hckrnws

> This Isn't About Politics

> I'm a veteran. I served under both parties. I don't care which side of the aisle fixes this.

The idea that there are things entirely unpartisan or unpolitical is a polite fiction we can work with when things are somewhere around normal - usually even when things are pretty far from normal.

I get the army drilled this stance into you, but at some point the price the people pay for corruption includes their security.

It is, in fact, about politics.

I think you're technically right but missing what the guy is actually doing. When he says "this isn't about politics" he's not making some naive claim that governance exists outside of politics. He's saying "please don't retreat into the red team blue team thing here." And that's a legitimate move.

The word politics has basically split into two meanings that we swap between without noticing. There's the original sense, the art of navigating collective decisions, how we share power and resources. That version is unavoidable and actually kind of noble. Then there's what the word has come to mean in practice, which is identity-driven team sport. My side versus your side. Performance and signaling.

When you say "it is, in fact, about politics" you're technically correct in the first sense but you're activating the second sense, which is exactly the frame he's trying to get people out of. He's trying to create a space where people engage with the substance without immediately sorting into camps. That's valuable even if the distinction is a little artificial.

It's kind of a trap honestly. The escape hatch from tribal politics has itself become a political move, so you can always say "well actually that's political too." True, but not very useful if you're trying to get anywhere.

Oh i think you misunderstand. I know perfectly well what he's doing, and I am saying I understand. I know it works. Even when everything is not normal - collective decisions can be made.

I'm saying to consider if we've reached the point where the effects of political corruption is shaping reality beyond that point.

> I think you're technically right but missing what the guy is actually doing. When he says "this isn't about politics" he's not making some naive claim that governance exists outside of politics. He's saying "please don't retreat into the red team blue team thing here." And that's a legitimate move.

We've got a great term for the latter, and everyone is already familiar with it. Add the adjective "party". Done.

continuing off the tangent, "party" is a noun, not an adjective. In a construction "party politics", it functions _like_ an adjective, but it remains a noun.

Similarly, "computer" in "computer games" is a noun that modifies the meaning of the following noun. Modifying nouns like this always are in singular.

Specifically this type of modifier is called a "noun adjunct"

Great point, thanks for the correction.

what about "sports betting"

adverbial noun

The Republican party won't change so long as they keep getting rewarded electorally. People respond to incentives, not to pleading.

To put it a different way, if America wants republicans to get good at collective decision making, they need to play team sports and vote democrats, repeatedly for at least 10 years. Probably longer, since that incompetence is so entrenched. There is no other way, and anyone who tries to be non-partisan is just wasting time.

But you should write that to the OP, they are the one who misuses the term "politics" in the 2nd sense. The answer to confusing terms is not a retreat from the original definition, but education. Otherwise you're opening doors to these political moves.

Politics used to mean diplomacy and work across multiple groups with differing but also overlapping incentive structures.

Not two “teams” beating each other over the head.

^ this is correct

Surely the reason why appeasement isn't working is that we just haven't appeased hard enough!

"Both sides" / "tribes bad" / "transcend the conflict" discourse is such cancer, because intentionally ignoring the most pertinent parameters of a conflict is not a neutral choice. When Donald Trump said he would end the Russia/Ukraine conflict on Day 1, we didn't fear that he was lying, we feared that he was serious because we all knew that the only way to actually do it would have been to force Ukrainian defeat. When your toddler is screaming because the smell of cooking has made him hungry but he has to wait, giving in to his demands is not conflict-transcending 3D chess, it's teaching your kid that tantrums are an effective tool. The same goes for politics.

It will have to get a lot of worse in order to get better. Voters have to be in a lot more pain to give the non-crazy party control to actually fix fundamental problems.

Note: I'm an independent, but the current administration is incompetent on an embarrassing level.

We're going to need to, at the very bare minimum, fix campaign finance before we are able to produce a party that will fight for a stable democracy.

Tbh, I don't see any way going back to democracy and rule of law is possible without completely rewriting our constitution.

> without completely rewriting our constitution.

there is no need to rewrite it, because it's fine. What's not fine is people not observing it, and defending it with their lives, and making sure that violations are actioned with penalties, social stigma and disdain.

The fact that this conversation is happening at all is indicative that our current form of government and its founding documents were inadequate in preventing the existing situation.

If the constitution was appropriate, the people would have the explicit legal means of remedying this situation without relying on elections several years after the constitutional crises was underway.

A piece of paper doesn't make any difference if what's written is not observed, nor the rules it laid out followed. The fact that the president can commit crimes - like declaring war without the approval of congress - and have no consequences, means that the problem isn't with the written text, it's in enforcing it. And citizens can only enforce it with elections, or with civil unrest.

I would say that the constitution not enshrining a method of enforcement outside the auspices of the executive branch is an inherent failing of the document. Which would then indict its inability to be amended as originally intended over time.

The fact that it was intended to be a living document and has not remained so, I would argue, is partially responsible for our current predicament.

The legal remedy is impeachment. That was tried twice, and in subsequent elections “the people” reacted by moving us even farther away from being able to use it. There’s no constitutional problem here; there’s a people problem.

The fact that it was intended to be a living document and has not remained so, I would argue, is partially responsible for our current predicament.

> because it's fine.

You are blind. The senate and electoral college and lack of clearly distributed powers have meant that we have never functioned as a liberal democracy despite our lofty rhetoric claiming otherwise.

Everyone acts like the electoral college was a blunder. The founding fathers studied the democracies of ancient Greece, and they made a very intentional choice to guard against unfettered democracy. You were supposed to be involved in local politics, where you could actually know and evaluate your representatives. Those representatives were supposed to make national decisions on your behalf, including choosing the president.

I'm not qualified to know who will make a good president. You probably aren't either. Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.

> Those representatives were supposed to make national decisions on your behalf, including choosing the president.

This is, incidentally, how we massively screwed up the federal government. In the original design US Senators were elected by the state legislatures, the premise being that they would prevent federal overreach into the regulatory domain of the states because they would be directly accountable to the state governments.

Then populists who wanted to do everything at the federal level pushed for the 17th Amendment which eliminated the state governments' representation in the federal government and people stopped caring about local politics because it started feeling like an exercise in futility when federal law could preempt anything you wanted to do and the thing meant to keep that in check was deleted.

