| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago |
| I think its chances are effectively summed up by the fact that they decided to appoint two co-chairs to it. (who are promising to personally review CVs https://x.com/DOGE/status/1857076831104434289 for its unpaid positions https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857112441529700671) (and claiming "decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change" when it was 74M to 76M votes is a bit silly) |
|
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Everyone claims they received a decisive mandate, because a mandate is in the minds of people. If they think you have a mandate, then you do. So after every election, the winner claims to have a mandate, because they keep hoping that everyone else will act like they do, and therefore that they will. Objectively, of course, you're right. |
| |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Some politicians actually talk about what they're going to do in some detail before election and then have some validity in claiming a mandate for those things after winning. Others talk utter BS, make a million conflicting promises, loudly deny stuff that they fully intend to do etc. Those people do not have a valid claim at a mandate. |
|
|
| ▲ | Eumenes 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why is this "co-chair" thing such a gotcha? How is this different from having two founders? |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | When has two co-equal bosses ever made things more efficient? If you had two people as SecDef Musk would use that as a perfect example of inefficiency. > How is this different from having two founders? One typically functions as CEO. | |
| ▲ | beardyw 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As far as I can tell this group won't have any actual power, so why not? | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, it's having two people where one would do. On a committee that is about efficiency and removing waste. Then there's the "unpaid volunteers" thing. You don't get the best and brightest that way; the best and brightest already have things to do with their time. The state of civic involvement these days means that the best and brightest are not just going to drop what they're doing in order to serve their country for no money. Instead, you're going to get two kinds of people: 1) ideological warriors, and 2) people who can bend things in directions that will make them money. That's not going to produce good results. |
|
