Ethan Ard

Full of passionate intensity

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

Since you seem to be asking a sincere question, I'll give a sincere answer.

Part of it, to be sure, is partisan preference ("rage", as you put it). Democratic voters, compared to Republican voters, tend to have a significantly more favorable view of, say, government funding of medical research, or government funding of medical aid to impoverished communities in Africa. Though I'd say voters "in the middle" tend to have somewhat conservative views on that, which is why these are good soft targets.

But the deeper concern that many Democrats have is that something much bigger is going on. In 1932, FDR made enormous changes to the nature of American society. He instituted social security over the strenuous objections of republicans, who feared (correctly) that it would be very difficult to unwind. Some of his techniques (e.g., threats to pack the court) were very rough justice, but it must be noted that he had the support of 71% of congress (and by definition, the vast majority of voters), as opposed to 51%. These were hardball threats *within* the bounds of our constitutional system.

The Democratic concern is not so much that he will do things that we don't like--of course he will. Elections have consequences. It's not even a concern that he will do things which are broadly popular and thus hard to unwind (like social security, medicare or Obamacare), or that he will do such a good job that Vance is elected just as GHWB followed Reagan. If that happens, so be it.

The major concern is that there will not be any more elections, that the current government will do unpopular things, but simply refuse to leave because they have unfettered control of the military and intelligence operations. I for one am not persuaded that Trump will leave voluntarily in 4 years, nor do I think he will leave involuntarily. There is a very real chance that Trump will be "president" for the rest of his life, and perhaps then Barron (or Elon) will be president for the remainder of *my* life.

Trump has several uncommon insights about the nature of power, the most important of which is: if you achieve a certain level of power, you do not have to relinquish it. He has stated that he never should have left in 2020. Putin had term limits, until he abolished them. Xi had term limits, until he abolished them. Mao was removed from power by the party, but he refused to leave. Erdogan is going nowhere. Orban is going nowhere. Kim Jong-un is going nowhere, nor did his father or grandfather. Hitler was elected to a limited role by a minority of the population, but quickly overthrew the remaining parts of the government, installing himself as Fuhrer with unlimited powers. Caesar was just a man, who was forbidden by law to cross the Rubicon, until he did it because LOL, and thus ended the Roman Republic. Caesar did not live forever, but the Republic was dead forever.

Every other American president has felt compelled to follow the law, although I acknowledge that FDR and Lincoln pushed things pretty far. Trump is, after all, a convicted felon who scorned the notion that any court of law could tell him what to do. I understand that many Republicans agreed with his decision to defy the courts, but that only makes democrats more concerned, not less.

Of course I do not expect to persuade any Republicans about this--I presume that most Trump voters either think this is alarmist TDS, or else relish the prospect.

Bringing it back to the immediate matter at hand, there are ways to reduce spending which are consistent with the U.S. constitution. Under our constitutional system, only Congress is able to set spending priorities, and only congress is allowed to create or abolish agencies like the CFPB, the USAID, or the Department of Education. The president's only role is to sign or veto the bills, and then ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. It would be perfectly legal for Congress to pass laws accomplishing what Musk and Trump intend to do, and in fact Trump has such unfettered control over his party that he could easily strong-arm them into doing so. Mike Johnson only has a 3-vote majority in the house, but who would dare vote against Trump on anything right now?

Which raises the question: why aren't they taking that route? Why haven't they passed the DOGE authorization act, or even contemplated such? One possible interpretation is that the lawlessness is the point. If you are able to unilaterally usurp congressional authority over an unpopular program like USAID, you may be able to unilaterally detain U.S. citizens and place them into camps, or cancel elections due to a "national emergency", or throw out ballots you don't like, etc.

Don't get me started on invading Greenland, or Gaza, or Panama, or Canada. Canada! Not only our closest ally, but possibly the closest ally any nation has ever had in human history.

