Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#31

Post by macintux »

Shivetya wrote: post #13
TulliusCicero wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it suspect? We now have a president with authoritarian tendencies, it makes sense to be worrying about this now.

this entire article has no place on this site and the DNC through its sycophants and the press has been pressing the Hitler angle since before the swearing in. Do you feel like a parrot yet? This site is rapidly sliding into uselessness with all the direct and indirect political crap. apparently the rules don't apply when one side is upset. No one blinked an eye when the last President decided assassination of Americ…

Many, many people were unhappy with the abuses of national security powers under Obama, including those who supported him in general. "No one blinked an eye" is palpably untrue.

The problem with Trump is that he openly declared war on the defining characteristics of the United States even before he was elected. We are a nation of immigrants. We embed religious neutrality in our constitution. We cherish those who have served and died for our country in the military.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#32

Post by greggman »

maxlybbert wrote: post #11

It's hard to know where to begin. It appears that the Economist believes that as long as the right person is president (and, I presume, the right people control Congress), then the Constitution works fine. That isn't a compliment. As James Madison said: "[W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,…

Interestingly the Constitution gives no real power to the Supreme Court. It wasn't until the mid 1800s that the Supreme Court's powers were semi instilled

http://www.wnyc.org/story/giggly-blue-robot

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#33

Post by [deleted] »

jdmichal wrote: post #17
Shivetya wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this entire article has no place on this site and the DNC through its sycophants and the press has been pressing the Hitler angle since before the swearing in. Do you feel like a parrot yet? This site is rapidly sliding into uselessness with all the direct and indirect political crap. apparently the rules don't apply when one side is upset. No one blinked an eye when the last President decided assassination of Americ…

Interestingly, the article was flagged dead at one point but has apparently been restored. So there is at least some contingent that agrees with you.

[deleted]

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#34

Post by lineindc »

nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#35

Post by meanduck »

maxlybbert wrote: post #11

It's hard to know where to begin. It appears that the Economist believes that as long as the right person is president (and, I presume, the right people control Congress), then the Constitution works fine. That isn't a compliment. As James Madison said: "[W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,…

The worst case is neither worst president nor worst damage possible by a presidential power. But its the worst 51% votes can do. Because there will come someone who will say anything to get these votes and people will vote themselves into dystopia.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#36

Post by jcranmer »

maxlybbert wrote: post #11

It's hard to know where to begin. It appears that the Economist believes that as long as the right person is president (and, I presume, the right people control Congress), then the Constitution works fine. That isn't a compliment. As James Madison said: "[W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,…

> If you don't like the fact that President Trump can order the assassination of an American citizen, the time to speak up is when President Obama first claims that authority.

The Economist DID speak up against that when Obama tried to do it. http://www.economist.com/node/21531477

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#37

Post by maxlybbert »

mtgx wrote: post #21

Congress is supposed to be a check on that power. However, because of the systematic corruption of money, Congress is full of compliant and easily bought politicians, though, thus leaving few that would actually have the willingness to fight a despot.

The only way to get money out of politics is to stop making it a worthwhile investment. As long as people can turn a profit, they will be willing to spend money to get in line.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#38

Post by macintux »

macintux wrote: post #31
Shivetya wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this entire article has no place on this site and the DNC through its sycophants and the press has been pressing the Hitler angle since before the swearing in. Do you feel like a parrot yet? This site is rapidly sliding into uselessness with all the direct and indirect political crap. apparently the rules don't apply when one side is upset. No one blinked an eye when the last President decided assassination of Americ…

Many, many people were unhappy with the abuses of national security powers under Obama, including those who supported him in general. "No one blinked an eye" is palpably untrue. The problem with Trump is that he openly declared war on the defining characteristics of the United States even before he was elected. We are a nation of immigrants. We embed religious neutrality in our constitution. We cherish those who have…

Oh, and we certainly don't throw those same allies who patrolled our skies after 9/11 under the Russian bus.

Re: America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot

#40

Post by rock_hard »

lineindc wrote: post #34
nilkn wrote: post #23

The power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term politic…

I have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.

Many of his voters believed he wouldn't be able to do many of the outrageous things he promised...that's why they voted for him anyways!

But these people are now slowly warming up to reality :(

Post reply on HN