[dead]
What's Going on at the FBI?
81–90 of 189 posts
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> During his four years as president, Democrat Joe Biden experienced a sustained series of defeats at the U.S. Supreme Court... "I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-bide... I'm not…
Doesn't make it more normal. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
I guess it depends on what you mean by normal. The point I am trying to make is it is common for Presidents to do things which are later deemed illegal.
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the next four years will be the stress test of the strength of US institutions against an authoritarian president. As well as a stress test against half the voting population that thinks an authoritarian president is peachy and somehow patriotic.
Half of the voting population were so fed up with the economy that they went with the nuclear option. It’s just that most of them have not read history and none of them have lived through war or fascism to understand what they are signing up for. They will all learn their lesson.
I think the problem is that most people think nothing ever happens, or to put it bluntly "It couldn't happen here". Harris literally offered nothing - when pressed she even said that she wouldn't have done anything different from Biden, which is the last thing you want to hear about a president whose only selling point was not being Trump and giving the country breathing room to come up with something better. Yes, the US recovered faster and stronger from COVID and the recession than the rest of the world but that doesn't change people's lived realities of living paycheck to paycheck with prices only ever going higher.
People don't "learn their lesson". Accelerationism always fails. Suffering, fear and looming threats are what enable the rise of authoritarianism and autocracy, not what helps overcome them. Fascism is rarely overthrown by a popular revolt that establishes direct democracy and egalitarianism. It's usually overthrown by a military junta or gradually coalesces into an oligarchy that reintroduces the trappings of liberal democracy to placate the masses.
As much as the American right loves to call the Democrats "radical leftists" or "socialists", the Democrats have nothing to offer in response to the people's suffering. The Republicans can at least lie through populism: claiming to be opposed to "the swamp" while installing their own loyalists and family members in positions of government, claiming to fight the "coastal elites" while implementing the whims of billionaires, claiming to defend "freedom of speech" while prohibiting government agencies from using progressive terminology, etc etc. But the Democrats can't even do this because at best they can offer half-measures or compromises. They couldn't even pass the Green New Deal and now the Trump government keeps referring to it as if it had actually been implemented.
This isn't a uniquely American problem. The social democrats in Germany have recently come out in opposition to voting on initiating the process to investigate the far-right AfD party (which Elon Musk has been actively supporting btw, which is an unprecedent level of foreign influence) for qualifying for a trial to be banned as unconstitutional (i.e. roughly equivalent to proposing a grand jury with the outcome being a constitutional court trial being launched or not). Why? Because if they would participate in such a vote and support it, "all democratic parties" should support it but there's a good chance the conservative party would vote against or abstain and this would "hurt the democratic parties" by making them no longer unified in their opposition to the AfD - or that if the conservatives were to vote in favor, this might radicalise some of its supporters to vote for the AfD instead. Mind you, the conservative party has already repeatedly cooperated with the AfD and they have supported each others' proposals, although the conservative party is officially ruling out any potential coalition with them while incrementally adopting their rhetoric. The socdems are too concerned with protecting the optics of the system itself and maintaining decorum to directly attack a party that is fundamentally opposed to the principles underlying that system.
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the person's point. Many people in the past would see Fauci as a prime example of someone who is just a non-partisan career government servant, while others, which it seems you and many people in the current administration, see people like him as overtly partisan and borderline evil. NB: I really disliked the preemptively pardoning. Like really really disliked it and wish it were not legal.
> NB: I really disliked the preemptively pardoning. Like really really disliked it and wish it were not legal. I also really hate it, but it's becoming more obvious with time that they to some degree were necessary in this case. Ideally they wouldn't be needed or possible, but Trump and his administration seem to have multiple axes to grind with anyone in the government not directly subserviant to him.
Not necessary, just out of fear. They capitulated to Trump's threats instead of standing up and fighting hard for principles.
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the next four years will be the stress test of the strength of US institutions against an authoritarian president. As well as a stress test against half the voting population that thinks an authoritarian president is peachy and somehow patriotic.
1/3rd of the voting population
I meant voting population as in population of people that voted not population of people eligible and registered to vote.
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes it a coup? Trump was elected on a platform of government reform and that's what he is doing.
A leader who is democratically elected, and then violates or exploits loopholes in the law to give themselves powers that they are not supposed to have, is engaging in a self-coup. The US Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to determine how the federal government’s money is spent. Elon Musk’s team within the Executive Office of the President have reportedly gained full admin access to th…
> The US Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to determine how the federal government’s money is spent.
With regards to the constitution specifically the power of the purse seems a little vague. In 1974 the Impoundment Control Act was passed as a response to, and to prevent, presidents from unilaterally impounding.
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/impoundment-threat-explain...
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#87Wild to see a bloodless coup in action.
The worst part is, how do you even counter the injected rot? If they demand loyalty tests and infest your institutions how is it countered? do the other side also have to do the same (assuming they have the opportunity)? All feels incredibly illiberal. I hope for the best that the oaths of office specific to these institutions hold.
Resist, resist, resist.
If they want to go through with a coup like this, let them do it in the courtrooms.
They're simply relying on a blitzkrieg of (often illegal) firing/purges, assuming that no-one will challenge them, or that any challenge will take so long that they're ineffective.
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won’t be.
You're right, it won't be. This is the only positive thing I can currently see. They could've easily pulled it off without resistance (i.e. bloodshed) in most of Europe, but in the US the indoctrination of US exceptionalism regarding "freedom" and "democracy" from an early age results in a non-negligible number of people who would actually put their lives on the line for this and willing to take part in active resist…
Have you even watched international news for the past few years?
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#89I’m not from the US and news like this change my perception of that country - it seems unstable; just like I’m not considering a Wordpress blog, I’d think twice before any long term plans that involve the US. The comparison to the Wordpress drama works surprisingly well for me, complete with vendettas and an overzealous leader, just on an even larger scale and affecting more people.
imagine being energy dependent on a regime that bullies you from Washington, and being asked to increase security spending to 5% of GDP by purchasing US weapons systems. while being told by the same regime they might take over Greenland or the Panama canal. when putting US foreign policy into perspective over the past 30 (or more depending where you are) years, then aligning with China suddenly looks a lot less awful…
Other NATO partners being asked to increase defense spending to 5 percent is entirely reasonable. And that's with or without Trump asking for it.
I live in Europe, I am European: we've outsourced our own defense for far too long. It is absurd that a country presenting an existential threat to us has been met with more supplied resistance from a country across the earth than Europe.
It's long past time for Europe to wake up.
Re: What's Going on at the FBI?
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the next four years will be the stress test of the strength of US institutions against an authoritarian president. As well as a stress test against half the voting population that thinks an authoritarian president is peachy and somehow patriotic.
Half of the voting population were so fed up with the economy that they went with the nuclear option. It’s just that most of them have not read history and none of them have lived through war or fascism to understand what they are signing up for. They will all learn their lesson.
So fed up with the economy that they stopped talking about it immediatly after the election, even though no action had been taken.
Because:
A) It was all based on "vibes" and beliefs, not their own actual reality (the gap between "how well off are you personally" and "how do you think others are well off" was wild)
B) Voters lie and the economy was, like in 2016, the fig leaf for the true driver: egoism and cruelty. If Trump's tarriffs destroy their wellbeing, there will be no outcry, because "the cruelty is the point", to the point of self-harm as long as "the others" are harmed even more.