4 ms·

Normally I would agree with you but, that hasn't been the case for the past 3 weeks or so.

• zhemao 10y ago
  Maybe that's Trump's plan to MAGA. Get rid of all those pesky civil liberties and democratic procedures getting in the way of progress. /s
  • gozur88 10y ago
    Except there's no actual indication he has any such intentions. I wish people on the left would recover from their hysterical election freakout.
    • matt4077 10y ago
      Ahh, the thread is de-railing... I'm busy stopping friends from promoting conspiracy theories and Hitler comparisons left and far-left. Yet the fear voiced in the comment you're replying to doesn't seem to be completely unwarranted. One of the key principles of "democratic procedures" is that the courts have final say over all executive activities. It is obvious that this principle is centre to some of the recent tweets saying (paraphrasing from memory) "what has our country come to when a court can <stop me from doing something>". Note how the country hasn't changed a bit and there's a long history of the courts stopping various measures enacted in the name of security. To use an example from the other end of the spectrum: imagine "@prezObama: What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a National Security handgun ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can walk around with a deadly weapon?". Note that this isn't about the actual policy. It also isn't about complaining about a judge's decision. It's about the assumption in the statement that courts shouldn't have jurisdiction over such matters.
      • gozur88 10y ago
        It's not unreasonable for the president to push back when he thinks the courts are overstepping their bounds. That, I would argue, is part of his job. In this particular case it's pretty clear the president was well within the law, and he would be remiss if he didn't say anything. I wonder if the people who are now wailing and rending their garments were equally horrified when Obama scolded the Supreme Court in a State of the Union speech.
        • matt4077 10y ago
          I wonder if you read the last line from my post, which addresses exactly that.
      • Sacho 10y ago
        > One of the key principles of "democratic procedures" is that the courts have final say over all executive activities. Then surely you support the Republican party? One of their first orders of business after the election was to move to gut Chevron deference[0], a concession by the judicial system towards the executive(essentially, courts would defer the interpretation of a law to the government agencies tasked with enforcing it)[1]. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5/text#toc-HB8EF70F4452040FEB190171AAFB0BC49 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5/te... [1] https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/01/20/chevron-deference-kill-and-overkill/ https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/01/20/chevron-deference-k...
• sremani 10y ago
  US under Trump is still a better place in terms of Human Rights and Quality of Life than life in an Average city in China under the Xi. Of the two there is no debate who is an Autocrat. Xi's opponents went to Jail and the purges are still continuing. How many of Trumps opponents went to Jail? Lets be level headed in conversations here, rather than hyperbole. But hey, you are welcome to go to China and behind the firewall, if you think its all rocking there!
  • akhilcacharya 10y ago
    > How many of Trumps opponents went to Jail? I don't disagree overall but this is perhaps not the best example to use.
    • sremani 10y ago
      Of course that is not the standard you should hold an American president, but that does demonstrate the day-light between the two systems.
      • prawn 10y ago
        I assumed it was a reference to the "Lock her up" campaigning.