And the federal government was supposed to have enumerated (i.e. narrow, limited) powers. It doesn't have the scaffolding for people to hold it accountable. You can elect the local dogcatcher but the only elected office in the entire federal executive branch is the President of the United States. Which is fine when the main thing they're doing is negotiating treaties and running the Post Office but not fine if you're trying to do thousands of pages of federal regulations on everything from healthcare to banking to labor to energy.

That's somewhat ahistorical, the 17th amendment happened because state legislatures were frequently deadlocked and could not appoint senators, meaning states went without senate representation entirely.

In a fifteen year period 46 senate elections were deadlocked in 20 states, at one point Delaware had an open senate seat for four years due to this.

That said the proper reform to this would've been the abolition of the senate, as it has always been and will always be an anti-democratic force, not moving for senators to be elected by the people.

> That's somewhat ahistorical, the 17th amendment happened because state legislatures were frequently deadlocked and could not appoint senators, meaning states went without senate representation entirely.

That seems more like an excuse than a legitimate reason. If that was actually the problem you could solve it by adopting a mechanism to break ties, putting the vote to the public only in the event of a tie, having the state legislatures use score voting which makes two candidates getting exactly the same score far less likely, etc.

But if they want to do a power grab then they get further by saying "we have to do something about these deadlocks" than by saying "we want to do a power grab".

> That said the proper reform to this would've been the abolition of the senate, as it has always been and will always be an anti-democratic force

It's supposed to be an anti-democratic force, like the Supreme Court, the existence of Constitutional rights and the entire concept of even having a federal government instead of allowing local voters to have full plenary power over local laws. Unconstrained direct democracy is a populist whirlwind of impulsive reactionary forces.

> Unconstrained direct democracy is a populist whirlwind of impulsive reactionary forces.

This is a great point as is the point that the existence of a federal government itself is anti-democratic.

The Senate was initially created as a body that was incentivized to promote federalism itself (especially through their power to approve federal judges) & a federalist republic seems to be the most democratic system because it incentivizes a balance between individual liberty & the ability to restrict someone else's liberty through law.

Right now, the balance of power is too centralized which makes for radical changes every time a different political party takes control of government.

>I'm not qualified to know who will make a good president. You probably aren't either. Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.

I reject this premise. I'm not omniscient but I have a pretty good idea.

> I'm not qualified to know who will make a good president. You probably aren't either. Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.

Randomly-selected citizens would have outperformed what we’ve gotten in the last few elections at minimum.

Genuinely think we should consider that.

Athens actually had part of the legislative body chosen by random lot. It makes some amount of sense as a check against entrenched power structures.

The Electoral College is part of the slavery compromise and the slavery compromise was a blunder.

That doesn't really fit the math. At the time of the founding the largest colony was Virginia and of the original 13 colonies, 9 were in the North and only 4 were states that ended up in the Confederacy, i.e. it was the slave states that were underrepresented in the electoral college and the Senate.

No, because the slave states got to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for EC purposes.

If the president was elected by popular vote, slaves would count as zero because they obviously weren't going to let them vote.

That's independent of the EC. They could have given the slave owners 3/5ths of a vote for each slave without the EC. And obviously that part of the system is no longer in operation, whereas the part Democrats complain about is that each state gets +2 electoral votes regardless of its population.

Which nominally gives slightly more weight to the lower population rural states, but that isn't even the primary consequence of the EC. The primary consequence is that it gives significantly more weight to swing states, which by definition don't favor any given party.

> They could have given the slave owners 3/5ths of a vote for each slave without the EC

Yes, I suppose if you could accept the idea of a ludicrous hypothetical alternative that would have zero chance in reality of being implemented you can contort yourself enough to ignore that the EC is part of the compromise on slavery that forms the Constitution.

Virginia was a slave state at that time (I think it was 8 slave states to 5 non). The states that eventually joined the confederacy are different from those that had legalized slavery when the Constitution was signed.

> Virginia was a slave state at that time

Indeed Virginia was a slave state at the time, and was later part of the Confederacy, and it was the most underrepresented state in the Senate and electoral college at the founding, since those bodies cause higher population states to be underrepresented relative to their population.

> The states that eventually joined the confederacy are different from those that had legalized slavery when the Constitution was signed.

All of the states had legalized slavery when the Constitution was signed. But it was already gathering detractors even then. The states that wanted to keep it the most were the ones that ended up in the Confederacy and they were both a minority of the original colonies and a minority of the states at the time of the civil war.

> Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.

Not for nothing, but the party that bangs on hardest about the sanctity and infallibility of the Electoral College is the one that is far and away the worst for "American Idol-type politicians". In recent times:

- Donald Trump

- Ronald Reagan

- Fred Thompson

Even at the state level:

- Arnold Schwarzenegger

- Jesse Ventura

- Sonny Bono

- Clint Eastwood

Then we must repeal the state laws criminalizing electors not voting in line with the states popular vote allocation, and directly elect electors to ensure they are people of sound morals and judgement rather than partisan hacks. Because at the moment the electoral college serves no function besides distorting the popular vote. Any other possible function has been removed by law.

> please refrain from personal attacks.

This is perfect as the enemy of the good.

There have been plenty of times the country has functioned extremely well with the exact same setup as it is now.

The issue is everyone being greedy cowards instead of actually fighting for what matters.

I don't think everyone is being greedy cowards. Our system is designed to domesticate people through threat of poverty or state sanctioned violence.

Resistance is difficult because it typically requires great personal sacrifice. It's hard to protest when you have to work to feed and shelter your family. It's hard to resist law enforcement when your life is the price.

The working class's current inability to resist tyranny isn't an accident.

> resist tyranny

it always takes sacrifice to resist tyranny. It's just that there's been less tyranny in the past half century, that the new generation raised have not had to make sacrifices, and thus don't feel they need to. Surely, somebody else will make that sacrifice when the time comes...

Millenials have been killed by the current admin, and both Gen Z and Millenials have been in the streets across the country consistently since the current admin took office. Not sure what news you're consuming that you would think the way you do.

Yup, and that ‘why doesn’t someone else do something’ while refusing to actually do the hard part themselves is exactly the greedy coward part.

Which, given current incentives re: law and order does seem to be the sanest thing to do from a local minima perspective.

However, it is also one of the worst outcomes from a global perspective.

