5 ms·

Yes let's call a spade a spade, it's a coup. Trump is passing as much stuff as quickly as he can to bypass the separation of powers while they catch up.

scarab92 2y ago
The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress. As much as you personally disagree with these decisions, they are in line with the broad policy positions Trump et al communicated prior to the election, and can be considered the will of the people. Challenging the mandate the public gave them, by hyperventilating over minor procedural hiccups that will inevitably be resolved by congress in favour of Trump, comes across to voters as undemocratic.
- realusername 2y ago
  So first the US isn't a monarchy last time I checked, Trump doesn't have the mandate to do what he's doing now, no matter how much you agree with his decisions or not. And secondly no, Trump also publicly lied about his positions by saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025. But it doesn't matter if he did say the truth anyways, saying that you'll make a coup doesn't make the coup okay.
- meheleventyone 2y ago
  > The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress. Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it? As a bystander in another country your line of argument is mind-boggling. You don't just throw out the constitution and way the government works because one guy won an election one time. But that seems to be what a lot of people are suggesting, that because Trump won the election whatever he does is democratic and therefore okay.
  - lawn 2y ago
    The same people typically argue that whatever Trump is right anyway. For example when he lost the last election people rallied behind is made-up election fraud claims.
  - chongli 2y ago
    Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it? They can’t because of the filibuster [1]. They cannot bypass the filibuster without a 3/5 majority which they do not have. Thus any bill which the Democrats oppose will be blocked by filibuster in the Senate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
    - theossuary 2y ago
      They could easily remove the filibuster if they so choosed.
      - chongli 2y ago
        Yes, they could remove the filibuster. But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place. The filibuster remaining in place is a good thing because it encourages negotiations and compromise instead of a seesaw battle.
        theossuary 2y ago
        I agree the filibuster is a good thing. But you can't decide to keep it and then use it as a reason to bypass congress.
        verzali 2y ago
        > But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place. That's called democracy.
- __loam 2y ago
  By mandate do you mean the 3 vote majority in the house?
DarkmSparks 2y ago
not really a coup, its a default. US government is already using pension fund money to pay its bills since early January (aka special measures), the interest on their national debt is already more than they collect in taxes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  That has very little if anything to do with the executive branch brazenly disregarding laws.
  - tremendoussss 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      In the first two weeks of taking office? I think it's just my belief that government should be slow and methodical, that the government should be thorough, and coming in and slashing and burning, without seemingly even checking whether they're legally allowed to do it, just seems to be a vengeful fit. I want government to be stable, relatively predictable, and wanting to follow the laws more than any other entity in the country. If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization?
      - tremendoussss 2y ago
        It has to be in the first two weeks, 90%+ of DC voted for Kamala. There's going to be resistance and lack of support. People are going to want to keep their jobs. Layoffs suck but there's not a great way to do them, and the government shouldn't be immune to them. This wasn't a surprise to people following him. People like his head of OMB from his first term was on Tucker talking all about this. They've talked about the legal aspect of things and have prepared. They've had 4 years to prepare for the resistance to change in DC and the law will be used to resist. > If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization? I think this is the biggest issue we have in society. Trump supporters have been screaming that this has already been an issue for decades. The majority of Trump supporters would 100% agree with you. While everyone is pointing their fingers at Trump and calling his supporters conspiracy theorists, we aren't looking at the crimes our corrupt government has committed. There is no trust that our DOJ is on the side of the people and not just another tool of the corrupt establishment. The list of accusations made by Trump supporters is large and damning and absolutely deserve to have their questions answered. The hate and neglect of Trump supporters includes a massive blind eye to evil in DC that's been going on for decades
Gareth321 2y ago
I don't think you can call a democratically elected president doing what he promised to do a coup.
- realusername 2y ago
  So first he lied about Project 2025 and then, "whatever the president does is democratic" is just an obvious sophism, no democracy works like that. Democraties work with checks and balances, which are being broken right now. On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents
  - Gareth321 2y ago
    I don't think he lied about Project 2025. It is a collection of more than 700 policy proposals. Some completely normal, milquetoast Republican policies. Some more extreme. No matter what Trump implemented, it would have covered some of those policies, leading to accusations that he's "doing Project 2025". I don't think he would ever have read 900 pages, so I don't think he read it, and I don't think he lied. I didn't claim everything he does is democratic. I claimed that what he is doing is as promised to voters. Don't take my word for it. He is now at the highest approval rating he has ever had in office (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...). People obviously feel he is delivering what he promised. I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. They have an unprecedented mandate to carry out unprecedented change by voters who were obviously VERY unhappy with the Democrat Party. > On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
    - realusername 2y ago
      That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection? > I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework. Maybe Trump isn't as confident as you seem on the loyalty of his fellow non-MAGA Republicans. > I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian? I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.