This is already way too long, but I would also add that Musk and AI raise the stakes quite a bit. While this is not yet consensus, there is zero doubt in my mind that AI is the most powerful thing that humanity has ever invented. The fact that Trump's strongest ally (and arguably, the shadow president) is also in the running to control AI (inasmuch as it can be controlled, which I doubt), is pretty concerning. China became a technological police state with 2000-era technology. It would be incredibly easy to have total 1984-style surveillance of the entire U.S. population with a few hundred billion dollars worth of investment in the right AI tools even using today's technology, let alone the 2027 technology.

I fear that we are all frogs with a scorpion on our back, in water that is rapidly coming to a boil.

I hope this helps to address your sincere question. And needless to say, I hope I'm wrong about all of this.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@IrvingSwisher My bigger problem is that he is a dirty player who has made multiple attempts to injure opponents (including the uncalled flagrant on Brunson). I can't think of any player that good who has been this dirty.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@paulg Definitely true of Kay Graham’s memoirs.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@JamesSurowiecki @jwsherrod I think you are conflating “fireable” and “fireable for cause”.

He seems sincere about not thinking he was about to fired, but if so that was extremely naive.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@umichvoter Was at the recent, very well-attended candidate forum led by the @USJewishDems. Lasher seemed far more credible and experienced. Bores impressive but very young and raw. Schlossberg nice and good-of-hair but out of his depth. Schwalbe amazing and unelectable.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@CathyYoung63 Ferengis were the OG incels so this makes sense

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

I tried telling Claude for Excel to start speaking like Captain Ahab. It... did not go well.

But when I told it to talk like Groucho Marx, it actually did a pretty fair imitation!

[Jarvis @jarvis_best]

I was working on a fake excerpt from the Graham Platner article but I don’t think I can top this

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@moseskagan @stephenrodrick Any place with that much good Chinese food is bound to be well-run.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@moseskagan As somebody who has (unaccountably, strangely) lost weight at a GLP-like pace without GLP, I have seen something similar but not identical.

I mostly avoid carbs, but I'm no longer "afraid" of them. The addiction is gone.

About to go on a 3-week pastacation, will see how it goes

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@goatmaster89 @JamesSurowiecki @johnkonrad @shashj Assuming that you are correct (I have no idea), it strikes me as a very technical detail, and I don't see how getting it wrong is "disparagement".

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@jbarro McKinsey will absolutely hire lazy, slovenly, unreliable and disreputable people though of course they try not to.

What they generally avoid is hiring stupid people, which both of these guys are.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@TXpaintbrush @seandsweeney The other 10% are REI Jake

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@DietCoke_Esq Want? Sure? Insist on? Probably not.

That said, I do multifam which is more plain vanilla. If a park requires unusual operational expertise (i.e., easy to impair value), that would lean towards PG requirement.

Covenants & ease of foreclosure would matter a lot to me.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@robbiehendricks @rohde88 literally

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@moseskagan I hear you--mayor is one of the few positions where party shouldn't matter much. I think Bloomberg (R) was the greatest NYC mayor of my lifetime. But Mike B was an accomplished genius and Pratt appears to be an absolute moron. I sincerely hope it works out for you!! I love LA.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@moseskagan @bonchieredstate Sorta (bear in mind I'm to your left).

It's understandable that some trust fund kids would a) selflessly want to help the 99.999% without trust funds, b) see that many rich people are wastrels and pricks and c) fail to see that greed and selfishness drive economic progress.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@AdamB1438 @realEstateTrent I mean sometimes I am like this as a property owner, but a) I'm a jerk, and b) I'm not an agent for others.

Agree this totally violates the ethical guidelines for a broker and is just bad business practice. Nod and smile and listen to below-market offers.

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@pmarca They weren't real Marc

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@SonnyBunch And of course, a voter in Maine (or Texas) has no ability to choose between those two. Maine voters are choosing between Platner/Paxton vs. Collins/Paxton (if Paxton wins) or Platner/Talarico vs. Collins/Talarico (if Talarico wins).

[Ethan Ard @ethanard]

@Jesse_Livermore @nonametyty @TheJordanTruth The cavs were the best team in the east with him, then immediately the worst when he left, and immediately the best when he came back.

The bulls were quite good when Jordan left.