The "constitution is good, we just need to follow it" attitude missed out on the rot that occurred before Trump that enabled Trump and supports him to this day. That rot occured under both parties, when guardrails were followed and rules were in place and observed.

The Constitution was expected - as described in the document itself - to be reviewed and revised and updated every 20 years or so.

The last one proposed and ratified was in 1971, 55 years ago, the 26th, around lowering the voting age. (Yes, there is a 27th, but that was proposed in 1789 and just took two centuries to be ratified - guess what it was about? Prohibiting Congress from changing their own pay in the current election cycle...).

Agreed. And in my opinion, a big part of the rot was that Congress became progressively more dysfunctional. (When was the last time they passed an annual budget? That is the most basic job of Congress, and they haven't been able to do it for years.)

I'm not going to argue the "progressively dysfunctional". The Hastert Rule has a lot to do with that. Individual members can't cut deals for votes any more. But it looks like there have been appropriations bills every year.

Don't take this as disagreement with your basic assertion. Failing to declare war since 1941, failing to impeach and convict Clinton, failure to impeach and convict Trump at least once, the House checks and balances Dem presidents, and aids and abets Republicans. It's a gerontocractic farce.

I agree with you, but I don't see these things as possible. Maybe the D party will enact campaign finance rules if they got a super majority. Given gerrymandering I'm not sure that is ever possible though.

People really need to understand the math here instead of listening to what politicians themselves self-interestedly complain about.

The modern balance of power remains on a razor's edge and constantly flips because both parties have learned to run data-driven campaigns. That would be as true if neither party did gerrymandering as if both parties do as they do now. Whatever the district which is closest to being flipped, that's the one where they would concentrate their resources. If one party started to get significantly more than 50% of the seats and the other significantly less, the loser would change some of their positions until they were back in the running because getting some of what you want with 51% of the seats is better than getting none of what you want with 39% of the seats.

The actual problem is not the electoral college or gerrymandering or The Despicable Other Party, it's first past the post voting, because that's what creates a two party system. Have your state adopt STAR voting or score voting and see what happens.

> Have your state adopt STAR voting or score voting and see what happens.

There have been ongoing efforts to ban things like ranked choice or other options at the state level and now it's being pushed federally (Make Elections Great Again act MEGA).

Ranked choice voting sucks anyway, and that section doesn't seem to prohibit score voting. You're not "voting" for more than one candidate, you're scoring all of them; you're not "ranking" candidates, you're scoring them (and you could e.g. give two candidates the same score); you're not reallocating votes from one candidate to another, you're electing the candidate with the highest score.

It's also not clear that bill is going to pass. It seems full of other things Democrats have a major incentive to filibuster.

It's not even clear that Republicans have any reason to prevent score voting. One of the failure modes of ranked choice is that you can end up with more radical candidates winning where one party already had a majority because it allows the majority party to run a radical candidate next to a moderate one, but then if the radical candidate gets more votes from their own party, the race becomes the radical vs. the minority party after the majority party's moderate candidate got excluded, and then the radical candidate wins. They saw what happened in New York and didn't like it. But Democrats should have exactly the same concern -- what do you think that does if you adopted it in the South -- and in general ranked choice makes polarization worse. Ranked choice actually does suck.

Whereas score voting does something else. If you run a radical, a moderate from the major party and a minority party, the moderate from the majority party wins because there is no run off election, they just got the highest score because they scored better among the minority party than the radical and better among the majority party than the minority party candidate. And when more candidates than that run, the most likely to win is the one that best represents the entire district, which reduces polarization, and that's to the benefit of everybody.

Notably, the party that has enacted laws banning ranked choice and any other option than FPTP in states where they have power? Only one: Republican.

Missouri banned RCV via ballot measure. Alaska is a deep red state that has RCV and rejected a ballot measure to remove it.

And RCV still sucks. Let them ban that one and use the better one.

Hold up.

> Missouri banned RCV via ballot measure.

That's true, but it's not honest. What actually happened is there were TWO parts to it.

The first part, which is the part people actually read:

> "The amendment also changes a line in the Missouri Constitution to specify that “only” U.S. citizens have the right to vote, rather than “all” U.S. citizens."

The second part banned rank voice voting.

Nobody, I mean nobody read the second part.

The first part of the ballot measure was _already illegal_. It was simply used as a tool to scare people into voting against rank choice voting.

At least one place in Alaska, I think two boroughs, have local laws that allow RCV.

Look around at the politics of the majority of countries on the planet. Voters being in pain doesn't mean they suddenly start making the right choice. Quite the opposite in fact.

There's a long way to go on the path the USA is currently on. Ask anyone from India or Russia or Argentina or Egypt or Nigeria how democracy actually works.

Sometimes they do, but yes, I am worried about the flip side as well.

The electorate does give control but they get bored after a few years and want to wreck everything all over again. It's goldfish levels of political memory in this country.

It’s not just the incompetence, it’s the meanness. If this administration were simply incompetent, it would be bad but not alarming or scary. It’s the fact that they want to hurt a portion of the population that worries me greatly.

There have been competent Republican administrations. Take for example Eisenhower. Or Nixon who won the cold war with his China switch.

But the GOP turned into the MAGA cult.

I mean Eisenhower was the Republican President immediately leading up to LBJ signing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in 64-65 (i.e. the inflection point of the D/R "switch") and would realistically be considered a Democrat president:

- Accepted the New Deal

- Championed the Interstate Highway system (massive federal spending)

- Pushed for higher marginal tax rates

- Supported a regulated mixed economy

- Warned against the military-industrial complex.

A lot of effort under Biden was to make diinformation a big push and they offloaded work to third parties, so I'd be curious to know how many of the firings or resignations came from the government being pulled away from censorship in league with social media as opposed to losing harscore cybersecurity professionals. Makes me want to jump back on the cybersecurity bandwagon. I think the the CISA and NSA mandate for memory-safe software roadmap is good. I'm more of a SPARK 2014 fan than Rust, but I think by 2027, I'll shift to 30% focus on Rust and see where the government contracts go. I'm building a high-integrity secure, mostly formally verified automation and controls software for a state-of-the-art portable hoist able to function in aerospace that I am also co-engineering with my partner inventor.

