5 ms·

History tells us what will happen next with Brexit and Trump

16 points by iamben 10y ago

ebfe 10y ago
>There were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong..., but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now. In what world does this author live?
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  The author lives in a fantasy where the Supreme Court Judges appointed by Obama will somehow side with Trump's total disregard of the Constitution. And where Trump can just ask the military to go and kill all member of Congress and the military will just do it, with no regard for the Constitution, which they pledge to uphold. Where civilian do not have guns to protect themselves. And there is no NRA or well-regulated militias to protect civilians against a tyranny. Where, somehow, Trump is able to assume command over every cops to turn against each cop's own cities and states. A world where the 50 states, backed by their own militias like the National Guards, will just let a federal government become a tyranny without fighting back. The delusion of this author is high. People like this author does not understand the checks and balance built into our government to prevent such a situation from happening. The many arms forces that check each other: The federal government's arm forces (the military), the states' arm forces (National Guards), the cities' arm forces (cops), the people's arm forces (well regulated militia like the the Minute Men), and the armed people themselves. All these different arms forces will never join together under a tyranny President. They are a check a tyrant President, and they are a check on each other. Not only that, the majority of the military will never go against the American citizens and the Constitution, no matter what a tyrant President says. In fact, the military will instead arrest the tyrant President, and put him to trail with Congress to impeach him. Peoples like this author are delusional.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The author lives in a fantasy where the Supreme Court Judges appointed by Obama will somehow side with Trump's total disregard of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has 9 seats, one is currently vacant and the majority leadership in the Senate has indicated that they intend to keep it that way until, at least, the next President is in office. The remaining 8 Justices were appointed by: Ronald Reagan (1), George H. W. Bush (1), Bill Clinton (2), George W. Bush (2), and Barack Obama (2). Assuming Trump is able to fill the vacant seat, any of his actions that were challenged could be upheld by an outright majority of the Court without any Justice appointed by a Democrat (much less any specifically appointed by Barack Obama) siding with it. Even without Trump appointing a justice, his challenged policies could survive Supreme Court review without any Democrat-appointed Justices siding with them, so long as they were upheld by the Circuit Court through which they passed on the way to the Supreme Court, since a 4-4 Supreme Court split leaves the lower court decision as the end of the issue. (Some of the rest of your objections might have some merit, but this one has none.)
    - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
      >Circuit Court And that's assuming that the Circuit Court will somehow support Trump's tyranny. Which is never gonna happen (even Republicans judges don't like Trump). So again, the author is delusional.
mindslight 10y ago
Of course the author misses the causality of Brexit/Trump/generalspite, which is the political upper class gradually implementing authoritarian control and economically squeezing us ever harder. If we wanted to stop the current trend, we would have had to do so several decades ago.
rdlecler1 10y ago
The 'Make America Great Again' vote is coming from people who are less well off (at least relatively) than in prior generations. You can't just dismiss that. These people have real grievances, even if the proposed solution is not the right one. Showing that the mean average has improved (with most value captured by the wealthy and well educated) does not matter to the lowest denominator. The problem is that the elites always tend to go too far. Eventually the downtrodden will use whatever weapon they have at their disposal to punish the counterparty; even if it comes with a great cost to themselves. What's their alternative? Rolling over again and watching elites benefit? That's is never going to improve your situation. If we don't want Trump then we can't ignore his voters just because they don't share our values and beliefs. There is no free lunch here. If we ignore these people then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The compromise may not be the ideal outcome, but this is a prisoners dilemma scenario and the pursuit of the ideal scenario usually leads to the worst scenario for all parties.
Gustomaximus 10y ago
> In a nutshell, at university I would fail a paper if I didn’t compare at least two, if not three opposing views on a topic. Taking one telling of events as gospel doesn’t wash in the comparative analytical method of research that forms the core of British academia. I thought this was a great line. I wish people could bring this into general thinking and journalism. Showing some understanding, and then likely empathy, to other views is likely one of the best things we can introduce to being a more peaceful and generally better world.

