4 ms·

> It’s hard to use words like “unprecedented” to describe what has happened this last week, but the disarray the government currently in has no precedent to my

> It’s hard to use words like “unprecedented” to describe what has happened this last week, but the disarray the government currently in has no precedent to my knowledge. Certainly, there is no precedent in US history for an authoritarian, law-flouting executive takeover centering illegal purges of the executive branch as a whole (and a particular focus on illegally purging federal law enforcement and internal government accountability officials), racial scapegoating, and massive "deportation" efforts that rapidly encompassing setting up massive concentration camps, almost all done by executive fiat, with the tacit support of a Congressional majority that is ideologically aligned with both the policies of the executive and the decision to execute them without regard to existing law rather than through legislation. There are a history of similar things one might point to in other countries, but it's a first for the USA.

palmfacehn 2y ago
The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism. Although I am not inclined to agree, it is fair to dispute specific funding cuts or firings. It would also be reasonable to temper those arguments against the futility of general cut-backs without specific cuts. Consider a few hypotheticals: If we accept that special interest groups exist for spending, then it would also be reasonable to accept that these groups would protest cuts in the most hyperbolic way imaginable. If we accept that the Federal gov. is not free from corruption, selective enforcement, what is in effect "legislation from unelected bureaucrats", or entrenched bureaucracies which oppose the will of the people - If we accept that any of this exists or is possible, it is not unreasonable to accept that some of these bureaus would be cut or eliminated. It is reasonable to expect that these bureaus and special interest groups would stand in solidarity. They have every incentive to join together and expand the largess of the central government. It makes sense that partisan media groups would paint any criticism or cuts in the most hyperbolic and odious terms. All of these things are easy to reason about. It is also easy to take cursory glance at the historical record. It is easy to examine the economic and political ideologies of the odious authoritarians which the partisans are so quick to invoke. Where did these odious authoritarians cut spending? Where did they reduce the purview of the state? If we examine this, we will find that cuts and reductions are entirely antithetical to the authoritarian platform. It is a contradiction in terms. For these reasons, I regard the comparisons as ridiculous hyperbole. Humor me here. How is the following not a non-sequitur, "Cutting spending and regulation is authoritarianism. What we need are more regulations, central planning from unelected bureaucrats and socialism"? Can anyone here explain that?
- mentalpiracy 2y ago
  > The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism. It is easy to construe blatantly illegal and facially unconstitutional acts as authoritarian, actually.
  - _t9ow 2y ago
    And it seems like many conservatives have collective amnesia about January 6; the fake electors plot; the Trump–Raffensperger phone call; how an astonishing number of Trump's colleagues and staffers in his first administration have unambiguously spoken out about his fascist sympathies and ambitions; how Trump unabashedly praises Putin, MBS, and Kim; how he frequently threatens journalists who write unflattering articles about him; how he describes people who do not support him as "enemies from within"; etc. While these facts are not related to spending cuts, they are profoundly germane to any assessment of the President and the intentions behind his policies. But you can't argue with these conservatives; at this point it is fair to assume that they don't debate in good faith.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      The silence over groceries once the election ended pretty much showed how much they really cared about getting better lives. Or maybe Dead Internet Theory and I've just been arguing with a lot of bots. Bot that convinced a country we needed 4 more years of this.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Even the most charitable view is that this approach is dangerous and easy to mess up Even if you like the fiscal goals - I do, for example - the gitmo housing plan is messed up I hope their spending dragnet now result in a balanced budget, its not hyperbole to acknowledge how disjointed and disruptive it is I wish we had a comprehensive immigration policy that wasnt undermined for decades, its not hyperbole to acknowledge that this dragnet to address this is staffed by people interested in punitive disruptions to people's lives, that this particular process has plenty of mistakes in it and it doesnt afford people access to a lawyer if improperly arrested by immigration personnel despite an authorization or citizenship. and that its punitive to go after some statuses (or anyone in this way really) even if identification isnt a mistake yeah there are a lot of problems, a lot of parallels to how worse things started, and lacks the accountability to prevent those outcomes its fine to acknowledge that while being a beneficiary of other policies. there are court cases on appeal that I want new prosecutors to drop, stuff thatll fly under the radar, there are plenty of other things going on to happen for some industries and new industries I agree with you that its not as black and white as partisans are saying, and its pretty clear that lamenting or protesting the outcome is an unproductive use of energy in a system that doesnt support that, while its clearly an oligarch land grab that you can spend time getting a piece of too
paulddraper 2y ago
[flagged]
- Eextra953 2y ago
  This is such a right wing talking point, come up with an original talking point or something substantive.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    [flagged]

