5 ms·

> deciding everything that happens in government as if they were a king Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean? Trump does exactly how he

> deciding everything that happens in government as if they were a king Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean? Trump does exactly how he promised he would do if you elected him, and you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
>Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean? In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  But you knew he doesn’t care. Your highest court ruled that laws don’t apply to the man. He can be a dictator if he wants and „whatcha gonna do ’bout it”?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    Protest, support others who protest, annoy the shit out of my representatives, and loudly declare "THIS SHIT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever the opportunity presents itself. It may become necessary for Trump and Musk to show their potential for brutality before people's minds change, unfortunately. But it has worked, in the past. The Kent State shooting is a good example; the obviously excessive brutality of the state caused a massive increase in willingness to speak out, protest, strike, etc. That massive public response became too large to ignore. I also recognize that by speaking up I may make myself a target for that brutality. At this point, I've decided "so be it, if that happens, it happens." Evil wins when good people stand by and do nothing.
    - desumeku 2y ago
      You guys did this the last 4 years he was in office and nothing happened. I'm going to sign myself in for another 4 years of screaming while nothing happens. By the way, posting about how much you hate the government on bluesky is not revolutionary activity, and talking about expecting "brutality" in retaliation shows just how out of touch you are with reality.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Supposed to, but the consequences for not doing so are... overly complicated, see the various impeachments and court cases he's already had and defeated. The bounds and laws should have been finetuned long ago, reducing the power of the President on the one side, and reforming the government to be more representative instead of a two party Us vs Them system. But that is also a democratic process and neither side has had a majority or incentive to do so.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    Totally agree that there have been several past failures to reinforce the system and make it less of a good faith / handshake agreement to keep it on the rails. Doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up and call bullshit on what's happening. It's important to call it what it is. It's important to speak up.
    - intended 2y ago
      From someone who has seen banana republics - you are not speaking up with the self awareness required. The way things are going, speaking up can EASILY mean going to jail within a few months. You should STILL speak up. Acknowledge that potetnial risk, respect people, and ask of it all the same. Probably should tell people to clean their HN accounts if they elect not to risk themselves.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        Yep. As stated elsewhere in this thread, I understand that I am taking on risk by speaking up. It's the right thing to do. Every one of us that does creates opportunities for others to do the same. We're running towards fascism. We must fight back.
        intended 2y ago
        In which case I take back what I said. My bad.
- gws16 2y ago
  NIH and NSF ultimately report to the executive branch and if their reach can be expanded under executive fiat in a democratic administration, I don't see why they can't be limited under a republican one?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    Congress controls the budget.
    - scarab92 2y ago
      Budgets are a maximum permitted expenditure, not a minimum. Trump is free to spend less than budgeted.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        Sounds like a legal theory that needs to be tested by the courts. The executive branch is not free to interpret the law in a vacuum.
        scarab92 2y ago
        Agencies spend under budget all the time. Budgets are an approval to spend up to a certain amount, not a requirement to spend a certain amount.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu... We passed laws about that because of a previous Republican president who was also fond of executive overreach.
        desumeku 2y ago
        > 'The executive branch is not free to interpret the law in a vacuum.' Exactly how else are you supposed to get this tested by the courts?
CalRobert 2y ago
Well, it wasn't overwhelming, he got less than 50% of the vote (but still more than Harris). And the head of the branch should still be subject to checks and balances.
3D30497420 2y ago
> you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that Most certainly not overwhelmingly: Trump: 49.80% Harris: 48.32% This is one of the more frustrating aspects of the United States. Not even 1.5% more and the result is "near total evisceration of the federal government" compared to "largely the same". The result is even worse with the Senate. 55.9m votes for Democratic Senators, 54.4m for Republican Senators, and yet Republicans ended up with 53 seats. And this doesn't even get into gerrymandering for House seats, which is predominantly Republican-driven. This is by a good margin not a representative government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elec...
- queuebert 2y ago
  Don't forget roughly a third didn't vote at all.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  Both the President and the Senate are representatives of and voted on by the States, not the people. The only representative of the people in the US Federal government is aptly named House of Representatives. When people vote for President, it is only to inform the State of how they want the State to vote, and the State has significant freedom to allocate its votes for President how it wishes e.g. some States use a proportional allocation instead of winner-takes-all. Popular vote for Federal office was largely a 20th century invention.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    And? That doesn't change the fact that he was not "overwhelmingly" elected. He won by a slim margin. People acting like he has a massive mandate from the people are at best ignoring the facts, and are mostly trying to delegitimize the opposition.
    - jandrewrogers 2y ago
curt15 2y ago
The framers designed a system of government to be allergic to kings, having just fought off a king a couple years earlier.
- krapp 2y ago
  The system appears to have developed a tolerance. Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon.
  - thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
    >> Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon. Even those who crafted the American system knew that it was not perfect. Benjamin Franklin said: "I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others." "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government." Source: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-september17.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-se...
Tool_of_Society 2y ago
Uh maybe read the declaration of independence and some of the writings of the founders? They most certainly did NOT want the executive branch to be a king... ALso a slim majority of the 60% who voted is not an overwhelming majority. Biden's win against Trump was bigger.
tootie 2y ago
Not since the Magna Carta. Issue is that he is bypassing Congress on issues that are explicitly their purview per Article 1 of the Constitution.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago

>Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean? In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.

rad_gruchalski 2y ago
But you knew he doesn’t care. Your highest court ruled that laws don’t apply to the man. He can be a dictator if he wants and „whatcha gonna do ’bout it”?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  Protest, support others who protest, annoy the shit out of my representatives, and loudly declare "THIS SHIT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever the opportunity presents itself. It may become necessary for Trump and Musk to show their potential for brutality before people's minds change, unfortunately. But it has worked, in the past. The Kent State shooting is a good example; the obviously excessive brutality of the state caused a massive increase in willingness to speak out, protest, strike, etc. That massive public response became too large to ignore. I also recognize that by speaking up I may make myself a target for that brutality. At this point, I've decided "so be it, if that happens, it happens." Evil wins when good people stand by and do nothing.
  - desumeku 2y ago
    You guys did this the last 4 years he was in office and nothing happened. I'm going to sign myself in for another 4 years of screaming while nothing happens. By the way, posting about how much you hate the government on bluesky is not revolutionary activity, and talking about expecting "brutality" in retaliation shows just how out of touch you are with reality.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Supposed to, but the consequences for not doing so are... overly complicated, see the various impeachments and court cases he's already had and defeated. The bounds and laws should have been finetuned long ago, reducing the power of the President on the one side, and reforming the government to be more representative instead of a two party Us vs Them system. But that is also a democratic process and neither side has had a majority or incentive to do so.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  Totally agree that there have been several past failures to reinforce the system and make it less of a good faith / handshake agreement to keep it on the rails. Doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up and call bullshit on what's happening. It's important to call it what it is. It's important to speak up.
  - intended 2y ago
    From someone who has seen banana republics - you are not speaking up with the self awareness required. The way things are going, speaking up can EASILY mean going to jail within a few months. You should STILL speak up. Acknowledge that potetnial risk, respect people, and ask of it all the same. Probably should tell people to clean their HN accounts if they elect not to risk themselves.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      Yep. As stated elsewhere in this thread, I understand that I am taking on risk by speaking up. It's the right thing to do. Every one of us that does creates opportunities for others to do the same. We're running towards fascism. We must fight back.
      - intended 2y ago
        In which case I take back what I said. My bad.
gws16 2y ago
NIH and NSF ultimately report to the executive branch and if their reach can be expanded under executive fiat in a democratic administration, I don't see why they can't be limited under a republican one?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  Congress controls the budget.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    Budgets are a maximum permitted expenditure, not a minimum. Trump is free to spend less than budgeted.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      Sounds like a legal theory that needs to be tested by the courts. The executive branch is not free to interpret the law in a vacuum.
      - scarab92 2y ago
        Agencies spend under budget all the time. Budgets are an approval to spend up to a certain amount, not a requirement to spend a certain amount.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu... We passed laws about that because of a previous Republican president who was also fond of executive overreach.
      - desumeku 2y ago
        > 'The executive branch is not free to interpret the law in a vacuum.' Exactly how else are you supposed to get this tested by the courts?

CalRobert 2y ago

Well, it wasn't overwhelming, he got less than 50% of the vote (but still more than Harris). And the head of the branch should still be subject to checks and balances.

3D30497420 2y ago

> you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that Most certainly not overwhelmingly: Trump: 49.80% Harris: 48.32% This is one of the more frustrating aspects of the United States. Not even 1.5% more and the result is "near total evisceration of the federal government" compared to "largely the same". The result is even worse with the Senate. 55.9m votes for Democratic Senators, 54.4m for Republican Senators, and yet Republicans ended up with 53 seats. And this doesn't even get into gerrymandering for House seats, which is predominantly Republican-driven. This is by a good margin not a representative government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elec...

queuebert 2y ago
Don't forget roughly a third didn't vote at all.
jandrewrogers 2y ago
Both the President and the Senate are representatives of and voted on by the States, not the people. The only representative of the people in the US Federal government is aptly named House of Representatives. When people vote for President, it is only to inform the State of how they want the State to vote, and the State has significant freedom to allocate its votes for President how it wishes e.g. some States use a proportional allocation instead of winner-takes-all. Popular vote for Federal office was largely a 20th century invention.
- wat10000 2y ago
  And? That doesn't change the fact that he was not "overwhelmingly" elected. He won by a slim margin. People acting like he has a massive mandate from the people are at best ignoring the facts, and are mostly trying to delegitimize the opposition.
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago

curt15 2y ago

The framers designed a system of government to be allergic to kings, having just fought off a king a couple years earlier.

krapp 2y ago
The system appears to have developed a tolerance. Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon.
- thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
  >> Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon. Even those who crafted the American system knew that it was not perfect. Benjamin Franklin said: "I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others." "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government." Source: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-september17.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-se...

Tool_of_Society 2y ago

Uh maybe read the declaration of independence and some of the writings of the founders? They most certainly did NOT want the executive branch to be a king... ALso a slim majority of the 60% who voted is not an overwhelming majority. Biden's win against Trump was bigger.

tootie 2y ago

Not since the Magna Carta. Issue is that he is bypassing Congress on issues that are explicitly their purview per Article 1 of the Constitution.