> the government being pulled away from censorship in league with social media

The right sure said that a lot, but it repeatedly failed to materialize. The twitter files were especially embarrassing, where Elon alleged government censorship but his "detective" was forced to admit that it didn't exist. Oops!

> [@mtaibbi] Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem...

Contrast this to "we can do it the easy way or the hard way" from the current administration. Yikes!

The last government contracting I observed was in Swift and TypeScript, of all things.

> I get the army drilled this stance into you

Nah, this didn't come from there.

> And what's happening at CISA right now should terrify every American who depends on running water, electricity, and the ability to vote in free elections.

The answer is right at the beginning. Current administration has the explicit goal to not have free elections going forward. It has been stated plainly, on TV. The rest is collateral damage, and an attack on critical infrastructure will be a good excuse to invade the next country, declare state of emergency or outright war and get rid of elections completely.

"You will only have to vote once more. Then we'll fix it"

Apparently that's where you stopped reading. If you continue reading, with a little be of logical reasoning and comprehension, you will learn that Plankey has been nominated by Trump, has bipartisan support, and even that Trump started the CISA agency. The only thing holding it up are 2 republicans and 1 democrat over some contract that probably has something to do with their buddies getting some contract deal. This isn't about "this administration", it's about your everyday political favors behind closed doors that has been happening since governments have been a thing.

That doesn't account for the ~1,000 employees being gutted from the agency and leaving a maliciously incompetent acting director in place. Both of which are directly caused by the current admin and won't be remedied by Plankey getting a confirmation, possibly for years.

For what it’s worth CISA built upon previous work in the DHS (basically rebranded NPPD as CISA) which evolved from NCSD which itself merged NCS and other cybersecurity teams in the wake of 9/11. America has been doing cybersecurity longer than any other country I think but presenting a rebranding as somehow something Trump is leading the charge on is a weird take.

[flagged]

> You really thing the adminstration's goal is for Americans to not have running water & electricity,

Their goal is to stay in power at all costs. Again, they themselves have stated this plainly enough.

If there is collateral damage to the American people as a consequence of their ambition, well, that's a sacrifice they are willing to make.

> Their goal is to stay in power at all costs.

How, then, do you explain their frequent retreat, e.g. on ICE, on tariffs, etc.?

I think they are pushing very very hard on many fronts, but even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback.

> even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback.

But that doesn't change their goal. They have openly stated what they want, the fact that courts have sometimes intervened or that fig leaves have been given doesn't change the long-term goal.

Were they retreating on ICE when they said they want them at polling stations? It seems like an escalation to me.

> But that doesn't change their goal.

OK, let's assume that.

Goal is one thing. How far they're willing and able to go (and hence be effective in getting that goal) is a different matter. That's my argument.

The current adminitration has shown that their ego (adoration) is a limiting factor in what they're willing to do for power.

To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? Is it just political theater?

Here’s a recent example of him stating the lack of need for elections:

“He boasted that he had accomplished so much that ‘when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.‘“

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/five-takeaways-reuters-inte...

But you left out:

The president expressed frustration that his Republican Party could lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate in this year’s midterm elections, citing historical trends that have seen the party in power lose seats in the second year of a presidency.

“It's some deep psychological thing, but when you win the presidency, you don't win the midterms,” Trump said. He boasted that he had accomplished so much that “when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.”

There's a difference between what he believes or wishes for and what you know the reality. He is self-aware enough to know that Americans will only put up with so much. When you look at his rhetoric in totality and actions, you quickly realize he is paying attention to where the voter is and knows that he cannot do just whatever he wants, no matter what he might wish for.

Re-read what you wrote. Nothing you said helps your point. We are talking about his desires. And yes, he’s not a complete idiot - of course he realizes that he can’t implement whatever he wants to right now. But his stated and implied desire is to end elections, which is the point of this thread.

> But his stated and implied desire is to end elections, which is the point of this thread.

We're debating two different things. I'm arguing that the adminstration's goal is not to get absolute power no matter the cost. The thread started because I pushed back agains the assertion that the administration is willing to inflict unlimited pain on Americans (no electricity, no water) to get and maintain power. The evidence points in the other direction.

You, and others, have latched narrowly on "goal".

> the assertion that the administration is willing to inflict unlimited pain on Americans (no electricity, no water) to get and maintain power.

The assertion was that the administration is ok with collateral damage that might further their stated goals. Did anyone use the term "unlimited pain on Americans" or just you?

You latched narrowly on "American who depends on running water, electricity" and turned it into them doing things "no matter the cost." Nobody was making that argument. The entire country doesn't even run on the same water or electricity services. It's a made up scenario you created to paint the people using the President's own words as overreacting.

> the administration is willing to inflict unlimited pain on Americans (no electricity, no water) to get and maintain power.

You haven't done anything to cast doubt on this premise. The administration has already taken drastic action that inflicts pain on Americans (unconstitutional searches and detentions, tariffs, disabling or dismantling important agencies) in the name of the keeping power. It's not hard to imagine that they are willing to continue to inflict pain on Americans. If you're quibbling about whether that pain can be "unlimited," I would argue that yes, it can be, insofar as that pain doesn't stop them from getting power.

I can hedge this by saying that Trump still needs some support from the American people, as I described in another comment. In particular, he needs support of wealthy donors and local officials, and especially in purple states. But he has proven he will hurt people in solidly blue states [1] [2] because he's already decided he doesn't need them.

Concrete example: would Trump turn off the entire electrical grid? Yes, if he thought it would help him. Whether it helps him depends on weighing the pain that it causes his supporters against its benefits.

In other words: yes, he is willing to inflict unlimited pain, including for utterly petty reasons, but not if he thinks it will stop him from holding power.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/climate/wind-solar-projec... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/gateway-tunnel-project-...

The administration realizes that they need some goodwill to get power. They can’t simply say “no more elections” and start executing political enemies. While that maybe what they want to do, they realize that this would actually hamper their goal of accumulating power.

> The administration realizes that they need some goodwill to get power.

You mean, they know they need to be voted in! I.e. elections.

No. They know they currently don’t have enough power to end elections. But they are working on it and started this as a desire.

> You mean, they know they need to be voted in! I.e. elections.

They know that they don't need to legitimately win elections to stay in power. All they need to do is keep the support of their base sufficiently to prevent any investigation into their election manipulation. They've already lost the good will of the majority, so they have to find a way to win with a minority.

