4 ms·

Because a separate legislative power decided to give the President certain powers? That’s the opposite of fascist.

• Vampiero 2y ago
  It's only fascism when the guy has a mustache
• spacechild1 2y ago
  That's exactly how Hitler came to power. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
  • refurb 2y ago
    No it's not. The Enabling Act removed the power of the legislature. This is the exact opposite - the legislature still has power.
    • cluckindan 2y ago
      Only superficially: the dictator cannot be subjected to any judicial control, but the dictator’s party has a two-thirds majority on the top rung of the judicial system.
    • spacechild1 2y ago
      When you give the president additional power, the legislative loses some of its own power. The Enabling Act is just the most extreme example.
      • refurb 2y ago
        The President doesn't have additional powers in the Tiktok example. The President has always been able to veto laws. Biden could have vetoed the bill if he wanted. And a Congress that passes a bill that says the President has a say in it's execution isn't odd either. The administrative body always has powers of execution. And Congress is free to pass a law to reverse the law and make Tiktok legal if they want.
        • spacechild1 2y ago
          Fair enough.
• alkonaut 2y ago
  They are supposed to be separate. The obvious problem is that once you let money into the process (when was the last time someone was elected to congres without spending money on a campaign? And why is that?) and the president (current, former, next) has any control at all over the flow of that money, then the branches are no longer "separate". You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous.
  • refurb 2y ago
    > The obvious problem is that once you let money into the process (when was the last time someone was elected to congres without spending money on a campaign? And why is that?) and the president (current, former, next) has any control at all over the flow of that money, then the branches are no longer "separate". I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If money had such a large influences then why did a Presidential candidate who spent about half the other candidate win? And then you claim the President will control the money, but the President doesn't control campaign funds. They don't even control government spending, Congress does. > You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous. Ok, this makes more sense. But the issue you raise isn't unique to the US system. It's not even unique to politics. Any human interaction can result in people "owning favors". If you criticism is just human behavior, then I agree. But not much you can do to solve that.
    • addandsubtract 2y ago
      Are you seriously asking why the guy who owns a social media platform and is heavily endorsed by another only needed to spend half of the others "campaign finance" budget? Not to mention all the other money and propaganda that's off the books.
    • alkonaut 2y ago