scarab92 2y ago

The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress. As much as you personally disagree with these decisions, they are in line with the broad policy positions Trump et al communicated prior to the election, and can be considered the will of the people. Challenging the mandate the public gave them, by hyperventilating over minor procedural hiccups that will inevitably be resolved by congress in favour of Trump, comes across to voters as undemocratic.

realusername 2y ago
So first the US isn't a monarchy last time I checked, Trump doesn't have the mandate to do what he's doing now, no matter how much you agree with his decisions or not. And secondly no, Trump also publicly lied about his positions by saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025. But it doesn't matter if he did say the truth anyways, saying that you'll make a coup doesn't make the coup okay.
meheleventyone 2y ago
> The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress. Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it? As a bystander in another country your line of argument is mind-boggling. You don't just throw out the constitution and way the government works because one guy won an election one time. But that seems to be what a lot of people are suggesting, that because Trump won the election whatever he does is democratic and therefore okay.
- lawn 2y ago
  The same people typically argue that whatever Trump is right anyway. For example when he lost the last election people rallied behind is made-up election fraud claims.
- chongli 2y ago
  Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it? They can’t because of the filibuster [1]. They cannot bypass the filibuster without a 3/5 majority which they do not have. Thus any bill which the Democrats oppose will be blocked by filibuster in the Senate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
  - theossuary 2y ago
    They could easily remove the filibuster if they so choosed.
    - chongli 2y ago
      Yes, they could remove the filibuster. But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place. The filibuster remaining in place is a good thing because it encourages negotiations and compromise instead of a seesaw battle.
      - theossuary 2y ago
        I agree the filibuster is a good thing. But you can't decide to keep it and then use it as a reason to bypass congress.
      - verzali 2y ago
        > But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place. That's called democracy.
__loam 2y ago
By mandate do you mean the 3 vote majority in the house?

DarkmSparks 2y ago

not really a coup, its a default. US government is already using pension fund money to pay its bills since early January (aka special measures), the interest on their national debt is already more than they collect in taxes.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jimkleiber 2y ago
That has very little if anything to do with the executive branch brazenly disregarding laws.
- tremendoussss 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    In the first two weeks of taking office? I think it's just my belief that government should be slow and methodical, that the government should be thorough, and coming in and slashing and burning, without seemingly even checking whether they're legally allowed to do it, just seems to be a vengeful fit. I want government to be stable, relatively predictable, and wanting to follow the laws more than any other entity in the country. If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization?
    - tremendoussss 2y ago
      It has to be in the first two weeks, 90%+ of DC voted for Kamala. There's going to be resistance and lack of support. People are going to want to keep their jobs. Layoffs suck but there's not a great way to do them, and the government shouldn't be immune to them. This wasn't a surprise to people following him. People like his head of OMB from his first term was on Tucker talking all about this. They've talked about the legal aspect of things and have prepared. They've had 4 years to prepare for the resistance to change in DC and the law will be used to resist. > If the government doesn't respect the law deeply, why would any other organization? I think this is the biggest issue we have in society. Trump supporters have been screaming that this has already been an issue for decades. The majority of Trump supporters would 100% agree with you. While everyone is pointing their fingers at Trump and calling his supporters conspiracy theorists, we aren't looking at the crimes our corrupt government has committed. There is no trust that our DOJ is on the side of the people and not just another tool of the corrupt establishment. The list of accusations made by Trump supporters is large and damning and absolutely deserve to have their questions answered. The hate and neglect of Trump supporters includes a massive blind eye to evil in DC that's been going on for decades

Gareth321 2y ago

I don't think you can call a democratically elected president doing what he promised to do a coup.

realusername 2y ago
So first he lied about Project 2025 and then, "whatever the president does is democratic" is just an obvious sophism, no democracy works like that. Democraties work with checks and balances, which are being broken right now. On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents
- Gareth321 2y ago
  I don't think he lied about Project 2025. It is a collection of more than 700 policy proposals. Some completely normal, milquetoast Republican policies. Some more extreme. No matter what Trump implemented, it would have covered some of those policies, leading to accusations that he's "doing Project 2025". I don't think he would ever have read 900 pages, so I don't think he read it, and I don't think he lied. I didn't claim everything he does is democratic. I claimed that what he is doing is as promised to voters. Don't take my word for it. He is now at the highest approval rating he has ever had in office (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...). People obviously feel he is delivering what he promised. I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. They have an unprecedented mandate to carry out unprecedented change by voters who were obviously VERY unhappy with the Democrat Party. > On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
  - realusername 2y ago
    That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection? > I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework. Maybe Trump isn't as confident as you seem on the loyalty of his fellow non-MAGA Republicans. > I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian? I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.