4 ms·

But he doesn't have to do any of the dismantling work himself. He's just installing the loyalists and sycophants who already understand that the mission is to r

But he doesn't have to do any of the dismantling work himself. He's just installing the loyalists and sycophants who already understand that the mission is to raid the institutions/country of riches and integrity. He doesn't even need to openly give them instructions, just nod and say "Fantastic job."

aetherson 10y ago
You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? How does one "raid the institutions of integrity"? Even if that were your explicit job? Do you visit in the dark of night and go to their integrity safe, crack it, and then bring your stolen integrity home to add to your family's integrity store? At any rate, I wasn't saying that Trump is personally incompetent (I'm agnostic in that respect), and thus that he will not succeed in dismantling institutions. I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. Might he do some damage? Of course. But in general, Presidents break against the entrenched powers in Washington, not the other way around. Four years from now, we'll have another election and probably Trump will be gone. Eight years from now, he'll definitely be gone. There's no sign that Trump has the ability to dismantle the government in the way that Putin did in Russia.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  > You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? I hope it proves to be! Also I lol'ed at the integrity safe metaphor. >I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. But to be serious, I think this response is making a number of dangerous assumptions, which I hear from a lot of moderate voices urging hope/non-alarm/give him a chance. To address them point by point: - The power of the executive branch relative to the others has steadily risen in the modern era. - I think he does have significant political support - the senate would likely have flipped if not for the party line support he generated. - Our "long, stable government" is only 238 years old, not really that significant on any timescale, even compared to other governments in recorded history. And has already included a catastrophic civil war that almost ended it. It's a hard cognitive bias to buck, underestimating our society's fragility. - Who are these entrenched interests he's going against? The "entrenched interests" of the left, well they may be entrenched, but they don't have trillions or even billions of dollars in their war chests. The actually powerful ones are all going to be represented on his cabinet. Like I said, I hope I'm being wrong and alarmist, but it seems like the prudent side to err on.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    I agree that the executive branch has gained in power recently, and I hope probably against hope that the next time the Democrats are in power they do not continue their long-standing tradition of waving off concerns about the imperial Presidency because probably nobody they despise will ever be President. Trump is the incoming president with the worst approval ratings in modern history, who lost the popular vote by a considerable margin, and did so after a lengthy public fight with the Republican leadership. He doesn't have "no" political support, certainly. But he doesn't have the kind of overwhelming popular support that might allow him to bend or break the rules that govern him with impunity, certain that his political enemies are too cowed to make a fuss. 238 years is a pretty long time by governmental standards. Our government is much older than Russia's, China's, France's, Germany's, Japan's, etc. Older than essentially every government in South America or Africa. The UK hasn't had an actual revolution in the last 238 years, but 238 years ago it was a genuine monarchy, and now it's not. Etc. The entrenched interests of Washington are the government itself, and Congress, and they do have all the money they need. Also, money, it turns out, is not actually as big a deal as people would have you believe. Clinton's campaign outspent Trump's about 2:1.

aetherson 10y ago

You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? How does one "raid the institutions of integrity"? Even if that were your explicit job? Do you visit in the dark of night and go to their integrity safe, crack it, and then bring your stolen integrity home to add to your family's integrity store? At any rate, I wasn't saying that Trump is personally incompetent (I'm agnostic in that respect), and thus that he will not succeed in dismantling institutions. I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. Might he do some damage? Of course. But in general, Presidents break against the entrenched powers in Washington, not the other way around. Four years from now, we'll have another election and probably Trump will be gone. Eight years from now, he'll definitely be gone. There's no sign that Trump has the ability to dismantle the government in the way that Putin did in Russia.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
> You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? I hope it proves to be! Also I lol'ed at the integrity safe metaphor. >I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. But to be serious, I think this response is making a number of dangerous assumptions, which I hear from a lot of moderate voices urging hope/non-alarm/give him a chance. To address them point by point: - The power of the executive branch relative to the others has steadily risen in the modern era. - I think he does have significant political support - the senate would likely have flipped if not for the party line support he generated. - Our "long, stable government" is only 238 years old, not really that significant on any timescale, even compared to other governments in recorded history. And has already included a catastrophic civil war that almost ended it. It's a hard cognitive bias to buck, underestimating our society's fragility. - Who are these entrenched interests he's going against? The "entrenched interests" of the left, well they may be entrenched, but they don't have trillions or even billions of dollars in their war chests. The actually powerful ones are all going to be represented on his cabinet. Like I said, I hope I'm being wrong and alarmist, but it seems like the prudent side to err on.
- aetherson 10y ago
  I agree that the executive branch has gained in power recently, and I hope probably against hope that the next time the Democrats are in power they do not continue their long-standing tradition of waving off concerns about the imperial Presidency because probably nobody they despise will ever be President. Trump is the incoming president with the worst approval ratings in modern history, who lost the popular vote by a considerable margin, and did so after a lengthy public fight with the Republican leadership. He doesn't have "no" political support, certainly. But he doesn't have the kind of overwhelming popular support that might allow him to bend or break the rules that govern him with impunity, certain that his political enemies are too cowed to make a fuss. 238 years is a pretty long time by governmental standards. Our government is much older than Russia's, China's, France's, Germany's, Japan's, etc. Older than essentially every government in South America or Africa. The UK hasn't had an actual revolution in the last 238 years, but 238 years ago it was a genuine monarchy, and now it's not. Etc. The entrenched interests of Washington are the government itself, and Congress, and they do have all the money they need. Also, money, it turns out, is not actually as big a deal as people would have you believe. Clinton's campaign outspent Trump's about 2:1.