4 ms·

Let's be absolutely honest. Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being (not becoming, it's already there) an authoritarian

Let's be absolutely honest. Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being (not becoming, it's already there) an authoritarian police state.

jorblumesea 6y ago
> Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being This is not the case and has never been the case. Presidents have different interpretations of executive powers. Trump clearly has an extremely authoritarian take on where the President sits in our government. This is plainly obvious for everyone to see and a very non-controversial observation.
- armitron 6y ago
  Again, the President's "take" is totally irrelevant in US being an authoritarian police state. The issue is systemic and can not be attributed to an individual or office. I'm not an American but have lived there in the past for many years. It has always baffled me how Americans are willing to blame the left or the right instead of the system as a whole. Maybe because if they did so, they would be undermining the very foundations that their country was built on.
  - jorblumesea 6y ago
    The DOJ is part of the executive branch and is instrumental in setting national standards and investigating police departments. FBI as well. The executive branch has a fair amount of sway in how policing is done in the US and largely can help set direction, set policies, investigate departments and "clean house". for example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-agreement-city-seattle-implement-reforms-seattle-police https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... Who is President is very much matters. You clearly see this in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, where mass incarceration was in vogue, at the direction of the Attorney General (William Barr), who is part of the executive branch, leading the charge.
    - nightski 6y ago
      Really? It is my understanding that in Minnesota the governor did not even have control over the local policing, that was left to local leadership (mayor + police chief). He only took over control today, which was a very rare move. So I am not following how the president has much authority over local police activities. That is why Trump is referencing the National Guard and not an actual police force.
      - Simulacra 6y ago
        What do you mean by "He only took over control today" ? From what I saw in this article it doesn't say anything about the Governor taking over local police departments; perhaps you're referring to the national guard?
        nightski 6y ago
        In his press briefing today he talked directly about it and how he made the decision to take direct control of the situation when the 3rd precinct building was abandoned yesterday as he found that unacceptable. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4VjEsigiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4VjEsigiU
      - jorblumesea 6y ago
        I don't think I'm implying the president has direct control over local authorities. I'm simply saying that policing in the US is complex and saying "it doesn't matter who you elect" clearly isn't true. The executive branch has huge soft power over how policing is done in the US. For example, the rise of militarized police is largely due to donated spare Iraq war equipment. The executive branch chose to donate this.
        catalogia 6y ago
        > For example, the rise of militarized police is largely due to donated spare Iraq war equipment. I think there's a lot more to it than that. There's also the matter of a lot of war vets becoming police officers, the approach to policing they learned in the military, and their lasting effect on police department culture.
  - macintux 6y ago
    It's not a huge leap from "we have systemic problems" to "both sides are equally to blame", and the latter is too often used as an excuse for bad behavior.
    - virmundi 6y ago
      Remember, Obama order the extrajudicial killing of an American because he was a member of a terrorist organization. Terrorism is a crime in the United States. Hence there should have been an attempt to arrest.
      - patagurbon 6y ago
        I strongly disagree with drone striking, but arresting someone in an effectively hostile territory isn't a simple or safe job. Your only hope there is that he enters an airport, or international waters.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- holler 6y ago
  can you qualify these strong assertions? “plainly obvious for everyone to see” isn’t a convincing instrument. The role and powers bestowed on the President are set in the US Constitution.
  - jorblumesea 6y ago
    1) There is considerable disagreement about the scope and nature of the presidency. The constitution doesn't make everything super clear. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory 2) Trump's authoritarian interpretation of these powers is pretty obvious and not really controversial. I think this is an obvious fact that requires little explanation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
holler 6y ago
How is the US a police state? Can you give examples? In this case even, the police officers were responding to a 911 call from a store clerk that claimed a man matching Floyd’s description had attempted to use counterfeit money (crime) and was acting erratically. So, they were doing their job in responding to that call.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chishaku 6y ago
  > they were doing their job in responding to that call. People aren't angry because they responded to the call. Watch this video in case you haven't: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/george-floyd-kneeled-on-by-three-officers-video-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/george-floyd-kneele... > How is the US a police state? There's not a simple yes or no answer to this question. But if you sincerely want to understand where people are coming from when they make the claim, you ought to do some research. I'll give you a head start. Try googling: "police spying without warrant" "stop and frisk" "police perjury" "police license plate readers" "police phone data" Also, check out organizations like the ACLU, EFF and many others who work very hard to prevent the US becoming a police state.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Let's be absolutely honest. Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being (not becoming, it's already there) an authoritarian police state.