16 points by iamben 10y ago

ebfe 10y ago

>There were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong..., but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now. In what world does this author live?

DefaultUserHN 10y ago
The author lives in a fantasy where the Supreme Court Judges appointed by Obama will somehow side with Trump's total disregard of the Constitution. And where Trump can just ask the military to go and kill all member of Congress and the military will just do it, with no regard for the Constitution, which they pledge to uphold. Where civilian do not have guns to protect themselves. And there is no NRA or well-regulated militias to protect civilians against a tyranny. Where, somehow, Trump is able to assume command over every cops to turn against each cop's own cities and states. A world where the 50 states, backed by their own militias like the National Guards, will just let a federal government become a tyranny without fighting back. The delusion of this author is high. People like this author does not understand the checks and balance built into our government to prevent such a situation from happening. The many arms forces that check each other: The federal government's arm forces (the military), the states' arm forces (National Guards), the cities' arm forces (cops), the people's arm forces (well regulated militia like the the Minute Men), and the armed people themselves. All these different arms forces will never join together under a tyranny President. They are a check a tyrant President, and they are a check on each other. Not only that, the majority of the military will never go against the American citizens and the Constitution, no matter what a tyrant President says. In fact, the military will instead arrest the tyrant President, and put him to trail with Congress to impeach him. Peoples like this author are delusional.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The author lives in a fantasy where the Supreme Court Judges appointed by Obama will somehow side with Trump's total disregard of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has 9 seats, one is currently vacant and the majority leadership in the Senate has indicated that they intend to keep it that way until, at least, the next President is in office. The remaining 8 Justices were appointed by: Ronald Reagan (1), George H. W. Bush (1), Bill Clinton (2), George W. Bush (2), and Barack Obama (2). Assuming Trump is able to fill the vacant seat, any of his actions that were challenged could be upheld by an outright majority of the Court without any Justice appointed by a Democrat (much less any specifically appointed by Barack Obama) siding with it. Even without Trump appointing a justice, his challenged policies could survive Supreme Court review without any Democrat-appointed Justices siding with them, so long as they were upheld by the Circuit Court through which they passed on the way to the Supreme Court, since a 4-4 Supreme Court split leaves the lower court decision as the end of the issue. (Some of the rest of your objections might have some merit, but this one has none.)
  - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    >Circuit Court And that's assuming that the Circuit Court will somehow support Trump's tyranny. Which is never gonna happen (even Republicans judges don't like Trump). So again, the author is delusional.

mindslight 10y ago

Of course the author misses the causality of Brexit/Trump/generalspite, which is the political upper class gradually implementing authoritarian control and economically squeezing us ever harder. If we wanted to stop the current trend, we would have had to do so several decades ago.

rdlecler1 10y ago

The 'Make America Great Again' vote is coming from people who are less well off (at least relatively) than in prior generations. You can't just dismiss that. These people have real grievances, even if the proposed solution is not the right one. Showing that the mean average has improved (with most value captured by the wealthy and well educated) does not matter to the lowest denominator. The problem is that the elites always tend to go too far. Eventually the downtrodden will use whatever weapon they have at their disposal to punish the counterparty; even if it comes with a great cost to themselves. What's their alternative? Rolling over again and watching elites benefit? That's is never going to improve your situation. If we don't want Trump then we can't ignore his voters just because they don't share our values and beliefs. There is no free lunch here. If we ignore these people then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The compromise may not be the ideal outcome, but this is a prisoners dilemma scenario and the pursuit of the ideal scenario usually leads to the worst scenario for all parties.

Gustomaximus 10y ago

> In a nutshell, at university I would fail a paper if I didn’t compare at least two, if not three opposing views on a topic. Taking one telling of events as gospel doesn’t wash in the comparative analytical method of research that forms the core of British academia. I thought this was a great line. I wish people could bring this into general thinking and journalism. Showing some understanding, and then likely empathy, to other views is likely one of the best things we can introduce to being a more peaceful and generally better world.