That means placating their wealthy supporters with giveaways, i.e. the recent NLRB decision that conveniently solves Elon Musk's union problem. [1]

That means helping pliant local officials stay in power, by gerrymandering among other methods.

That means maintaining the support of ICE, who have proven themselves able to use violence against critics of the administration.

[1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/nlrb-dismisses-spacex-c...

> OK, let's assume that.

No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it!

> To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring?

This isn't about "Top Republicans," it is about the administration. The same administration that is actively trying to nationalize elections to prevent that bloodbath.

Secondly, is it conceivable that Republicans fearing an electoral bloodbath would make them more likely to support aggressive election interference (ICE a polling stations, new election laws, Federal takeover of elections, re-litigating 2020 Georgia results)?

> > OK, let's assume that.

> No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it!

Really honest question... can you point us to that explicit statement?

The Trump administration's official executive orders and fact sheets repeatedly state their goal is to have "free, fair, and honest elections".

They have specific policy proposals around voter ID, citizenship verification, and election integrity measures.

I will concede that what they think is free and fair, others might not, like legal ID requirement, so that's a requirement reasonable people can disagree on.

But I do think, but am very open to be proven wrong, that they explicitly state that they want to do away with free elections.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...

> Really honest question... can you point us to that explicit statement?

Yes, right here:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/five-takeaways-reuters-inte...

Other people have already shared the multiple statements Trump has made, I've added some below.

> “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election...”

> "You Won't Have to Vote Anymore"

> "The Republicans should say: 'We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,"

That's not the same thing as policy. That's not the same thing as goal. Politicians say lots of things to get elected, or to troll, or symptoms of senility, etc.

To argue against myself, one could take it at face value. If you do, then you are saying you are near 100% confident that's the goal in which case you ought to do something about it. The lack of more urgency or extreme counter action suggests to me that not enough people truly think that that is fact the goal.

You could maybe accuse me of being naïvely hopeful.

> That's not the same thing as policy.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Would you like a White House memorandum on official letterhead saying "How We'll Steal the Election"?

A fish rots from the head. The president has made his position clear, and his enablers will work to realize his vision.

If you're looking for concrete steps they've taken to undermine elections, you can see the recent blatantly unconstitutional seizing of Fulton County's voter records [1]. Or any of the illegal and coercive actions taken by the president and his minions between Nov 6, 2019 and Jan 20, 2020. As well as the blanker pardoning of many criminals who helped him in that endeavor.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2026/02/10/nx-s1-5710649/fulton-county-2...

You asked for statements and I provided them. Now you are pivoting to "policy" as if authoritarians would release policy papers about how they want to end free and fair elections. Please cite some of those examples if you can find them.

One the other side, we have many historical examples of authoritarians claiming elections to be free and fair in order to cement power. The rest of the world knows Putin isn't receiving 88.5% of the vote in a free and fair election. Stalin and Mussolini also held elections. None were free, fair, or honest and that is the entire point.

> Politicians say lots of things to get elected, or to troll, or symptoms of senility, etc.

Why ask for the statements in the first place if they don't matter and can be waved away?

> The lack of more urgency or extreme counter action suggests to me that not enough people truly think that that is fact the goal.

This isn't about whether "enough people truly think it is the goal." It is about the stated claims and goals of the administration, which have been shared with you multiple times in this thread. Please stop with the red herrings.

> they are limited by what Americans will allow

Sure. The current administration is more message-focused than policy-focused. That's because most voters have no idea about policies, and know only how it's spun on Fox News.

This fact makes it all the more frustrating that so many business and influential people are failing to push back when their voice could make a difference.

> You really thing the adminstration's goal is for Americans to not have running water & electricity, thinking that will keep them in power? That makes no sense.

The GP post literally said that the goal was not to have free elections, and that the other things you mention were collateral damage, or at worst something that could be exploited to further the main goal. You took their two examples of collateral damage, implied the GP thought those were the goal, and ignored his actual claim that the goal was to end fair elections.

It's dangerous to pattern match what you read to something in your head, rather than paying attention to the claims someone actually made.

> The GP post literally said that the goal was not to have free elections

OK, let's assume that.

Goal is one thing. How far they're willing and able to go (and hence be effective in getting that goal) is a different matter. That's my argument.

The current adminitration has shown that their ego (adoration) is a limiting factor in what they're willing to do for power.

To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring? Is it just political theater?

https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+outside+polling+location...

What makes no sense is to be able to observe the last 13 months and then to think that this is 'business as usual'.

Did I imply “business as usual”? I don’t think so.

At the same time, I actually think that characterization lacks usefulness. For instance, in some cases there’s clearly breaking norms (most poeple would porobably mostly for the worse, and in some limited cases for better).

In other cases it is just more overt (or in some cases, more extreme) expression of typical American policy.

You're smack in the middle of accepting the unacceptable because of normalization of deviance. None of this is 'typical American policy'.

It is utter chaos, both internal and external. Your calibration point should not be Trump 1 but the Obama or Clinton administrations which were if not super popular at least competent.

> You're smack in the middle of accepting the unacceptable because of normalization of deviance.

To get a little personal, I will just say that you don't know what's in my heart or on my mind.

To get back on point:

> None of this is 'typical American policy'.

Mabye you will say I'm being pedantic, but I think that's a categorically false statement.

> Your calibration point should not be Trump 1 but the Obama or Clinton administrations which were if not super popular at least competent.

Why cherry pick those two? What about more recent (Biden) or further back? I think you will find that there's a lot of things that are persistent over the last 250 years, including political violence, xenophobia, detaining people without due process, invading other countries, tarriffs, rhetoric that Europe should pay for its own defense, etc.

To be clear, I'm not saying any of these are OK. There are also other positive dynamics that persist, like Americans pushing back and the administration needing to retreat and adjust.

> To get a little personal, I will just say that you don't know what's in my heart or on my mind.

No but you are making statements here and those are indicative.

> Mabye you will say I'm being pedantic, but I think that's a categorically false statement.

That's your privilege.

> Why cherry pick those two?

Because the US economy and the US status in the world under those two sets of administrations was doing well compared to many of the alternatives.

Selection pressure can work like a conspiracy without anyone actively conspiring.

Lots of people are just incompentent, not malicious. This made Hanlon's razor, "assume incompentence not malice," memetically fit in many walks of life, so it spread till millions of Americans followed it when processing news.