jorblumesea 6y ago

> Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being This is not the case and has never been the case. Presidents have different interpretations of executive powers. Trump clearly has an extremely authoritarian take on where the President sits in our government. This is plainly obvious for everyone to see and a very non-controversial observation.

armitron 6y ago
Again, the President's "take" is totally irrelevant in US being an authoritarian police state. The issue is systemic and can not be attributed to an individual or office. I'm not an American but have lived there in the past for many years. It has always baffled me how Americans are willing to blame the left or the right instead of the system as a whole. Maybe because if they did so, they would be undermining the very foundations that their country was built on.
- jorblumesea 6y ago
  The DOJ is part of the executive branch and is instrumental in setting national standards and investigating police departments. FBI as well. The executive branch has a fair amount of sway in how policing is done in the US and largely can help set direction, set policies, investigate departments and "clean house". for example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-agreement-city-seattle-implement-reforms-seattle-police https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... Who is President is very much matters. You clearly see this in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, where mass incarceration was in vogue, at the direction of the Attorney General (William Barr), who is part of the executive branch, leading the charge.
  - nightski 6y ago
    Really? It is my understanding that in Minnesota the governor did not even have control over the local policing, that was left to local leadership (mayor + police chief). He only took over control today, which was a very rare move. So I am not following how the president has much authority over local police activities. That is why Trump is referencing the National Guard and not an actual police force.
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      What do you mean by "He only took over control today" ? From what I saw in this article it doesn't say anything about the Governor taking over local police departments; perhaps you're referring to the national guard?
      - nightski 6y ago
        In his press briefing today he talked directly about it and how he made the decision to take direct control of the situation when the 3rd precinct building was abandoned yesterday as he found that unacceptable. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4VjEsigiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4VjEsigiU
    - jorblumesea 6y ago
      I don't think I'm implying the president has direct control over local authorities. I'm simply saying that policing in the US is complex and saying "it doesn't matter who you elect" clearly isn't true. The executive branch has huge soft power over how policing is done in the US. For example, the rise of militarized police is largely due to donated spare Iraq war equipment. The executive branch chose to donate this.
      - catalogia 6y ago
        > For example, the rise of militarized police is largely due to donated spare Iraq war equipment. I think there's a lot more to it than that. There's also the matter of a lot of war vets becoming police officers, the approach to policing they learned in the military, and their lasting effect on police department culture.
- macintux 6y ago
  It's not a huge leap from "we have systemic problems" to "both sides are equally to blame", and the latter is too often used as an excuse for bad behavior.
  - virmundi 6y ago
    Remember, Obama order the extrajudicial killing of an American because he was a member of a terrorist organization. Terrorism is a crime in the United States. Hence there should have been an attempt to arrest.
    - patagurbon 6y ago
      I strongly disagree with drone striking, but arresting someone in an effectively hostile territory isn't a simple or safe job. Your only hope there is that he enters an airport, or international waters.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
holler 6y ago
can you qualify these strong assertions? “plainly obvious for everyone to see” isn’t a convincing instrument. The role and powers bestowed on the President are set in the US Constitution.
- jorblumesea 6y ago
  1) There is considerable disagreement about the scope and nature of the presidency. The constitution doesn't make everything super clear. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory 2) Trump's authoritarian interpretation of these powers is pretty obvious and not really controversial. I think this is an obvious fact that requires little explanation.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

holler 6y ago

How is the US a police state? Can you give examples? In this case even, the police officers were responding to a 911 call from a store clerk that claimed a man matching Floyd’s description had attempted to use counterfeit money (crime) and was acting erratically. So, they were doing their job in responding to that call.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chishaku 6y ago
> they were doing their job in responding to that call. People aren't angry because they responded to the call. Watch this video in case you haven't: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/george-floyd-kneeled-on-by-three-officers-video-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/george-floyd-kneele... > How is the US a police state? There's not a simple yes or no answer to this question. But if you sincerely want to understand where people are coming from when they make the claim, you ought to do some research. I'll give you a head start. Try googling: "police spying without warrant" "stop and frisk" "police perjury" "police license plate readers" "police phone data" Also, check out organizations like the ACLU, EFF and many others who work very hard to prevent the US becoming a police state.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]