You were correct in your initial assumption. The show The West Wing only focused on a core of close advisors, but you often got reference or hints at others that were just never featured much on screen.

Traditionally, a President has a very large staff. They have panels of experts on all kinds of different things (The President’s Council of Economic Advisors, the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, etc, etc). A quick (and not at all thorough) web search shows that the Executive Office of the President of the United States typically employs ~2,000 people.

The current administration is run by neophytes and morons who have little-to-no experience in government and don’t really know what they’re doing. They’re running the government like the mob, where they value loyalty and ideological purity over experience and expertise. So they only give important jobs (like making their tariff list) to very loyal people who will do whatever the President wants. As such, the people doing the work have no clue what the fuck they’re doing, so they look for shortcuts. That’s why we keep seeing things like programs being cancelled which include the word “biodiversity” as a result of them just ctrl+f “diversity” and hitting delete. That’s also why they turned to ChatGPT to figure out their tariffs, because they have no clue how else to do it, and have nobody with intelligence and experience to ask.

I have a better idea. Why don’t we just leave them the fuck alone?

Governments were formed and exist to protect property rights. As much as they can be said to have an underlying purpose, it’s to protect property rights, and those who own more property will always have a greater level of protection.

The thing the liberal revolutions of the 19th century, socialist revolutions of the 20th century, and the development of social democracies in the 20th century taught governments is that there comes a point where wealth inequality gets so extreme that it threatens the stability of government, which poses the largest possible threat to property rights. Governments learned that they need to have some form of wealth redistribution in order to prevent a violent revolution. To the degree that governments do address wealth inequality, it’s focused on doing it just enough to prevent the system from collapsing.

That’s why there’s really nobody focused on complete wealth equality. They don’t want that. They want to maintain status quo property rights.

I’d call it “teasing” or “play” rather than “trolling”. Trolling has a bit of a mean connotation to it where as teasing/play is more, well, playful.

But, yes, after a certain point babies/infants do understand teasing play. That’s essentially what games like peek-a-boo are. Babies don’t have real object permanence until they’re 8-12 months. That is, they don’t fully have the ability to recognize that a thing still exists when it is not within their site/sensory perception until they’re 8-12 months. (It gradually develops, so they’ll gain more and more object permanence as they get older rather than just turning on all of a sudden.) When you play peek-a-boo, you’re using this lack of fully developed object permanence to tease them. They won’t recognize it as teasing at first, but they get it pretty quickly. That’s why they laugh and have fun with it.

I’m not a liberal. Thanks.

OK, buddy. You’re wrong on like every point, but you go on believing whatever you want.

That is, in fact, how the world works. And communists are leftists…

Just throwing this out there, the fascists and reactionaries have 0 qualms with having a bunch of kids. Do you want the generation of people who will be running the world when we’re old to be entirely raised by fascists and reactionaries? Where will future leftists come from if not from present leftists?

This completely contradicts your earlier point:

People that don’t want children usually think of the potential wellbeing of a future human. People that do want children, usually do so for selfish reasons.

Are you choosing to not have kids (which is a perfectly fine and morally defensible decision to make) because you’re thinking of the potential wellbeing of a future human, or for the selfish reason that it would make your socioeconomic situation more difficult?

Again, simply saying “I just don’t want to have kids” is perfectly fine. But you tried to moralize it by saying people who do have kids are selfish and those who don’t are altruistic. Yet the reason you gave for not having kids was selfish.

I am very much a leftist (anarchist, to be specific). I have 2 kids and I absolutely LOVE being a dad. It’s the single most fulfilling and enjoyable thing I’ve done in my entire life.

If you don’t want kids, that’s perfectly fine. Kids need a loving an nurturing home, and if someone is unwilling to provide that, they shouldn’t have kids just to have them. But I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with having kids if you want them.

From an ideologically leftist perspective (which absolutely should NOT be the determining factor in having kids), remember how much focus the fascists put on family and kids. They are having plenty of kids who will be raised with their fascist ideology. Do you really want the generation who will be running the world when we’re old to be entirely raised by fascists?

I didn’t have kids because of my politics, but I’m happy to know that at least 2 future adults will be raised by me with my values.

most don’t seem to want to have children either for the uncertainty of the future or because they are too expensive or because it wouldn’t give them too much time to organize or whatever

I’d just say that every single one of these factors has been in play for virtually all of history and yet people still had kids and were able to do great things. John Brown had like 20 kids, but that didn’t stop him from fighting slavery. Nestor Makhno had a daughter. Our world is nowhere near as dire as the one Makhno lived in, and he built an entire anarchist society. What do you think the birth rate in places like Rojava is?

These aren’t very good reasons to not have kids, they’re just justifications people pull out when they feel like saying “I just don’t want kids” isn’t good enough. It is. if you don’t want kids, that’s fine. Don’t try to make up some reason why others who do shouldn’t.

I do agree that he is incredibly detached from reality and probably overestimates his support, but I don’t think that’s a factor in what he’s doing to destroy/fleece the government. I think he overestimated the competency of himself and the kids he’s having do all the coding work.

I don’t agree.

These fascists are all following the political ideology and strategies laid out by Curtis Yarvin under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. He’s been in the orbit of people like Peter Thiel for 10+ years and has been very influential among the tech oligarch crowd.

His vision centers around creating a tech-oriented monarchy for America. At the top would be the president who would operate more like the Chairman of the Board in a corporate structure. Rather than governing on a day-to-day basis, this President/King would appoint a CEO to oversee the actual management of government. That’s the role Musk has taken on.

Trump appoints Musk to do the actual running of the country to accomplish what Trump wants accomplished while letting Trump seem above the fray (at least that’s the intention, Trump is too incompetent to actually stay above the fray). Musk isn’t a red herring. He’s not diverting from anything. He’s just the guy doing the job so Trump can go golf all day.