[flagged]
There's no need for hyperbole. Trump is bad but there's been less than 100,000 Ukrainian deaths (troops and civilians combined) since the beginning of the war in 2022, let alone under his reign.
291–300 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
There's no need for hyperbole. Trump is bad but there's been less than 100,000 Ukrainian deaths (troops and civilians combined) since the beginning of the war in 2022, let alone under his reign.
>A White House Liaison is to be installed in every independent regulatory agency to enforce direct presidential control Wow. Literally installing political officers in agencies.
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
Most dictorships started by the people in power streamlining decadent processes and burocracy, by putting into place the new regulations that would improve everything. Until a couple years later on average, a state protection organism gets put in place to check those organisations are working as expected. Eventually, the state protection organism gets a bit carried away on what they are supposed to be checking on.
"Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup, though others have been started by foreign intervention, elected officials ending competitive elections, insurgent takeovers, popular uprisings by citizens, or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government. Between 1946 and 2010, 42% of dictatorships began by overthrowing a different dictatorship, and 26% began after achieving independence from a foreign government. Many others developed following a period of warlordism." [1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship (see "Formation")
The only rebuttal I see in the media is that congress set these up to be “independent”. But our government doesn’t have independent branches. In fact that sounds a lot like “unelected and unaccountable”. So which branches are these agencies under? Is it in the judicial, legislative, or executive - and if it’s in the executive why can’t the chief executive manage business? On the other hand, one of the issues brought…
* FOIA tells the executive branch when/how to share documents.
* APA tells executive agencies what they have to do to make a rule.
* Congress gives line item budgets, and the executive doesn't get to reassign funds.
* Executive agencies must submit to audits from GAO (within congress)
It's perfectly reasonable for congress to limit how executive agency heads can be hired/fired too. After all, it's agencies that congress enacted and gave power too, and for legitimiate reasons that congress has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This Executive Order says they are law, checkmate, sane people.
Judge can say no it isn’t and you’ll have to fight it out in court.
This is obviously alarming, and if used to disregard the Judiciary's interpretation of law, unconstitutional. But I'm puzzled by the exemption of the Federal Reserve and FOMC. He's previously beefed with them, and would presumably find the additional leverage useful. Why explicitly exclude them?
I agree with Kasey, too, but I think the exception here is mostly legalese.
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
This is the problem with people being OK with executive overreach when "their team" is in power. Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further. We should desire that the legislative side actually legislates and each branch of the government holds the other two in check, regardless of partisan control. Further having our judicial branch become open…
“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
Oppression when Galadriel is on the throne may be better than that for Sauron; it's still oppression.
If there are better third-party reports, let me know and I'll add to this list. The above is just the first one bestowed by Google.
Every single move the current government is making increasingly seems to be a clever way to stack the chips in their favor in perpetuity.
We seem to be living though the backstory of how some far-off sci-fi civilization came to be, replete with greedy tech corps in the ears and pockets of narcissistic leaders.
The irony is that it's impossible to say if this will ultimately play out as a dystopian horror or a utopian fantasy.
If you're wondering why the President can essentially write his own laws when that's not how our system is supposed to work, it's because the President gets extra powers whenever we're in a state of national emergency. We've been in a state of national emergency since 1979.