4 ms·

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.
    - Gareth321 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? And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them. > Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework. Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 202. Further laws which cover this title are 5 CFR § 2641.104 and 17 CFR § 200.735-12. Musk is performing legal duties, entitled to him under democratically instituted and operationalised laws. > 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. I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy.
      - realusername 2y ago
        > And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them. Otherwise why he would be personally so close to this project then? That doesn't make sense. > Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law That's not enough to make what Musk is doing legal, this status is mostly for an advisor and Musk is an active executive member. The real way of making it legal is going through congress. Not to mention the other DOGE workers which as far I know have no status at all. > I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy Well there's two things which are not true here in this sentence. First he lied about his actions (unless you can find me a statement where he says that he'll put Musk in charge of dismantling the government), so it's not the will of the people, it's the will of Trump. Secondly, he's not using the executive and legislative right now so it's hardly democratic, it's something you see in authoritarian regimes. In the EU, only Hungary works like that.
- XajniN 2y ago
  When did he change the story about Project 2025?
  - wat10000 2y ago
    When he started carrying it out.
    - XajniN 2y ago
      He couldn’t possibly actually have liked some of the ideas himself, without being associated with the project (or whatever)?
      - wat10000 2y ago
        Hell of a coincidence. When an influential think tank puts out a guidebook for what their party’s nominee should do after winning the presidency, and then that person puts a bunch of the people involved in his administration and starts carrying it out, I’m not inclined to think this is all by chance.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        A lot of accepting what's going on requires us to ignore the broader context of current events, and all of American history, as well as the history of democracies including those who have fallen to an authoritarian dictator.
benzible 2y ago
We don't have a monarchy (yet). The Constitution does not say "anything in here is void at the whim of the President". An electoral win does not allow him to unleash a gang of thugs through all of the agencies, to shut down Congressionally mandated agencies, to violate civil service protections, etc. Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Not to mention, he ran on the opposite of what he's doing. He claimed he was going to end wars and immediately threatened war on multiple allies, with the latest being a threat of mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. And on and on.
- philwelch 2y ago
  Which branch of government are those agencies a part of?
  - realusername 2y ago
    Those agencies are part of the executive branch as they are administrative in nature.
  - achandlerwhite 2y ago
    Created and appropriated by Congress.
  - benzible 2y ago
    That's not how any of this works. Read up on separation of powers. Just to take one example... > the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing that when Congress directs that money be spent, the president is obliged to do it. [...] Presidents can certainly send recommendations to Congress that funds should be cut. The Impoundment Control Act provides an expedited procedure for having those recommendations considered. But the president simply doesn’t have this unilateral authority. https://www.vox.com/politics/398618/elon-musk-doge-illegal-lawbreaking-analysis https://www.vox.com/politics/398618/elon-musk-doge-illegal-l...
    - philwelch 2y ago
      We’ll see in a year or two how this really works. My view is that there was a coup against the Constitution about 90 years ago and as a result we have decades of judicial Calvinball that need to be sorted through. Just to start with, can you find the part of the Constitution that authorizes NIH and NSF to exist in the first place? In terms of following the strictures of the Constitution, nothing the administration has done has made things any worse in that regard and in fact, has the potential to make things much better. The bureaucracy has grown into an extraconstitutional (which is to say, unconstitutional) fourth branch of government with separated powers of its own. Destroying that independence and returning executive power to the elected executive is a massive step in the right direction.
albedoa 2y ago
That doesn't pass even the simplest examination. What if the thing that the democratically elected president promised to do was a coup?
- Gareth321 2y ago
  It still wouldn't make sense. A democratically elected president conducting a coup is a tautology. He can't suddenly seize power by force because he already has it. You could be worried about him refusing to cede power at the end of his term, and should that occur, with the use of the military, you could describe that as a coup. We are many years away from that word making sense.
  - rjbwork 2y ago
    So if a presidential promises to execute all of his opposition in the legislature and execute the judges that disagree with him and execute anyone in the bureaucracy that fails to obey his orders, and then he gets elected, and then he does those things, while blatantly breaking any and all previously passed laws that he cares to, is it a coup?
  - realusername 2y ago
    Historically, a lot of coups were made by democratically elected head of states. It's easier to seize full power when you have some of it. See Napoleon 3, Hitler himself... Your opinion is revealing, if you already think he has full power, then you agree it's a coup.
    - Gareth321 2y ago
      Neither Napoleon nor Hitler were ever elected as heads of state. Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor, but that is the head of government. The head of state is the President. Hitler was able to manoeuvre into that position using his personal army to murder opposition. Napoleon had an old fashioned military coup in 1799, then attempted to legitimise it with a falsified plebiscite in the following year. In both cases, the issue was the murder, not the democracy. It is important that we not blame democracy for the actions of evil men.