As a result, incompetent politicians got more leeway to do malicious things. It turned out that in electoral politics, if you are already an a-hole, leeway to be evil without being called on it is more useful than compentence. Incompetence is hard to fake, so our electoral system now demands that you be both incompetent and an asshole to get elected. The only fix is to change the incentives, which means calling out malice in our politicians when it looks like malice, even if we can't prove that it's malice and not just incompetence, and ESPECIALLY even if the person is incompetent too.

I've come to the conclusion that it is a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter whether someone is incompetent or malicious, the outcomes are what matter so we may as well treat both the same: as malice. That solves a lot of problems and it will hopefully dissuade the incompetents from seeking office. Anybody who still behaves malicious then deserves what they've got coming to them.

All of this pussyfooting is only making matters (much) worse.

It's a "theory". The term "conspiracy theory" is always bad faith. And don't try to "but they're theorizing that people are conspiring!".

> The term "conspiracy theory" is always bad faith.

Hard disagree.

The term serves a legitimate purpose: distinguishing between evidence-based claims about actual conspiracies (which do happen) and unfounded or poorly-supported theories. Watergate was a real conspiracy. The tobacco industry really did conspire to hide health risks. But not every claim of hidden coordination is equally credible.

Legitimate uses include describing theories that rely on unfalsifiable reasoning ("any evidence against it is planted"), highlighting lack of credible evidence for extraordinary claims, distinguishing speculation from established facts.

Bad faith uses includ dismissing inconvenient questions without engaging the evidence, shutting down legitimate skepticism of official narratives, or using it as a thought-terminating cliche to avoid debate.

Now, reasonable people can disagree on whether my characterization is in bad faith or legitimate. I think we could agree on that.

No, the word has long lost that purpose. You unfortunately don't influence whether it has or hasn't. Once upon a time "gay" only meant "happy". You can claim "Well when I call a random person enormously gay, I just mean they're enormously happy", but it doesn't matter. You're in a community that uses English, not andsoitislish.

For reference, I wish you were right, it would be great if indeed the word still served that purpose - but it doesn't.

Not that the objective is institutional rot, nessessarily. More that this administration views institution as fundamentally unimportant.Its the curse of the maintainer. When things are going well bad management thinks that maintenance is a useless expense.

>More that this administration views institution as fundamentally unimportant

Politicians and their lackeys prioritize what makes them popular with the electorate. "Institutions" are not exactly something the electorate holds in high (relative to the recent past decades) esteem these days. And it's only gonna get worse as the boomers croak and are replaced by younger people who've seen institutions do a lot less good in their lifetimes.

The problem is that these institutions are still doing massively useful things. They've been doing them so long that they are invisible. People think the gains that we've made in air quality, consumer rights, labor rights, etc to infinity are natural features of the universe. They are not. They are hard fought and require focused, driven people to keep them. Institutions serve a useful function.

Obviously, this doesn't require a conspiracy. But it's easier to rules over ashes than it is to build a functional country.

> Current administration has the explicit goal to not have free elections going forward.

Where do you get this from?

Some people have eyes and ears.

Vibes, gut feelings, a general understanding of the history of authoritarian movements. But no, let's wait and see if He goes all the way.

from the actual words said by the president???

No no no you don't understand, he was joking. You see, when trump says something I like it's earnest, but if he says something that makes me look bad then he's joking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/25/trum...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-laura-ingraham-f...

Repeated statements by Trump and his circle claiming he’ll run in 2028. Statements by Trump that his supporters won’t ever need to vote again. That little insurrection they tried on January 6th 2021. Their current weaponization and staffing of ICE by people with questionable backgrounds and morals and deploying them against their political enemies under the pretext of illegal immigration (Texas has a bigger problem than Wisconsin For what it’s worth). Constantly praising dictatorial leaders like Putin and Xi while threatening and talking shit about Democratic allies.

So whether or not metastasizes to that point, pretending like this concern has no grounding in actual actions taken and statements uttered is wild, because this playbook isn’t new and the intended direction seems more clear than not.

Hard agree with this and this matches what I’m hearing about the agency. That said, the failures start with Noem, DHS, and its approach to governing. Policies have been actively hostile to those working at the agency, messaging is prioritized over action, policies that make it harder to work overtime or telework or flex to the needs of actual problems, etc and that will likely continue under a new director.

We’ve torched cooperation, shown we cannot protect classified information - if one didn’t know better one would think it was on purpose - but in general incompetence typically reigns. They just don’t think the agency should exist after they said elections in 2020 were generally secure.

If one didn't know better one would think it's incompetence.

Should've made them do leetcode

> shown we cannot protect classified information

Extremely embarrassing that the current POTUS should be in prison specifically for his mishandling of classified information

[flagged]

Ever feel like these things are being burned down not just on purpose, but for the gains of someone else?

Well, yes, but that someone else doesn’t need to be a foreign adversary.

There is a certain type of mentality that just doesn’t believe that government should do anything, and that private enterprise will always have the solution.

Those people appear to be in control of all levers of power in the United States.

It's simpler than ideology about government vs. private enterprise. These are purely transactional people, looking out for what can benefit themselves. It's just about grabbing things for personal gain.

Real world evidence doesn't seem to validate this position.

For example - The ratio of government employees (including contractors) to US population is at an all time high[1], and the ratio of GDP to government expense is at an all time high[2].

It should be obvious if you have a profilgate printer priting dollars left and right, and the printer's controllers livelyhood depends on the printer working, workers will eventually lease printing to anyone willing to pay the controllers.

Thus, doesn't seem like a problem of wealthy people to me. You are always going to have wealthy people in any society. But it seems the fault is at having a printer, and letting people who aren't your neighbor, to control it.

I'm open minded in this being a "Chicken or egg" Problem. But I'd need to hear a compelling argument for it.

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-true-size-of-governme...

[2] https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA

ze/l,dcg;klsd;fmg'sex WHATD. you need to learn how monetary policy works. there's nothing in your response worth correcting it's so wrong.

And completely ignores who is President and his explicit words.

The current President is a big fat liar and everybody knows it. But where's your counter for the argument? Government spending is now at a higher percentage of GDP than it was during the height of WWII, which had been the all-time high for 200+ years. That is inherently inconsistent with the incumbent "just doesn’t believe that government should do anything" -- the current government is doing a lot of something.

