5 ms·

Yes. The process you described is called democracy. Unilateral executive action of the top cabinet alone outside times of declared war (and even sometimes withi

Yes. The process you described is called democracy. Unilateral executive action of the top cabinet alone outside times of declared war (and even sometimes within a war) would be called dictatorial or authoritarian. The debates, compromises checks are not just a tradition to be distrupted.

794CD01 10y ago
Dictatorial and authoritarian are not necessarily negatives. Calls for a businessman to cut through the red tape and run the government more efficiently are almost as old as American democracy itself. Call it whatever you like, we knew that's how this candidate wanted to operate and voted for it anyway.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  The problem is that many people thought they needed to take Trump's plans & pronouncements metaphorically when they voted for him. People who worked for him even http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-anthony-scaramucci-232848 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-ant... The problem more generally with that is that once you give that much power up with out an expiration date it will be very hard to restore back to a moderate position. And even the proponents of banning muslims to cut back on terrorists entering should be upset at the implementation, because the ban hits none of the countries who have sent us actual real successful terrorists like Saudia Arabia or the UEA. So even if you think it's worth stretching out our democracy to get a no-nonsense strongman into fix border security, you should be upset that this ham handed approach hits the wrong countries, generates backlash, and will likely be repealed by federal judges, making it ineffective and worse than nothing at all.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    I don't think the policy itself is good either, I'm just saying that the idea of implementing policy now, even if it has bugs, might be preferable to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to the point where we do nothing about problems - even if they are merely imaginary problems. As for electing someone because you don't believe they will follow through on their campaign promises, only to be disappointed when they try to do what they claimed they would, that is the culmination of a whole mess of other problems.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      It sounds like we are almost entirely in agreement :D I just think this order should be the new textbook example on why move fast and break things should not be executive policy.
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        Interesting, I would have called it a good example of how moving fast and breaking things is OK even for government action. It's only been two days and it's already been amended to allow green card holders to enter again, and several courts have ordered it to not be enforced. Before this, I and most people I know would not have guessed that government could move to amend broken policy this quickly.
        mattnewton 10y ago
        But meanwhile 1. We look capricious and incompetent to international allies, especially Iraqis. 2. The federal judges decision to stay parts of the order is not being enforced in its entirety. CBP refused to allow lawyers to meet with those being detained, in Dulles and in LA, even with Members of Congress attempting to enforce it in Dulles. This confusion among the rank and file about what a federal court order means is really worrysome and shows the checks aren't as strong as they should be. Real people are being harmed as a result of not at least explaining it in full to people who have to enforce it before it took effect. 3. The underlying motivations for the rule include discrimination against Muslims, as evidenced by Rudy Guilloani's statements that they were instructed to write a legal "Muslim ban". The word is out that the president, who is also a symbolic head of state and not just an acting office, is anti-Muslim in policy as well as rhetoric. No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. (Edit: wrt religious freedom. As a commentor points out this obviously does not make us equivalent to ISIS) This order will be mostly rescinded, leaving nothing but backlash.