palmfacehn 2y ago

The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism. Although I am not inclined to agree, it is fair to dispute specific funding cuts or firings. It would also be reasonable to temper those arguments against the futility of general cut-backs without specific cuts. Consider a few hypotheticals: If we accept that special interest groups exist for spending, then it would also be reasonable to accept that these groups would protest cuts in the most hyperbolic way imaginable. If we accept that the Federal gov. is not free from corruption, selective enforcement, what is in effect "legislation from unelected bureaucrats", or entrenched bureaucracies which oppose the will of the people - If we accept that any of this exists or is possible, it is not unreasonable to accept that some of these bureaus would be cut or eliminated. It is reasonable to expect that these bureaus and special interest groups would stand in solidarity. They have every incentive to join together and expand the largess of the central government. It makes sense that partisan media groups would paint any criticism or cuts in the most hyperbolic and odious terms. All of these things are easy to reason about. It is also easy to take cursory glance at the historical record. It is easy to examine the economic and political ideologies of the odious authoritarians which the partisans are so quick to invoke. Where did these odious authoritarians cut spending? Where did they reduce the purview of the state? If we examine this, we will find that cuts and reductions are entirely antithetical to the authoritarian platform. It is a contradiction in terms. For these reasons, I regard the comparisons as ridiculous hyperbole. Humor me here. How is the following not a non-sequitur, "Cutting spending and regulation is authoritarianism. What we need are more regulations, central planning from unelected bureaucrats and socialism"? Can anyone here explain that?

mentalpiracy 2y ago
> The hyperbole is a bit much for me. It shouldn't amaze me, but here we are. Partisans are able to construe spending cuts and shrinking the purview of the state, with authoritarianism. It is easy to construe blatantly illegal and facially unconstitutional acts as authoritarian, actually.
- _t9ow 2y ago
  And it seems like many conservatives have collective amnesia about January 6; the fake electors plot; the Trump–Raffensperger phone call; how an astonishing number of Trump's colleagues and staffers in his first administration have unambiguously spoken out about his fascist sympathies and ambitions; how Trump unabashedly praises Putin, MBS, and Kim; how he frequently threatens journalists who write unflattering articles about him; how he describes people who do not support him as "enemies from within"; etc. While these facts are not related to spending cuts, they are profoundly germane to any assessment of the President and the intentions behind his policies. But you can't argue with these conservatives; at this point it is fair to assume that they don't debate in good faith.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    The silence over groceries once the election ended pretty much showed how much they really cared about getting better lives. Or maybe Dead Internet Theory and I've just been arguing with a lot of bots. Bot that convinced a country we needed 4 more years of this.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Even the most charitable view is that this approach is dangerous and easy to mess up Even if you like the fiscal goals - I do, for example - the gitmo housing plan is messed up I hope their spending dragnet now result in a balanced budget, its not hyperbole to acknowledge how disjointed and disruptive it is I wish we had a comprehensive immigration policy that wasnt undermined for decades, its not hyperbole to acknowledge that this dragnet to address this is staffed by people interested in punitive disruptions to people's lives, that this particular process has plenty of mistakes in it and it doesnt afford people access to a lawyer if improperly arrested by immigration personnel despite an authorization or citizenship. and that its punitive to go after some statuses (or anyone in this way really) even if identification isnt a mistake yeah there are a lot of problems, a lot of parallels to how worse things started, and lacks the accountability to prevent those outcomes its fine to acknowledge that while being a beneficiary of other policies. there are court cases on appeal that I want new prosecutors to drop, stuff thatll fly under the radar, there are plenty of other things going on to happen for some industries and new industries I agree with you that its not as black and white as partisans are saying, and its pretty clear that lamenting or protesting the outcome is an unproductive use of energy in a system that doesnt support that, while its clearly an oligarch land grab that you can spend time getting a piece of too

paulddraper 2y ago

[flagged]

Eextra953 2y ago
This is such a right wing talking point, come up with an original talking point or something substantive.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  [flagged]