While I would not describe Trump's regime as one which "just doesn’t believe that government should do anything"*, I would point out that they did attempt DOGE and kept finding out they were firing load-bearing parts of the system.

IMO even the stuff that they boast about was load bearing stuff that they simply didn't understand, not as they claimed "waste", but perception is key here: they did what they themselves would describe in this way.

* I think "elected king" is a better description of Trump's goals; he seems to want the justice department to be his personal legal team, the armed forces (all armed forces, including police) to be his personal forces, etc.

Why would you write it like it's a mystery. Government spending is for the most part public. Most of it going to two massive buckets military and social support programs (medicare, snap, et al). Now you can argue about how much we should be spending on each, but don't act like it's a big secret where the money is going. The elected representatives (all parties) of this country have voted to increase military spending year over year and most of the population is fine with this.

Separately but equally damaging in terms of spending is one party is consistently doing everything in their power to fuck over the most vulnerable, provide tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, and generally make life miserable for anyone who isn't a wealthy (soon white) dude.

This means the other party being the only sane choice for people with morals, but also being subject to various types of capture corporate or otherwise, gets to spend their time in power bumbling around trying to undo the damage and make sure the wheels don't completely fall off, so the "welfare" state expands by necessity since the only thing the two parties can agree on at this point is that all problems should be solved by throwing absurd amount of money at them and nothing else.

> Most of it going to two massive buckets military and social support programs (medicare, snap, et al).

SNAP is peanuts. About a trillion dollars out of the seven trillion goes to the military and by far the largest amount goes to retirees.

> The elected representatives (all parties) of this country have voted to increase military spending year over year and most of the population is fine with this.

How can you tell if they're fine with it if all of their alternatives lead to the same result?

> Separately but equally damaging in terms of spending is one party is consistently doing everything in their power to fuck over the most vulnerable, provide tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, and generally make life miserable for anyone who isn't a wealthy (soon white) dude.

The party that set up Social Security so that it has an income cap on the tax, makes larger payouts to people who had higher incomes up to the cap and max payouts to people who hit the income cap, and pays out more to white people in aggregate even proportional to their income because they live longer, was the party of FDR. The party that has been obstructing housing construction in San Francisco and other major cities for decades to the detriment of renters, young prospective home buyers and the homeless is the party with the majority in those cities, and you can't even pin that one on the filibuster.

You don't get to blame the other party for the things they screwed up and the things you screwed up.

But they seem to also believe in heavy-handed government intervention to prop up failing businesses. For example Trump's recent announcement that he'll require the military to buy coal power on long-term contracts:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/02/trumps-latest-plan-t...

So on the one hand they're saying government shouldn't do anything, but on the other hand they love having the government put its finger on the scales of the market.

The common thread that resolves this apparent conflict is, of course, billionaires. 100% of Republicans and ~60% of Democrats are in office primarily to serve at the whims of billionaires. They will pursue whatever policies will give more power to billionaires, consistency and hypocrisy are irrelevant.

> ~60% of Democrats

I think you can make that ~80%, but maybe you've done the calculations more diligently than I have.

No, it is more like Reps 75% and Dems 90%, ±5%.

How could you possibly come to this conclusion? Which party literally just voted for tax breaks on the wealthy and corporations, twice in one decade?!

In before "No clearly the party that helps the billionaires the most and is mostly comprised of billionaires and is backed by all the tech billionaires are the good guys, they are the true party of the people"

"So on the one hand they're saying government shouldn't do anything, but on the other hand they love having the government put its finger on the scales of the market."

Rather: They don't want the government to impede capitalist interests (greed), so they're using the government to further their corruption and greed

You think they truly believe private enterprise is going to defend the country from cyberattacks?

I personally find the mentality truly not sane. So, why not? Absolutists appear to not think through a lot of things.

On top of that, there is the whole accelerationist ideology factor, which is also deeply insane to me.

Sure, but under that assumption there’s no reason to rule out any of the other theories, either.

Agreed. I guess my point in OP was about my own realization that crazy stuff need not be at the behest of a foreign adversary.

That is basically the Republicans' entire existence at this point. They would rather blow it up/make it disfunction/burn in down than have a working government. They have proven so with actions/policy like their willingness to pile destructive levels of debt onto the nation in order leverage the damage to their political goal of destroying government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

It's amazing what people will ignore to suit their prejudices. The Presidential cryptocurrency should have been the clearest signal that this was going to be all-grift, all of the time. I don't think any previous President would have been allowed to destroy half of the White House, either. The exact sort of thing that, if an "enemy" had did it, they would be demanding a war over.

Each new fire is a distraction from the chaos created by the previous one.

It's a distraction only if people let themselves be distracted.

You did get the memo from POTUS that loyalty is more important than intelligence, right?

Un-bias intelligence in this operation is not welcomed. One is told what is "factual truth" (not facts themselves) by those who operate out of Pennsylvania Avenue in DC.

If you're not blindly loyal and in line with the administration, then you'll be at risk of losing whatever role you have unless your loyalty is proven then you may receive some of that back based on how much you have demonstrated.

--

The problem in infosec in this world is not competence, it is cult of personality. This is why black t-shirt dislike black polo shirts not so secretly.

Yes, a thousand little petty warlords in waiting.

We're in an era of Disaster Capitalism. Some of the richest people have realized they've nearly extracted all the money they can gain on the current trajectory of nations and came to the conclusion they can make even more money if they destroy everything and then are the ones to rebuild society, their way.

Fallout's storyline from the live-action series, where Vault-Tec dropped the first nuke and started the apocalypse simply so they could wipe out the competition and rebuild later, is a little too on-the-nose.

Ya historically this doesn't traditionally work out for the rich instigators/accelerationist. idk maybe their bunkers are immune from having dirt shoved in the air intakes, either way it's not clear to me that they understand that the people they are trying to fuck over the hardest are the ones who know how to work all the industrial equipment and built the bunkers.

> CISA's own joint advisory confirmed that Volt Typhoon actors maintained access inside some victim environments for at least five years, using living-off-the-land techniques that make them nearly invisible to traditional security tools.

What are these living-off-the-land techniques?

