If that was the case, that would definitely mean he is not a state actor, which is defined as «An entity that is a part of, or which operates licitly or semi-licitly on behalf or in service of, a government agency.».
The only way you can claim he is a state actor if you think he acts, in his management of X, on behalf of the US state, a claim which would be entirely laughable even to partisans.
If that was the case, that would definitely mean he is not a state actor, which is defined as «An entity that is a part of, or which operates licitly or semi-licitly on behalf or in service of, a government agency.».
The only way you can claim he is a state actor if you think he acts, in his management of X, on behalf of the US state, a claim which would be entirely laughable even to partisans.
> operates [..] semi-licitly on behalf or in service of, a government agency
Hard to see how he doesn't fit this criteria? That DOGE thing is clearly a US government agency of some sort.
> The only way you can claim he is a state actor if you think he acts, in his management of X, on behalf of the US state, a claim which would be entirely laughable even to partisans.
If you take the Louis XIV "I am the state" approach, then, well, he has, right? He promoted Trump on the platform during the election, then walked into a job with the state.
he controls the US government right now through DOGE.
If that was the case, that would definitely mean he is not a state actor, which is defined as «An entity that is a part of, or which operates licitly or semi-licitly on behalf or in service of, a government agency.».
The only way you can claim he is a state actor if you think he acts, in his management of X, on behalf of the US state, a claim which would be entirely laughable even to partisans.
... In what way is he not? He is de facto if not de jure more or less in charge of the US government.
If that was the case, that would definitely mean he is not a state actor, which is defined as «An entity that is a part of, or which operates licitly or semi-licitly on behalf or in service of, a government agency.».
The only way you can claim he is a state actor if you think he acts, in his management of X, on behalf of the US state, a claim which would be entirely laughable even to partisans.
> operates [..] semi-licitly on behalf or in service of, a government agency
Hard to see how he doesn't fit this criteria? That DOGE thing is clearly a US government agency of some sort.
> The only way you can claim he is a state actor if you think he acts, in his management of X, on behalf of the US state, a claim which would be entirely laughable even to partisans.
If you take the Louis XIV "I am the state" approach, then, well, he has, right? He promoted Trump on the platform during the election, then walked into a job with the state.
1 reply →