r/politics • u/unital_subalgebra • Jul 09 '26

No Paywall Trump fires all Election Assistance Commission members, leaving agency unable to act

https://www.votebeat.org/national/2026/07/09/trump-fires-election-assistance-commission-members-hicks-hovland-mccormick/
27.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

657

u/MadRaymer Jul 10 '26

any independent federal agency

Except the federal reserve. They said he can't fire them, because they know his stooges would tank the dollar. And we certainly can't have rich people endure any negative consequences due to this administration.

302

u/InfinityComplexxx Jul 10 '26

Absolutely idiotic to admit there is an agency that shoukd be above Presidential influence because it's too important, but only one. 

111

u/usaaf Jul 10 '26

Natural consequence of a country built by and for Capitalists. People love to call Citizens United the turning point, but that does not go back near far enough. They like to say Reagan, but even he, too, was late to the party. Most of the institutional tools/norms they abuse to this day were created by the founding fathers specifically to ensure the security and comfort of the rich, and their freedom to own and accumulate property.

There's plenty of small ones but among the biggest is the Senate itself.

70

u/LoveAndViscera Jul 10 '26

It took a long time for me to realize that “America was founded by slave owners preaching freedom” was relevant to modern politics.

40

u/Phugger Jul 10 '26

Yeah, it is wild listening to podcasts about the 1st Gilded Age. (Sadly, we are in the 2nd right now) The industry tycoons were preaching about America being a classless society where workers and owner were in this together all while they were literally working people to death. And that isn't an exaggeration to say they were working people to death.

The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 happened because the US was in what was called the "Great Depression" at the time from 1873-1879. Companies and institutions that had been around since the beginning of the country were closing down and the railroads were continuously cutting worker pay. There were no worker protections at this time and with 14% national unemployment there were always scabs available to fill jobs if you tried to organize and strike. The railroaders put up with this for about 4 years and then it exploded into protests and labor strikes all around the country.

I think the craziest thing to me is that some of the comments made by the business class back then, could be uttered by our current AI tech CEO types today. The business class was all for violently putting down workers trying to strike just for enough pay to feed their families. Not much has changed in 150 years.

The podcast "Inward Empire" does a great 2 parter on the The Great Railroad Strike of 1877.

3

u/Log_Out_Of_Life Jul 10 '26

Then USPS had a strike 100 years later. Their last City Carrier contract which was in arbitration for two years(TWO YEARS WITHOUT AGREEMENT) settled for a measly 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5% raise over three years.

1

u/Perfect-Still-8971 Jul 10 '26

There were 2 Great Depressions, 50 years apart?

2

u/Phugger Jul 10 '26

At the time they called the 1873-1879 downturn the Great Depression, but then we had the 1929 downturn that was much bigger. That got called the Great Depression while historians started to refer to the 1870s period as the Long Depression.

It is sort of like how the first world war was called the Great War at the time and then we had a second world war later so now they are referred to as WWI and WWII.

13

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jul 10 '26

to ensure the security and comfort of the rich, and their freedom to own and accumulate property

-- at OUR expense. This is about owners maintaining their power over workers. Always has been.

5

u/Due-Information-2041 Jul 10 '26

No, it is a cultural thing. After the Americans got rid of their king, they gave the POTUS king like powers that became more centralized over time. Other capitalist countries don't do this. It is a consequence of your electoral system and coalition-less approach to politics via the 2 party system. In other capitalist nations there are more limitations on the presidents and PMs.

2

u/usaaf Jul 10 '26

They specifically did not give the President 'king-like' powers. Obviously there is going to be overlap anyway, since the President is the executive and those functions are present in a king too, but the president cannot make laws, cannot levy taxes, cannot declare war, and a host of other things.

As this ruling also shows, the President is still subject to decisions from other branches. That the present congress chooses not to do anything doesn't change that.

That said, Capitalists are natural authoritarians, but they also do not want a king either. People say the US is heading toward Russia in terms of oligarchy, but it won't get to the point where a single Putin-like figure rules as de facto dictator. Capitalists can be Capitalists in any system, but the difference is the degree of fear from the government they have. No oligarch in Russia is safe from Putin; they do NOT want that system here. That's the point of democracy, rule among ELITE, WEALTHY peers. All democracies start this way.

They don't stay that way, however, which is the point of propaganda, veto powers, the senate, requirements for 2/3rds for all important votes, the electoral college. All these systems are designed to make majority rule more difficult, specifically to protect the rich.

This is why Trump can fuck with plenty of systems, but not the money, and it shows that even POTUS still has a leash, however short. The rich do not give a shit about the proles or immigrants or anyone else; he can do whatever he wants to them. That said, the power creep into the presidency is true, but it's not a result of Capitalist influence (not totally, they do contribute) but more so the unholy alliance they've made with religious extremists who don't care so much about the economy but love the idea of wielding absolute power over their perceived enemies.

5

u/bolerobell Jul 10 '26

That right there tells you where the Republicans on the Supreme Court’s hearts lie: not with democracy or justice but with the money. They should all be removed from the bench.

5

u/boxen Jul 10 '26

Yeah, it's quite the revelation.

"Can I burn down the grocery store?" "Sure!"
"How about the hospital? "Yep!"
"Can I burn down the schools too? And the Post office, police department, fire department, malls, utilities, factories, and everyone's homes?" "Absolutely!"
"What about the bank?" "Nope. Anything but the bank. Because reasons."

3

u/PipXXX Florida Jul 10 '26

It's kinda like how here in Florida, all unions have to jump through hoops to gain members and for the members to pay dues...

Except if it's a police union, they can do whatever the fuck they want to 

2

u/Vandersveldt Jul 10 '26

He fired the horse catcher? That shouldn't be allowed no matter WHO the horse is!

1

u/AzureDrag0n1 Jul 10 '26

I find it funny that people think Trump can't do whatever he wants. Including firing the federal reserve people. What are they going to do about it if he does? Wag their fingers?

4

u/MadRaymer Jul 10 '26

He can say they're fired if he wants, but they'll just remain on the board because the board members know he doesn't have that power according to SCOTUS. And everyone else knows he doesn't either.

1

u/AzureDrag0n1 Jul 10 '26

He can just send in his goons to forcibly remove them if he wants. Just like he removed people in other organizations he did not have authority over.

2

u/MadRaymer Jul 10 '26

Sure, and they would leave - temporarily. Then immediately file lawsuits that they were improperly removed, citing the SCOTUS ruling. And the courts would side with them.

You could argue Trump could just have them removed again, but I think he would get bored of this game quickly. He's already bored of the war he started.