7 ms·

No, he is not. Many of these are ordinary powers that could have been used by any president. When he comes for the military, Supreme Court, and Congress, that

No, he is not. Many of these are ordinary powers that could have been used by any president. When he comes for the military, Supreme Court, and Congress, that is the trend you want to look for. Over-exaggerating what Trump does plays into his handbook.

DFHippie 2y ago
Refusing to execute laws passed by Congress is not an ordinary power.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  He wouldn't be refusing to execute laws passed by Congress, he would argue he is exercising his own power that Congress is trying to restrict unconstitutionally. Incidentally he believes his own power is limitless, and it appears SCOTUS does as well.
nappy-doo 2y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YFdwfNh5vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YFdwfNh5vs
n144q 2y ago
Not so fast. > Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  If he can face legal challenges he is no where close to a dictator.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    SCOTUS already said he's immune from any official act he does as president.
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      That is not at all close to what the ruling said. "immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        This covers a lot of what he's doing.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      He's immune from prosecution. He can still lose court cases that say that he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do X, though, for many values of X.
      - jhp123 2y ago
        At that point he can order his subordinates to ignore the ruling. If his subordinates claim that the court ruling overrides his orders then he can fire them. Court orders are purely advisory after the Trump v. United States decision.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Well, if he goes that route, there are still three things that could stop him: 1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all. 2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling. 3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country just collapses into the states. (Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the constitution, not to the president. If the president is giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and contrary to a court order stating that the orders are against the constitution - it is far from clear that the military will obey them.) But if none of those happens, then sure, the president can order whatever he wants.
  - ks1723 2y ago
    Big “if”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
  - nkassis 2y ago
    That's argument is easily contradicted by plenty of worldwide examples of opposition trying to use the courts to combat dictators. Dictators often ignore court decision they dislike because they have the ultimate power of enforcement.
hypeatei 2y ago
> When he comes for... Congress What are your opinions on January 6th? That would include both the fake electors plot and the riot attempting to interrupt congressional proceedings.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  [flagged]
lawn 2y ago
January 6th, where he was found guilty but didn't receive punishment because he's above the law. Oh and he's already started firing people from the military... Shrugging the shoulders is what lead us here, and you keep doing it.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  In no way I am shrugging my shoulders. We gain more ground holding to truths than these easily debunked falsehoods. > January 6th, where he was found guilty but didn't receive punishment because he's above the law. No, he was not. He was acquitted. Twice https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967098840/senate-acquits-trump-in-impeachment-trial-again https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-up... > Oh and he's already started firing people from the military This is common. For example: Obama https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-fires-two-nuclear-military-commanders/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-fires-tw...
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > We gain more ground holding to truths than these easily debunked falsehoods. Then you should display more candor in describing these situations rather than be reductionist about it. He was acquitted not because he was not guilty of those things, but because his political allies determined the things he was guilty of were not impeachable. Trump argued: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment" The "thing he did to help him get elected" in this case was holding up Congressionally appropriated money to gain leverage over a foreign nation (Ukraine), which he used to to attempt the extortion of a bribe (opening a pretextual investigation against his political opponent, Joe Biden). That they acquitted him does not mean he didn't do those things. It was conclusively proven he did that. It's just that Republicans think that's legitimate political behavior, and refused to remove him. As for the second impeachment, this is what Mitch McConnell said: "There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day... We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one... I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us." Many of the Senators had the same reasoning, which is that while they blamed Trump they didn't feel they had the power to impeach him at that time, so they left it up to the courts. So no, they did not really acquit him, and yes, they did lay the blame at his feet for what happened (found him guilty). As a final point, McConnell mentions that we have a criminal justice system to hold him accountable, but Trump argued that impeachment is the only tool that could, and indeed the SCOTUS agreed to a large extent. So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law.
TrackerFF 2y ago
I'd hate to compare Trump to Hitler, but many forget that Hitler and the National Socialist Party came to power completely by legal means - truly a feat of political engineering. And furthermore, they were on the brink of total failure many, many times - but always managed to get a lifeline by the actions of indifferent politicians and statesmen - many whom could have stopped them, by simply saying no. They (NSDAP) could not believe what they managed to get away with, and the sheer luck they had. What we're seeing now is sort of parallel to that, in the way that the people that do care, simply do not seem to take action. Maybe it's the fear of being primaried, maybe it's the fear of personal retribution, maybe they just don't want to rock the boat.
rbanffy 2y ago
The playbook is to slowly destroy the limits of power. First step is to bombard the opposition with a flurry of orders that will need to be questioned. Some will be, but some will stick. Rinse and repeat and, the next time, orders could be more extreme. By then, they'll be harder to stop, either because you are still fighting the first round, or because there is no one left to question the next. There is already plenty reason to be concerned.