        smsm42 10y ago
        The fact that CBP has very wide powers and very little supervision has been talked about for ages. Unfortunately, nothing is being done about it. Refusing to execute a court order should be grounds for immediate dismissal, and possibly following contempt of court proceedings, but I suspect CBP has a union which would fight that tooth and nail and probably win. > No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. That's pretty grand claim. While Trump's order indeed caused a lot of trouble, I think trouble of being detained for a day or even sent back to the port of origin is not the same as trouble of being murdered, raped, sold to sexual slavery, having head cut off, burned alive, etc. which ISIS routinely does. The position of "is US government does something wrong they are the same of ISIS" is idiotic. Of course US government will do a lot of things wrong, they are as imperfect as huge bureaucracy composed of hundreds of thousands of imperfect people can be. It doesn't mean they are the same as terrorist death cult.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > Dictatorial and authoritarian are not necessarily negatives Yes they fucking are. > we knew that's how this candidate wanted to operate and voted for it anyway Most didn't vote for him.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    Most didn't according to a metric that's not the metric that is actually used to select the president and thus candidates and parties don't try to optimize for. As for the other point, agree to disagree.
    - eropple 10y ago
      You don't get to "agree to disagree" about literal numbers. You are literally and inarguably wrong. There is a difference.
      - basurihn 10y ago
        Literal numbers that are unproportionally skewed by two overpowered population centers. It isn't just about proportionally capturing the interest of the individual voter. That individual voter in each state represents a sum total of different interests than a individual voter in another region of the States. California and New York have different exports and interests than say, Wisconsin. You would feel quite different about granting power to overpopulated areas if they were conservative rednecks, wouldn't you? Of course you would.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - flukus 10y ago
        Literal numbers that would probably be very different had they been meaningful.
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        Which is why I specifically said that about the other point.
smsm42 10y ago
That's not how representative democracy works, in general. Direct democracy may work like that, but I don't see a way to run direct democracy on US federal scale, and even if there were a way, US is not one. In US system, there's debate, there's vote, representatives are elected and then they have power to act (within the bounds of law, of course, and within limitations like due process, procedures, judicial review, etc.) without further debating anyone. Of course, if they act poorly, they will soon find themselves out when the next election comes. But executive action is always "unilateral" and if it is consistent with the law and mandates given to the executive, not dictatorial.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  I'm talking about the checks like judicial review, which is not being enforced in dulles currently as CBT continues to bar lawyers from visiting with detainees in violation of court order. I am talking about the disregard for Geneva refugee convention the United States was committed to. I am talking about looping in people are supposed to enforce this and having a common sense discussion with them about what it means in practice. None of those are incompatible with the representative democracy we hold. Nothing there requires direct democracy. Those are the things that make this "unilateral"
  - readme 10y ago
    So can you explain to me, how this is not democracy, if Trump was elected, democratically? Without saying the election was rigged by Russia.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      I never said this government was not a democracy, but that this administration's MO is inconsistent with the limitations set forth by our democratic government. For example, being elected does not give you carte-blanche to ignore federal court orders.