According to CISA's joint advisory (AA24-038A), here's specifically how they stayed inside for 5 years: Valid credentials and stolen accounts. They repeatedly dumped NTDS.dit (the Active Directory database) from domain controllers to harvest every credential in the environment. In one confirmed case they extracted NTDS.dit from three domain controllers over a four-year period. They kept coming back to re-dump so they always had current, valid passwords. Only operated during normal business hours. They studied the victim's work patterns and only used compromised credentials when legitimate admins would be active, so authentication logs looked normal. Targeted log deletion. They deleted specific logs to cover their tracks. Routed traffic through compromised SOHO routers. Fortinet, Cisco RV320, Netgear, and other end-of-life home/small office routers. Made their traffic appear to originate from legitimate residential IPs, not foreign infrastructure. Zero malware. Literally none. They used only wmic, ntdsutil, netsh, PowerShell, cmd.exe, certutil, ldifde, net, and other native Windows tools. Nothing for an EDR to signature match against. Minimal activity between credential dumps. They got in, dumped creds, did light recon, then went silent. They weren't exfiltrating data. They were pre-positioning for future disruption. That silence is what made them invisible.

It's a term-of-art that means to use the tools that are already available on the target machine. So rather than shipping a custom binary/shellcode/etc which exfiltrates data or whatever, you string together existing powershell/unix/etc commands to do so. It's effective because it's hard to distinguish these from legitimate processes.

Traditional malware relies on delivery of “payload” with a custom program and data, and/or establishing persistence by installing files to local storage.

These behaviors generate distinctive evidence of compromise in-progress, active, and after the fact, so your AV software or forensics team can identify it.

“Living off the Land” means minimizing or eliminating the payloads and the system modifications, and leveraging anything and everything that is found already existing in the system.

Obviously while presenting extra logistical challenges, LOL can be stealthier and easier to deploy on your target systems.

I don't know about this specific case, but there is a list of well-known techniques: https://lolbas-project.github.io/

Funny enough, CISA made a joint advisory on it: https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/Joint-Guida...

My understanding is you could write an article like this for every agency right now. Rebuilding is going to be very expensive assuming we get there.

We won't. This is what the end of empire looks like. The US is going to end up a backwards, superstitious, backwater. I would be surprised if the "U" part of USA survives the century.

The one thing that keeps me going through the fall of the US is the knowledge that despite all, there are still lots of happy people in Russia and China. People live their lives under those single-party authoritarian regimes, and many of them are happy. Maybe I can be happy here, too.

I think that's exactly how Russia operates, sadly. Vodka helps, I guess.

“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

Political party in power makes it an explicit goal to dismantle government agencies and privatize all regulations, safety, security, environmental protections.

Chaos ensues.

Average American - "This isn't about politics. Both sides are to blame. We must work together."

Unless people collectively get their heads out of their asses the situation isn't going to magically reverse itself.

I've only really heard of cisa in terms of "fighting disinformation", which seemed more than a little dubious. Can someone speak to what their mission is and how effective they've been at it?

Or is this like the DHS where you just get to say that we haven't had any more 9/11s, so clearly the money and complete transformation of how we think about personal liberties was worth it?

Theoretically, it makes sense that we would need something like a cyber defense agency. Realistically, this doesn't seem like something the government (even at the best of times) would be capable of doing effectively.

Before its recent extension into the mis/disinformation (censorship) space, CISA was primarily focused on coordinating public/private response to cyber threats and distributing information about known vulnerabilities. It is the primary US sponsor of the CVE system, for instance. It also provides guidance regarding best practices to industry and government agencies.

By getting CISA involved in speech regulation, former directors made CISA into a political football, risking its core mission. (This actually happened during the first Trump admin, under a Trump appointee, but continued into the Biden administration.) There is no reason that an organization established to tackle cyber threats should be involved with regulating speech via third parties in NGOs and industry. None. Not even if that speech takes place “on the internet.”

Alex Stamos talked about this a bit on TWiT late last year:

  "It's getting hard to not be conspiracy minded here. They closed  CSRB, destroyed CISA. CISA has no confirmed director.  This just adds to kind of a complete surrender at least on the cyber side. We are spectacularly poorly prepared right now for a cyber attack."

"We are spectacularly poorly prepared right now for a cyber attack."

Then we will deserve it. (Sad to say.)

Hopefully there's still MAD (mutually assured destruction). That is, the US has (I presume) a rather formidable array of cyber offensive capabilities. Anyone thinking of cyber attacking the US might find that concerning - hopefully concerning enough that they decide that an attack isn't worth it.

I mean, I'd far rather that that US had both offensive capability and a solid defense. But the situation is not totally hopeless - or so I hope.

And a cyberattack would justify another war and extra powers of emergency. Perfect!

"America [...] Is Burning Down and Nobody's Coming to Put It Out [because it decided to do so to itself]"

There, fixed the title with some subbtle edits. /s

[dead]

This is a good thing. CISA was run by a bunch of BAH consultants that loved to push 8-9 digit cyber security software / license requirements to agencies with no thoughts on how to pay for it. Cyber security in federal is one big circle jerk. Cyber vendors pay into non-profits to write whitepapers why you need X, Y, Z software. This in turn was pushed by IT consultants from the major System Integrators, whom CIO's loved to bend the knee to because that was their near retirement career path. CISA would eventually push these as requirements, with even a bribe of "use our contract, we'll pay for year 1" but no idea how to pay for future years.

I work in a cabinet level agency running an $350M IT program. I'm good what I do, including cyber. We're too focused on paperwork compliance and vendor agents that provide little to no value for 8-9 digit annual costs.

Anonymous Account because I'd like to keep my job.

As an American taxpayer who has a twenty-five year decade long career in IT this concerns me. Doesn't surprise me in the least but concerns me. Yet you see this waste and take to HN instead of reporting the waste and abuse via channels such as whistleblowers?

I'm glad you're good at what you do, but to me, and this attitude of "I know this is an issue but I'm still gonna waste taxpayer funds as part of my job and perl-clutch on HN" is concerning.

Outside of your paycheck contributions and otherwise, that isn't your money friend.

This is how any large federally funded markets operate in the United States. Businesses pay into trade associations or lobbying groups, and they try to impact public policy to ultimately increase/decrease regulation or get funding in future years. This is just the IT version of that.

I live and work in the DMV. I get it. Doesn't change my point.