DFHippie 2y ago

Refusing to execute laws passed by Congress is not an ordinary power.

ModernMech 2y ago
He wouldn't be refusing to execute laws passed by Congress, he would argue he is exercising his own power that Congress is trying to restrict unconstitutionally. Incidentally he believes his own power is limitless, and it appears SCOTUS does as well.

nappy-doo 2y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YFdwfNh5vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YFdwfNh5vs

n144q 2y ago

Not so fast. > Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
If he can face legal challenges he is no where close to a dictator.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  SCOTUS already said he's immune from any official act he does as president.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    That is not at all close to what the ruling said. "immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      This covers a lot of what he's doing.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    He's immune from prosecution. He can still lose court cases that say that he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do X, though, for many values of X.
    - jhp123 2y ago
      At that point he can order his subordinates to ignore the ruling. If his subordinates claim that the court ruling overrides his orders then he can fire them. Court orders are purely advisory after the Trump v. United States decision.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Well, if he goes that route, there are still three things that could stop him: 1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all. 2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling. 3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country just collapses into the states. (Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the constitution, not to the president. If the president is giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and contrary to a court order stating that the orders are against the constitution - it is far from clear that the military will obey them.) But if none of those happens, then sure, the president can order whatever he wants.
- ks1723 2y ago
  Big “if”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
- nkassis 2y ago
  That's argument is easily contradicted by plenty of worldwide examples of opposition trying to use the courts to combat dictators. Dictators often ignore court decision they dislike because they have the ultimate power of enforcement.

hypeatei 2y ago

> When he comes for... Congress What are your opinions on January 6th? That would include both the fake electors plot and the riot attempting to interrupt congressional proceedings.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
[flagged]

lawn 2y ago

January 6th, where he was found guilty but didn't receive punishment because he's above the law. Oh and he's already started firing people from the military... Shrugging the shoulders is what lead us here, and you keep doing it.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
In no way I am shrugging my shoulders. We gain more ground holding to truths than these easily debunked falsehoods. > January 6th, where he was found guilty but didn't receive punishment because he's above the law. No, he was not. He was acquitted. Twice https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967098840/senate-acquits-trump-in-impeachment-trial-again https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-up... > Oh and he's already started firing people from the military This is common. For example: Obama https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-fires-two-nuclear-military-commanders/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-fires-tw...
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > We gain more ground holding to truths than these easily debunked falsehoods. Then you should display more candor in describing these situations rather than be reductionist about it. He was acquitted not because he was not guilty of those things, but because his political allies determined the things he was guilty of were not impeachable. Trump argued: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment" The "thing he did to help him get elected" in this case was holding up Congressionally appropriated money to gain leverage over a foreign nation (Ukraine), which he used to to attempt the extortion of a bribe (opening a pretextual investigation against his political opponent, Joe Biden). That they acquitted him does not mean he didn't do those things. It was conclusively proven he did that. It's just that Republicans think that's legitimate political behavior, and refused to remove him. As for the second impeachment, this is what Mitch McConnell said: "There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day... We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one... I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us." Many of the Senators had the same reasoning, which is that while they blamed Trump they didn't feel they had the power to impeach him at that time, so they left it up to the courts. So no, they did not really acquit him, and yes, they did lay the blame at his feet for what happened (found him guilty). As a final point, McConnell mentions that we have a criminal justice system to hold him accountable, but Trump argued that impeachment is the only tool that could, and indeed the SCOTUS agreed to a large extent. So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law.

TrackerFF 2y ago

I'd hate to compare Trump to Hitler, but many forget that Hitler and the National Socialist Party came to power completely by legal means - truly a feat of political engineering. And furthermore, they were on the brink of total failure many, many times - but always managed to get a lifeline by the actions of indifferent politicians and statesmen - many whom could have stopped them, by simply saying no. They (NSDAP) could not believe what they managed to get away with, and the sheer luck they had. What we're seeing now is sort of parallel to that, in the way that the people that do care, simply do not seem to take action. Maybe it's the fear of being primaried, maybe it's the fear of personal retribution, maybe they just don't want to rock the boat.

rbanffy 2y ago

The playbook is to slowly destroy the limits of power. First step is to bombard the opposition with a flurry of orders that will need to be questioned. Some will be, but some will stick. Rinse and repeat and, the next time, orders could be more extreme. By then, they'll be harder to stop, either because you are still fighting the first round, or because there is no one left to question the next. There is already plenty reason to be concerned.