794CD01 10y ago

Dictatorial and authoritarian are not necessarily negatives. Calls for a businessman to cut through the red tape and run the government more efficiently are almost as old as American democracy itself. Call it whatever you like, we knew that's how this candidate wanted to operate and voted for it anyway.

mattnewton 10y ago
The problem is that many people thought they needed to take Trump's plans & pronouncements metaphorically when they voted for him. People who worked for him even http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-anthony-scaramucci-232848 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-ant... The problem more generally with that is that once you give that much power up with out an expiration date it will be very hard to restore back to a moderate position. And even the proponents of banning muslims to cut back on terrorists entering should be upset at the implementation, because the ban hits none of the countries who have sent us actual real successful terrorists like Saudia Arabia or the UEA. So even if you think it's worth stretching out our democracy to get a no-nonsense strongman into fix border security, you should be upset that this ham handed approach hits the wrong countries, generates backlash, and will likely be repealed by federal judges, making it ineffective and worse than nothing at all.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  I don't think the policy itself is good either, I'm just saying that the idea of implementing policy now, even if it has bugs, might be preferable to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to the point where we do nothing about problems - even if they are merely imaginary problems. As for electing someone because you don't believe they will follow through on their campaign promises, only to be disappointed when they try to do what they claimed they would, that is the culmination of a whole mess of other problems.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    It sounds like we are almost entirely in agreement :D I just think this order should be the new textbook example on why move fast and break things should not be executive policy.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      Interesting, I would have called it a good example of how moving fast and breaking things is OK even for government action. It's only been two days and it's already been amended to allow green card holders to enter again, and several courts have ordered it to not be enforced. Before this, I and most people I know would not have guessed that government could move to amend broken policy this quickly.
      - mattnewton 10y ago
        But meanwhile 1. We look capricious and incompetent to international allies, especially Iraqis. 2. The federal judges decision to stay parts of the order is not being enforced in its entirety. CBP refused to allow lawyers to meet with those being detained, in Dulles and in LA, even with Members of Congress attempting to enforce it in Dulles. This confusion among the rank and file about what a federal court order means is really worrysome and shows the checks aren't as strong as they should be. Real people are being harmed as a result of not at least explaining it in full to people who have to enforce it before it took effect. 3. The underlying motivations for the rule include discrimination against Muslims, as evidenced by Rudy Guilloani's statements that they were instructed to write a legal "Muslim ban". The word is out that the president, who is also a symbolic head of state and not just an acting office, is anti-Muslim in policy as well as rhetoric. No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. (Edit: wrt religious freedom. As a commentor points out this obviously does not make us equivalent to ISIS) This order will be mostly rescinded, leaving nothing but backlash.
        smsm42 10y ago
        The fact that CBP has very wide powers and very little supervision has been talked about for ages. Unfortunately, nothing is being done about it. Refusing to execute a court order should be grounds for immediate dismissal, and possibly following contempt of court proceedings, but I suspect CBP has a union which would fight that tooth and nail and probably win. > No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. That's pretty grand claim. While Trump's order indeed caused a lot of trouble, I think trouble of being detained for a day or even sent back to the port of origin is not the same as trouble of being murdered, raped, sold to sexual slavery, having head cut off, burned alive, etc. which ISIS routinely does. The position of "is US government does something wrong they are the same of ISIS" is idiotic. Of course US government will do a lot of things wrong, they are as imperfect as huge bureaucracy composed of hundreds of thousands of imperfect people can be. It doesn't mean they are the same as terrorist death cult.
serge2k 10y ago
> Dictatorial and authoritarian are not necessarily negatives Yes they fucking are. > we knew that's how this candidate wanted to operate and voted for it anyway Most didn't vote for him.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  Most didn't according to a metric that's not the metric that is actually used to select the president and thus candidates and parties don't try to optimize for. As for the other point, agree to disagree.
  - eropple 10y ago
    You don't get to "agree to disagree" about literal numbers. You are literally and inarguably wrong. There is a difference.
    - basurihn 10y ago
      Literal numbers that are unproportionally skewed by two overpowered population centers. It isn't just about proportionally capturing the interest of the individual voter. That individual voter in each state represents a sum total of different interests than a individual voter in another region of the States. California and New York have different exports and interests than say, Wisconsin. You would feel quite different about granting power to overpopulated areas if they were conservative rednecks, wouldn't you? Of course you would.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - flukus 10y ago
      Literal numbers that would probably be very different had they been meaningful.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      Which is why I specifically said that about the other point.

smsm42 10y ago

That's not how representative democracy works, in general. Direct democracy may work like that, but I don't see a way to run direct democracy on US federal scale, and even if there were a way, US is not one. In US system, there's debate, there's vote, representatives are elected and then they have power to act (within the bounds of law, of course, and within limitations like due process, procedures, judicial review, etc.) without further debating anyone. Of course, if they act poorly, they will soon find themselves out when the next election comes. But executive action is always "unilateral" and if it is consistent with the law and mandates given to the executive, not dictatorial.

mattnewton 10y ago
I'm talking about the checks like judicial review, which is not being enforced in dulles currently as CBT continues to bar lawyers from visiting with detainees in violation of court order. I am talking about the disregard for Geneva refugee convention the United States was committed to. I am talking about looping in people are supposed to enforce this and having a common sense discussion with them about what it means in practice. None of those are incompatible with the representative democracy we hold. Nothing there requires direct democracy. Those are the things that make this "unilateral"
- readme 10y ago
  So can you explain to me, how this is not democracy, if Trump was elected, democratically? Without saying the election was rigged by Russia.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    I never said this government was not a democracy, but that this administration's MO is inconsistent with the limitations set forth by our democratic government. For example, being elected does not give you carte-blanche to ignore federal court orders.