Correct headline:
Business man that actually has no idea how business works asks incompetent alcoholic to pull money out of ass in pathetic attempt to keep soldiers from supporting America, the Constitution, and freedom.
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
171 points (96.2% liked)
News
32729 readers
2688 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Seems like he's worried that if the military isn't getting paid for an extended period, that they might directly turn on him. Probably an accurate assumption.
"Any society is no more than three meals away from revolution."
Once people get desperate they may resort to desperate measures.
Ah, so he IS scared of them mutinying over lack of pay. Or at least someone is.
Damn, that's almost exactly what Caracalla did after inheriting the throne of his father, Septimius Severus. "Enrich the soldiers. Spurn everybody else" were allegedly some of his last words of advice to his son.
Caracalla went on to reign like a dictator for years, but he met his end while taking a piss on the side of the road. He had put so many people to death that one of the soldiers on his personal retinue was brother to one of these victims. One stab of a gladius later and that was all it took.
May history reward us with synchronicity in this particular case.
It's almost like we have this whole written history to learn from and the people unable or uninterested in learning keep doing the same shit because they didn't know it was tried before.
Wasn't Caracala following the same policy his father had? Is this the same guy who killed his brother in front of his mother?
Yes and yes. The severan dynasty was arguably the craziest one to ever reign over Rome. After Caracalla we got Elegabalus and his grandmother and the shit they got up to was so over the top even Game of Thrones would pass.
AMERICA SURE LOOKS GREAT FROM THE OUTSIDE...
Sure, if you’re blind or someone mislabelled any of the myriad better places out there.
Good thing he spent billions propping up other countries, huh? America first my ass.
Let them eat golden ballrooms
If he is too concerned, he can use the rose garden to grow crops.
Oh, never mind...
I have some thoughts:
The fact that government shutdown prevented federal workers from being paid (a huge portion being the military) was a large portion of the Democrats' leverage as public sentiment decreases the longer the shutdown persists. If the military is able to be paid, the shutdown will certainly continue as there is less pressure on either side to agree.
The military is able to operate on a limited basis with unobligated/emergency funds, but is not 'funded'. If the pool of available money is used to fund personnel, it will certainly reduce readiness as pre-planned activities will not have funds to proceed or for emergencies. There is also certainly not available funds to repeat this multiple times.
In FY 2024 the DoD’s total budget was about $873.5 billion, and compensation for active‑duty, reserve and retired troops accounted for roughly $191.9 billion – ≈ 22 % of the total budget.
That means this move will cost about almost $16 billion per month assuming everyone including retirees are paid. The Pentagon has identified about $8 billion of unused research‑development, testing and evaluation money from the previous FY that can be redirected, but that doesn't seem to be enough and again, a one time use.
The big one though? Air traffic controllers. When politicians can’t fly, shit gets sorted quick.
Just waves his hands in the direction of the troops and says “Pay them!” Not a clue as to how, with what, where the money comes from, etc.
"Known liar tells idiot to do something he's not allowed to with resources he probably doesn't have on hand with a few days notice," I'm sure this will go well /s
IDK why I've only just realised this, but does the US not have any concept of a formal "opposition" in government?
Here each of 150 or so regions elects a representative. Whichever of those can get 76 others to line up behind them gets to be Prime Minister and forms the government. All the others form the formal "opposition".
Whenever the government does something, the opposition explains to everyone how stupid it is. Often times the opposition gets more air time than the actual government.
The PM couldn't just, you know, make up lies... because the opposition would skewer him.
Do the dems form any kind of cohesive opposition? Does the media just ignore them? Why don't they have any apparatus with which to reset the narrative?
Putting aside the fact that a formal concept of an opposition wouldn't help, because the US has a de facto opposition by nature of having a two-party system: what do you mean, "The PM couldn't just, you know, make up lies"?
Yes they could. This is obvious if you think about it, but this is provable experimentally; the UK had Boris Johnson for three years who lied all the time. Australia's Scott Morrison constantly lied about fossil fuels and climate change. Parliamentary democracies aren't magic.
The opposition was supposed to be the media, but the media is now controlled by the megacorps that also control the government, so they also control the narrative.
There are several reasons why the US has no concept of a formal opposition. One reason is that there is no concept of ever needing to "form a government" in the parliamentary sense. Each elected branch is a separate entity, with its own electoral rules. Particularly in the legislative branch, the majority can do whatever they want (except for the complicated filibuster rules in the Senate.) And the Executive is an entirely separate election. The government is structured directly by the election, and we gave all the levers of government to Republicans last time around. Sometimes the election will result in handing majorities to different parties, and only then will the oppositionhave any real power.
Another reason is that, believe it or not, we have no formal concept of parties in our founding documents. The founders disdained European-style parties, and did not want to replicate them here. They envisioned a country where individuals ran for office, and then all came to Congress representing their individual districts. They did not forsee how easy communication would get in the future, making the local District perspective less important.(also recall that at the founding, both the Senate and Presidential Electors were appointed by State legislatures, so really all elections were local).
And of course, by instituting first-past-the-post elections in these districts, they guaranteed that as communications got easier and national campaigns could emerge, elections would eventually coalesce unto one of two options anyway. The founders' disdain for parties led directly to an even worse two-party system.
The founders debated long after the constitution was ratified too.
Outlawing parties would be in direct violation of their first amendment. Humans are social by nature* - coalitions, parties, groups will form just because we exist.
*Yes I'm counting my AuADHD ass because even though I hate socializing with a passion I want to be able to.
The founders disdained European-style parties, and did not want to replicate them here. They envisioned a country where individuals ran for office, and then all came to Congress representing their individual districts. They did not forsee how easy communication would get in the future, making the local District perspective less important.
The first US party was formed in 1789, that's only 13 years after the US declared independence and only 6 years after the end of the Revolutionary War. Pretty much all of the founders were alive when the Federalist Party was formed, communications didn't get much better than in 1776. By 1794-1795 both the Federalist Party and the newly formed opposition Democratic-Republican Party had state networks working on a local level in pretty much all the states.
I always love how Americans treat their current 2 party system as a new thing that arose due to modern communications but instead it was there since basically the beginning of their country.
But it is still a fact that the 2 party system is not engrained in our founding documents anywhere, and we have no idea of an "opposition" party. Either one party controls the Presidency and Congress at the same time, or it doesn't.
And although those 2 parties did emerge early in the country's history, they eventually dissolved, and are no longer around in any capacity. Another poster here noted that parties are simply human nature.
Rather, the current two-party system is an artifact of the first-past-the-post voting that states adopted. The Constitution doesn't even mandate it, but it is how most states have run their elections since the founding.
Even in a parliamentary system, if the only members of parliament are either conservative or far right, there's no meaningful opposition.
Why don't we just wait 12 months? That's when all the manufacturing starts up. Growing pains