101–110 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think everything has to be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence. I may be wrong, but I think in the US enough voters have been deceived by Donald that they were not well-informed, and so elections are no longer valid. By this, he is in power, and Congress and Senate have been subverted. I also see Donald looking to have complete and untrammeled control, and this is one more act in that direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I enjoy discussing politics, but flagged this because the title is so absurdly far beyond sensationalized and links to a friggin Reddit post which then amps the hyperbole up even further. It's not going to be conducive to interesting or informative discussion for anybody, and seems mostly intended to mislead.
Donald has direct control of entire Federal Gov, controls their budgets, has installed his men in every agency, and will now decide interpretation of law. Congress and Senate both wholly passive (subverted, I would say). That leaves the States and the courts. I think the courts will go next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donald has direct control of entire Federal Gov, controls their budgets, has installed his men in every agency, and will now decide interpretation of law. Congress and Senate both wholly passive (subverted, I would say). That leaves the States and the courts. I think the courts will go next.
Donald may have direct control of the entire Executive branch , but guess what, that's pretty much what the Constitution says. Where exactly is the "dictatorship" here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donald has direct control of entire Federal Gov, controls their budgets, has installed his men in every agency, and will now decide interpretation of law. Congress and Senate both wholly passive (subverted, I would say). That leaves the States and the courts. I think the courts will go next.
Donald may have direct control of the entire Executive branch , but guess what, that's pretty much what the Constitution says. Where exactly is the "dictatorship" here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donald has direct control of entire Federal Gov, controls their budgets, has installed his men in every agency, and will now decide interpretation of law. Congress and Senate both wholly passive (subverted, I would say). That leaves the States and the courts. I think the courts will go next.
Donald may have direct control of the entire Executive branch , but guess what, that's pretty much what the Constitution says. Where exactly is the "dictatorship" here?
The Constitution gives Congress a great deal of oversight over how the executive branch is run. The President is supposed to execute the laws that Congress passes, spend the money that Congress appropriates in the way that Congress says it should be spent, etc. The President can't even appoint his own officials without the Senate's approval.
Beyond the Constitution, there is a long tradition of independent agencies running according to certain laws and principles that are laid out to them. The President is not supposed to directly order the people at these agencies what to do. Think the Department of Justice: you don't want the President ordering prosecutions. You want those decisions to be impartial. Trump just crossed a massive red line in dropping the prosecution of Eric Adams, and he did so purely in order to gain political leverage over Adams. Now, the NY mayor has to do what Trump says, or else Trump can order the DOJ to start prosecuting him again.
Trump has now openly declared on social media that he does not have to even follow the law, because he's "saving the country." He's trying to establish an elective dictatorship. Americans vote every 4 years, and whoever wins runs the entire government however they want, regardless of what the courts or Congress say.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My concerns are; a. Congress and Senate are wholly passive and unable to act. b. The courts will be attacked, and so be unable to act. c. If the courts act, by the time they act, it will be too late; the harm will have been done and will be irreversible.
“Attacked” what does this even mean? The courts have zero power in the first place, and never have. The judiciary, all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, has had to rely on the assent from the other branches that its rulings matter.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and if it goes beyond the scope of executive powers, it will be curtailed or shut down. The position of the executive order is that only the President can interpret laws, including executive orders about interpreting laws. That is to say, if the courts try to stop it, Trump may try to say "the courts don't have that power" and order the DoJ and/or military to block anything they do.
[flagged]