5 ms·

[flagged]

butterlettuce 2y ago
Meh, that seems like hyperbole to me. Doesn't a real coup involve the military going into federal buildings and rounding up congressmen from opposing parties and detaining them? Forgive me for not viewing it the same way. The news is focusing on the airplane right now.
- valbaca 2y ago
  a military coup is a type of coup, and a common one, but not the only Literally lookup the definition and you'll find out more
- tbatchelli 2y ago
  A military coup is a kind of coup, but not the only kind. This one, for example, is an auto-coup. Many coups don't look like one at first.
  - nh23423fefe 2y ago
    [flagged]
- tootie 2y ago
  Coups do not require troops. They simple require the existing regime to be removed. Months ago, the leader of Project 2025 said a second Trump term would be "a second American Revolution" and "bloodless if the left allows it to be". https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-t...
- scarab92 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Craighead 2y ago
    [dead]
- TheAlchemist 2y ago
  I wouldn't call it a coup, but I've seen something similar going on in some Europe countries in the past (including mine). President or government acting like a mafia, replacing all key employees based solely on loyalty to them and not competence. And this is done at such a massive scale and speed that the whole country becomes a kleptocracy real quick. Pretty much what's unfolding in the US right now.
lz127HqgR 2y ago
[flagged]
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Which "purges" would that be?
- kcplate 2y ago
  Happens every administration. But someone from the opposition party always gets their nose out of joint and it makes news and it’s just the most horrible thing ever.
  - tzs 2y ago
    No, it does not. What happens every administration is that the high level managers are fired. Those are political appointees and it is normal and expected for them to be replaced. What is not normal is going after the rank and file employees. Those are not political appointees.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      Just how many actual “rank and file employees” have actually been targeted or fired so far? If you are going to bring up the RTO directive, please don’t, those folks are in full control of their continued employment and prior to March of 2020 having to actually go to an office to work would not be viewed as “targeting” anyone.
      - tzs 2y ago
        Dozens of rank and file prosecutors have been fired from the DOJ, because they worked on cases against the January 6 defendants or on cases against Trump.
        Freedom2 2y ago
        As others have asserted, this happens with every administration changeover. It is only more publicly viewable now (as in, people are reporting on it) due to the nature of the administration. Now is a time for unity and joining together as Americans, not for divisiveness.
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > If the President gets elected promising to fire executive branch employees, then his doing so is literally democratic. But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people. The President is not a monarch or autocrat, he is not a king or dictator with the authority to do whatever he wants. He is empowered to act, but constrained in his actions by law.
  - xyzzyz 2y ago
    Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken? You imply that this is illegal, but you don’t say how exactly.
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      > Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken? At least in the case of the IG firings, he failed to comply with the 30 day notice required by law. My point is actually broader than just the firings and dismissals. The elected President is not an elected autocrat. He doesn't get to do what he wants because "his doing so is literally democratic". He gets to act in a way that complies with the democratically set laws.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        And federal employees have no separate role in the tripartite constitutional structure. That seems more important than some employment laws.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people. The word "may" is important here. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will interpret the laws and the Constitution and decide whether this Presidential action is legal or not. Until they do, its (il)legality a matter of possibility, opinion and conjecture, not established fact. And, given the ideological leanings of the current SCOTUS majority, it is entirely possible that they'll uphold this Presidential action, and either interpret away any apparent statutory violations, or rule those statutes unconstitutional in this respect. In which case, the answer will ultimately be, that it was legal all along.
fundad 2y ago
As you see in the replies a well-funded anti-tax movement has been radicalizing a lot of the country against their own government. They love to see this dissolution of constitutional government. While they claim smaller government is better for the economy, they really care most about ending constitutional government and couldn't care less about the impact to the economy.

[flagged]

Meh, that seems like hyperbole to me. Doesn't a real coup involve the military going into federal buildings and rounding up congressmen from opposing parties and detaining them? Forgive me for not viewing it the same way. The news is focusing on the airplane right now.

valbaca 2y ago
a military coup is a type of coup, and a common one, but not the only Literally lookup the definition and you'll find out more
tbatchelli 2y ago
A military coup is a kind of coup, but not the only kind. This one, for example, is an auto-coup. Many coups don't look like one at first.
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  [flagged]
tootie 2y ago
Coups do not require troops. They simple require the existing regime to be removed. Months ago, the leader of Project 2025 said a second Trump term would be "a second American Revolution" and "bloodless if the left allows it to be". https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-t...
scarab92 2y ago
[flagged]
- Craighead 2y ago
  [dead]
TheAlchemist 2y ago
I wouldn't call it a coup, but I've seen something similar going on in some Europe countries in the past (including mine). President or government acting like a mafia, replacing all key employees based solely on loyalty to them and not competence. And this is done at such a massive scale and speed that the whole country becomes a kleptocracy real quick. Pretty much what's unfolding in the US right now.

lz127HqgR 2y ago

[flagged]

Jtsummers 2y ago
Which "purges" would that be?
kcplate 2y ago
Happens every administration. But someone from the opposition party always gets their nose out of joint and it makes news and it’s just the most horrible thing ever.
- tzs 2y ago
  No, it does not. What happens every administration is that the high level managers are fired. Those are political appointees and it is normal and expected for them to be replaced. What is not normal is going after the rank and file employees. Those are not political appointees.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    Just how many actual “rank and file employees” have actually been targeted or fired so far? If you are going to bring up the RTO directive, please don’t, those folks are in full control of their continued employment and prior to March of 2020 having to actually go to an office to work would not be viewed as “targeting” anyone.
    - tzs 2y ago
      Dozens of rank and file prosecutors have been fired from the DOJ, because they worked on cases against the January 6 defendants or on cases against Trump.
      - Freedom2 2y ago
        As others have asserted, this happens with every administration changeover. It is only more publicly viewable now (as in, people are reporting on it) due to the nature of the administration. Now is a time for unity and joining together as Americans, not for divisiveness.

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

Jtsummers 2y ago
> If the President gets elected promising to fire executive branch employees, then his doing so is literally democratic. But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people. The President is not a monarch or autocrat, he is not a king or dictator with the authority to do whatever he wants. He is empowered to act, but constrained in his actions by law.
- xyzzyz 2y ago
  Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken? You imply that this is illegal, but you don’t say how exactly.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > Sorry, can you be more specific as to what law is being broken? At least in the case of the IG firings, he failed to comply with the 30 day notice required by law. My point is actually broader than just the firings and dismissals. The elected President is not an elected autocrat. He doesn't get to do what he wants because "his doing so is literally democratic". He gets to act in a way that complies with the democratically set laws.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      And federal employees have no separate role in the tripartite constitutional structure. That seems more important than some employment laws.
- skissane 2y ago
  > But it may not be legal, which is determined by the Constitution and laws set by Congress. People who are also elected democratically. Behaving in a manner counter to those laws is also fundamentally undemocratic, the President and the Executive are bound by those laws set by the representatives of the people. The word "may" is important here. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will interpret the laws and the Constitution and decide whether this Presidential action is legal or not. Until they do, its (il)legality a matter of possibility, opinion and conjecture, not established fact. And, given the ideological leanings of the current SCOTUS majority, it is entirely possible that they'll uphold this Presidential action, and either interpret away any apparent statutory violations, or rule those statutes unconstitutional in this respect. In which case, the answer will ultimately be, that it was legal all along.

fundad 2y ago

As you see in the replies a well-funded anti-tax movement has been radicalizing a lot of the country against their own government. They love to see this dissolution of constitutional government. While they claim smaller government is better for the economy, they really care most about ending constitutional government and couldn't care less about the impact to the economy.