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.
  - Gareth321 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? And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them. > Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework. Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 202. Further laws which cover this title are 5 CFR § 2641.104 and 17 CFR § 200.735-12. Musk is performing legal duties, entitled to him under democratically instituted and operationalised laws. > 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. I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy.
    - realusername 2y ago
      > And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them. Otherwise why he would be personally so close to this project then? That doesn't make sense. > Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law That's not enough to make what Musk is doing legal, this status is mostly for an advisor and Musk is an active executive member. The real way of making it legal is going through congress. Not to mention the other DOGE workers which as far I know have no status at all. > I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy Well there's two things which are not true here in this sentence. First he lied about his actions (unless you can find me a statement where he says that he'll put Musk in charge of dismantling the government), so it's not the will of the people, it's the will of Trump. Secondly, he's not using the executive and legislative right now so it's hardly democratic, it's something you see in authoritarian regimes. In the EU, only Hungary works like that.
XajniN 2y ago
When did he change the story about Project 2025?
- wat10000 2y ago
  When he started carrying it out.
  - XajniN 2y ago
    He couldn’t possibly actually have liked some of the ideas himself, without being associated with the project (or whatever)?
    - wat10000 2y ago
      Hell of a coincidence. When an influential think tank puts out a guidebook for what their party’s nominee should do after winning the presidency, and then that person puts a bunch of the people involved in his administration and starts carrying it out, I’m not inclined to think this is all by chance.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        A lot of accepting what's going on requires us to ignore the broader context of current events, and all of American history, as well as the history of democracies including those who have fallen to an authoritarian dictator.

benzible 2y ago

We don't have a monarchy (yet). The Constitution does not say "anything in here is void at the whim of the President". An electoral win does not allow him to unleash a gang of thugs through all of the agencies, to shut down Congressionally mandated agencies, to violate civil service protections, etc. Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Not to mention, he ran on the opposite of what he's doing. He claimed he was going to end wars and immediately threatened war on multiple allies, with the latest being a threat of mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. And on and on.

philwelch 2y ago
Which branch of government are those agencies a part of?
- realusername 2y ago
  Those agencies are part of the executive branch as they are administrative in nature.
- achandlerwhite 2y ago
  Created and appropriated by Congress.
- benzible 2y ago
  That's not how any of this works. Read up on separation of powers. Just to take one example... > the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing that when Congress directs that money be spent, the president is obliged to do it. [...] Presidents can certainly send recommendations to Congress that funds should be cut. The Impoundment Control Act provides an expedited procedure for having those recommendations considered. But the president simply doesn’t have this unilateral authority. https://www.vox.com/politics/398618/elon-musk-doge-illegal-lawbreaking-analysis https://www.vox.com/politics/398618/elon-musk-doge-illegal-l...
  - philwelch 2y ago
    We’ll see in a year or two how this really works. My view is that there was a coup against the Constitution about 90 years ago and as a result we have decades of judicial Calvinball that need to be sorted through. Just to start with, can you find the part of the Constitution that authorizes NIH and NSF to exist in the first place? In terms of following the strictures of the Constitution, nothing the administration has done has made things any worse in that regard and in fact, has the potential to make things much better. The bureaucracy has grown into an extraconstitutional (which is to say, unconstitutional) fourth branch of government with separated powers of its own. Destroying that independence and returning executive power to the elected executive is a massive step in the right direction.

albedoa 2y ago

That doesn't pass even the simplest examination. What if the thing that the democratically elected president promised to do was a coup?

Gareth321 2y ago
It still wouldn't make sense. A democratically elected president conducting a coup is a tautology. He can't suddenly seize power by force because he already has it. You could be worried about him refusing to cede power at the end of his term, and should that occur, with the use of the military, you could describe that as a coup. We are many years away from that word making sense.
- rjbwork 2y ago
  So if a presidential promises to execute all of his opposition in the legislature and execute the judges that disagree with him and execute anyone in the bureaucracy that fails to obey his orders, and then he gets elected, and then he does those things, while blatantly breaking any and all previously passed laws that he cares to, is it a coup?
- realusername 2y ago
  Historically, a lot of coups were made by democratically elected head of states. It's easier to seize full power when you have some of it. See Napoleon 3, Hitler himself... Your opinion is revealing, if you already think he has full power, then you agree it's a coup.
  - Gareth321 2y ago
    Neither Napoleon nor Hitler were ever elected as heads of state. Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor, but that is the head of government. The head of state is the President. Hitler was able to manoeuvre into that position using his personal army to murder opposition. Napoleon had an old fashioned military coup in 1799, then attempted to legitimise it with a falsified plebiscite in the following year. In both cases, the issue was the murder, not the democracy. It is important that we not blame democracy for the actions of evil men.