3 ms·

No personal option stated or implied, but: exactly this was clearly promised before the election, and it is being delivered right now. The people voted for this

No personal option stated or implied, but: exactly this was clearly promised before the election, and it is being delivered right now. The people voted for this: a majority of the American people. Democracy, no?

Tool_of_Society 2y ago
He didn't even get a majority of the 60% of voter aged Americans who voted.
amarcheschi 2y ago
I do not get why electing a leader with anti democratic tendencies should be viewed as the pinnacle of democracy
tdb7893 2y ago
In American democracy winning a single election doesn't change the constitution or even the laws at all. There are separate processes for those things that haven't happened. The monetary decisions the executive branch is making right now are explicitly reserved for Congress, which notably hasn't passed a law for it. Voting for someone doesn't imply they aren't bound by existing rules. Edit: There's also more to be said here about restrictions on American democracy (e.g. gerrymandering, first past the post, disenfranchisement, financial barriers to entry for candidates, lack of choice for political parties, etc) that make the US not some bastion for democratic governance. I'm not an expert but the current chaos is at least partially enabled by the flaws in American democracy (rigid 2 party control is a good example of a generally undemocratic force, many Americans would prefer more parties but aren't being represented, that is enabling executive overreach).
Volundr 2y ago
> The people voted for this: a majority of the American people. Democracy, no? Does this mean it was wrong of Republicans to have tried to stop anything Obama or Biden was trying to do? Or question it's legality? I keep hearing this "the people voted for it argument", but unless your prepared to condemn things like limiting the scope of the ACA and refusing to confirm justices, it's hard to take the argument seriously.
hatthew 2y ago
People have to vote for one party or the other. Voting for a party doesn't mean they want every single thing promised by that candidate, it just means they think the sum of all things from that candidate is better than the sum of all things from the other candidate. If this whole DOGE thing was hypothetically not directly connected with any party, I would guess that most americans would have voted against it.
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Yeah, all this chaos rather shows how flawed the whole American political system is. If the current administration is able to do all this, imagine what previous administrations have all done without our approval. Only now people are shaken up about it, because the current administration is rigorously changing things. But it doesn't mean that it was better before, it was always corrupt, now the corruption just becomes more obvious to us.
code_runner 2y ago
Trump also said he could shoot someone in broad daylight on fifth avenue. I think that might be against some rules though. Idk maybe it can be a campaign promise!
- braebo 2y ago
  That’s perfectly legal now that his maga Supreme Court ruled that the President is a King above the law.
code_runner 2y ago
Elon shit posting on twitter and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to a candidate who was elected doesn’t make elons shit posts legal precedent
rawgabbit 2y ago
The US believes in the rule of law. That means those in power cannot ignore rules and operational procedures put in place to prevent abuse of power. What you are saying is Trump won so he can effectively shut down agencies and create new ones by fiat. And if those new agencies break laws that is fine. As a hypothetical, suppose DOGE amasses a large dataset of every resident in the US and it then identifies “illegals” and instructs the deputized military to deport this group of people to prison in El Salvador via secret messaging beyond FOIA reach. This is not OK. Especially if the deported were not given due process to defend themselves in court. What if a few of the deported were actual citizens and had their identities mixed up with someone else.

Tool_of_Society 2y ago

He didn't even get a majority of the 60% of voter aged Americans who voted.

amarcheschi 2y ago

I do not get why electing a leader with anti democratic tendencies should be viewed as the pinnacle of democracy

tdb7893 2y ago

In American democracy winning a single election doesn't change the constitution or even the laws at all. There are separate processes for those things that haven't happened. The monetary decisions the executive branch is making right now are explicitly reserved for Congress, which notably hasn't passed a law for it. Voting for someone doesn't imply they aren't bound by existing rules. Edit: There's also more to be said here about restrictions on American democracy (e.g. gerrymandering, first past the post, disenfranchisement, financial barriers to entry for candidates, lack of choice for political parties, etc) that make the US not some bastion for democratic governance. I'm not an expert but the current chaos is at least partially enabled by the flaws in American democracy (rigid 2 party control is a good example of a generally undemocratic force, many Americans would prefer more parties but aren't being represented, that is enabling executive overreach).

Volundr 2y ago

> The people voted for this: a majority of the American people. Democracy, no? Does this mean it was wrong of Republicans to have tried to stop anything Obama or Biden was trying to do? Or question it's legality? I keep hearing this "the people voted for it argument", but unless your prepared to condemn things like limiting the scope of the ACA and refusing to confirm justices, it's hard to take the argument seriously.

hatthew 2y ago

People have to vote for one party or the other. Voting for a party doesn't mean they want every single thing promised by that candidate, it just means they think the sum of all things from that candidate is better than the sum of all things from the other candidate. If this whole DOGE thing was hypothetically not directly connected with any party, I would guess that most americans would have voted against it.

gitaarik 2y ago
Yeah, all this chaos rather shows how flawed the whole American political system is. If the current administration is able to do all this, imagine what previous administrations have all done without our approval. Only now people are shaken up about it, because the current administration is rigorously changing things. But it doesn't mean that it was better before, it was always corrupt, now the corruption just becomes more obvious to us.

code_runner 2y ago

Trump also said he could shoot someone in broad daylight on fifth avenue. I think that might be against some rules though. Idk maybe it can be a campaign promise!

braebo 2y ago
That’s perfectly legal now that his maga Supreme Court ruled that the President is a King above the law.

code_runner 2y ago

Elon shit posting on twitter and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to a candidate who was elected doesn’t make elons shit posts legal precedent

rawgabbit 2y ago

The US believes in the rule of law. That means those in power cannot ignore rules and operational procedures put in place to prevent abuse of power. What you are saying is Trump won so he can effectively shut down agencies and create new ones by fiat. And if those new agencies break laws that is fine. As a hypothetical, suppose DOGE amasses a large dataset of every resident in the US and it then identifies “illegals” and instructs the deputized military to deport this group of people to prison in El Salvador via secret messaging beyond FOIA reach. This is not OK. Especially if the deported were not given due process to defend themselves in court. What if a few of the deported were actual citizens and had their identities mixed up with someone else.