Anti-fascists gather outside State House

Congress established it. I'm sure JFK was in on the vision and implementation, but Congress established it.

The president does not spend the money. Read a book, libertarian. Understand the system you rebel against, at least.

its been framed a certain way. none of the things on this list are all that unusual in the world of international grantmaking. but put "DEI" in front of anything and now apparently that means it's "insane"...

I work in international development, so I know plenty about how USAID works and the immediate stop work order has had extraordinarily dangerous consequences for people around the world. I'm talking about people in refugee camps, people who are fighting their own oppressive regimes, etc.. I realize that libertarians have no concept of the value of human life beyond what they believe can be privatized and commodified, so I'm sure it's not important to you, but this is about much more than doing away with a theater project somewhere that someone at Mar-a-Lago thinks is "woke".

and listen, I'm no fan of USAID myself, and in my work have actually refused to work with them, but for different reasons. It's a tool of U.S. imperialism, designed to do exactly what you want it to do - increase US influence, control how money is spent on the ground and supposedly displace the "communist" bogeyman. But I do also recognize how critical that money has become for communities and organizations that either have projects with USAID or who are funded by orgs who receive USAID or other funding with federal strings attached.

It is not an exaggeration to say that these moves by the US government will kill people and displace many more.

And yes, you should care about that because when people get displaced, what happens? Migration is what happens. Does the US government want to stop migration or not? Cutting all foreign aid is a great way to increase it exponentially.

This is less about cutting waste than it is about Melon Husk getting revenge on USAID, and about creating global chaos. And I hate to be the one to tell you, but that money isn't going back in your pocket, I can guarantee you that.

So what WOULD you call a group of unauthorized, unvetted people taking over a nation's bank accounts and bureaucracy? If, as you assert, a hostile, politically-motivated takeover of the money, in direct opposition to the laws of the land, is not a coup?

And what WOULD you call a political party or other group obsessed with exalting a nation over all else and "making it great", that targets its detractors with violence and retribution, that seeks to eliminate certain groups from existence, and that openly seeks to have an autocratic leader? Since you say that's not fascism.

it's not <em>really</em> fascism, it's not <em>really</em> a coup.

when will it be? what kind of jackbooted goosestepping do you need to see for it to fit your definition??
do the boots need to finally be on your neck for you to take it seriously?

it's a deadly error to believe that authoritarianism will always look the way it always has, or that it will always look the way it's portrayed in history books and in the media. that's how it's managed to get this far, because extremist Republicans and spineless people (well, AI bots that just met the internet) such as yourself want to convince everyone else "oh it's just a difference of opinion, you need to calm down"