does. Neither did Harris. So back to the "glory" years of 2016-2019 we go, reckless monetary policy and all.

>Let's not pretend this wasn't the likely conclusion and voters were solely focused on the price of eggs.

Maybe I'm still naive, but I believe maybe 30-40% (At least) of trump voters simply 1) really wanted immprovements in their lives or 2)thought any pf the negatives of trump would not happen to them. Trump got the simple votes and discorded such people promptly. We'll see how long they, one by one, realize such a fact.

Likewise, I doubt that many supporters voted with the idea that Trump would be put back in as a Sino-Ruso puppet. They would dimiss any such talk as conspiracy, no matter how many calls he makes/takes from Putin and how many docs he mishandles.

I wonder how that would work out. It's a bit of an inverse-Ouroboros where the people that are the government keep saying they are 'doing something about the government' without realising that that's them. Maybe they see themselves as something that is not the government, but the whole race they took part in was the race to get elected for government work.

At some point, enough destruction will have happened where the tools for useful government functionality no longer exist in usable capacity.

I tell you more. They don't just consider themselves as a government, they don't consider themselves as humans either. They want to be a different kind of species, they want to be above humans, just like humans are above the cattle. And in some sense they are, if so many people were stupid enough to get them elected.

There's a reason Musk brought in younglings to do the illegal stuff. To ignorant to know that in a few years they will be in jail.

Will they be?

The last ten years have been an exercise in "they will be in jail" without any one of import actually going to jail.

Hell, not many have even been arrested.

A bunch of insurrectionists were in jail, but then something happened and the inmates are now running the asylum.

The people that mattered didn't see jail. That's the problem.

>without any one of import actually going to jail.

I'd argue these kids won't "be of import" in the long scheme of things. Maybe in future software ethics/security classes at best. I sadly don't think Musk will ever be in a jailcell, but I'll settle for him never stepping foot in a federal facility again.

nah, in a few years, they will be rich beyond your imagination, and they will be set up to be next in succession to be king of the us.

I think you mean vassals of Elon's gene carriers.

Trump's admin already said that they will defy court rulings.

Worse, JD Vance has said repeatedly that they WANT courts to rule against them, so that they can directly challenge the court's power. I believe his exact words were "Let the court enforce it." Which of course is a sick joke - courts have no enforcement power without the executive branch.

They fully intend to cause a constitutional crisis on purpose. It's all in plain sight, in their own words. America will get what it voted for.

Good. Nothing more wrathful than a Judge out for blood. let all the civil and criminal contempt fly out the aisles

"I should add, this consequence should be legislative or legal in nature."

Should it be?

Ideally, yes. Leaves little wiggle room, settles things with minimal bloodshed, and stamps a nigh objecive ruling.

But if blood is spilt, it'll slow things down in ways congress seems unable to do. Not stop, but slow down.

Yes

Its illegal for a reason. The only good counterargument I've seen is that it might encourage worse actions to try to evade punishment.