7 ms·

This is the problem with people being OK with executive overreach when "their team" is in power. Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team

• lazide 2y ago
  That’s why the current administration is going to make sure the other side doesn’t get in power again.
  • exe34 2y ago
    I'm debating on whether they will manage to stir up enough chaos to suspend the constitution, or whether there will be enough independent thought left in the military to oust them when the time comes for new elections - although I can't rule out Russian-style elections, one-man one-vote, and his vote is what counts.
    • toolz 2y ago
      Can we give this fear-mongering a rest? This is his second term, he didn't topple democracy in his first term and everyone made the same arguments back then. If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either. Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically. The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
      • Juliate 2y ago
        > he didn't topple democracy in his first term Oh, like, he wasn’t really informed nor involved in January 6, 2021? And he never mentioned, several times in 2024 that you Americans wouldn’t have to vote anymore?
      • sobellian 2y ago
        He didn't topple the system but it wasn't for lack of trying. Pence had to refuse Trump's repeated requests to fix the election (a precedent that would have guaranteed single-party rule). You are relying now, as you were then, on other people in the system conducting themselves with integrity. If it were up to Trump, Biden would never have assumed office.
      • matwood 2y ago
        He incited an insurrection his first term, that came down to a few people doing the right thing. He learned from that so he's quickly firing everyone he can. He's dismantling the FEC and people who prevent foreign interference in our elections. He even removed the foreign bribery law. If he doesn't topple democracy this time, it won't be for lack of trying.
        • dh2022 2y ago
          How did he remove the bribery law? Trump can only issue EOs he cannot issue ( or repel) laws…
          • lazide 2y ago
            He issued an EO directing agencies to not enforce that law. So ‘worst of both worlds’. ‘legal’ as long as he doesn’t change his mind. It also opens up the possibility of selective enforcement to punish anyone he doesn’t like.
      • nicebyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • 2y ago
    • bigbacaloa 2y ago
      If you have to count on the military to save you, you are lost already.
      • kelnos 2y ago
        Can't help but agree. If Trump and federal law enforcement refuse to allow for the peaceful transition of power, and the military has to step in (if they even would!), we've lost, plain and simple.
        • lazide 2y ago
          Not as much as if they won’t step in.
      • exe34 2y ago
        I'm not in the US, but I used to admire them, and I certainly understand that whatever happens to the US has a huge impact on the rest of the world. They used to be the backstop guarantee for democracy in the west, but now they've turned their back on allies.
        • lazide 2y ago
          I wouldn’t even say ‘turned their backs on’ - more, ‘are actively trying to shake down’. Being ignored would be a blessing here.
    • mindslight 2y ago
      My gut says there will be elections and they might even be "fair" but that there won't be much left to actually govern, having been sold off to corpo looters or just outright destroyed. Trump is his own aggressive buffoon, but ultimately still just a tool of the corpo authoritarians that have had a death grip on this country for decades (at least) - doubly so with the deals he undoubtedly had to make to get a second term to assuage his pitiful ego. Hence the captains of the surveillance industry throwing their support behind him with Musk gaining the de facto executive power.
• ike2792 2y ago
  This is the crux of the issue. Executive power has been gradually expanded since at least the end of WWII, but things have accelerated since the early 00's. Think GWB's "signing statements" or Obama's "phone and pen." Trump I, Biden, and now Trump II have continued to push the limits, in part because of a desire for more power but also because Congress hasn't functioned as an institution in decades. Congress has passed a budget on time only 4 times since 1977, the last time being in 1997. Presidents are elected based on promises made to various parts of the electorate, and if/when Congress won't act (often even when Congress is controlled by the president's party, nearly always when controlled by the opposition), no one generally makes a fuss if the president pushes through a popular-ish thing by executive authority. Republicans may be happy now but they won't be when a Democratic president ups the ante in a few years, just like Democrats were perfectly happy with Obama and Biden's overreaches but are furious at Trump's.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • fireflash38 2y ago
    Congress needs to be expanded to do its job, and drop the filibuster. We need more, proportionally allocated representatives. Representatives that come from more than one of two parties. Representatives that spend more time at home than on the campaign trail or in DC.
    • wavemode 2y ago
      Representatives with term limits. It blows my mind that someone can be a career congressperson. It creates precisely the same adverse incentives as being a career president. Your whole focus becomes making sure you stay in power. Which for congresspeople means toeing the party line.
      • organsnyder 2y ago
        Term limits lead to institutional knowledge and skills being concentrated in unelected staffers and lobbyists. Effective legislating involves building relationships, negotiating skills, and deep subject matter knowledge in at least some areas. Yes, we have tons of bad legislators: some just not good at their jobs, some actively harmful (leaving that vague on purpose—I think all partisans can agree that they exist, even if we disagree on who they are). In theory, they can be excised via the ballot box. However, we don't want to kick out the good ones just as they're getting to be their most effective—not only do we lose their direct skills, but we lose their ability to mentor the promising up-and-comers. I place more blame on the way we do primaries and general elections: in most districts, the only thing that matters is the primary, and that produces some truly rotten results.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• Jun8 2y ago
  You've nailed it. I call this the Galadriel Principle and it can be applied to many things: weapons, executive procedures, etc.: “And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!” Oppression when Galadriel is on the throne may be better than that for Sauron; it's still oppression.
  • mjevans 2y ago
    The Lord of the Rings movie that that scene so much emotional justice. Visually representing the power corrupting even with but a taste.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• lolinder 2y ago
  > having our judicial branch become openly partisan A lot of the decisions that have been flagged as "openly partisan" are just the Supreme Court saying exactly what you're saying: the executive branch and judicial branch don't have the authority to write laws and both branches should really stop writing laws and force Congress to do that. We will see this year and in coming years whether this Supreme Court is partisan or just activist in tearing down executive authority. If they uphold this administration's opinions about executive power, then yes, they're blatantly partisan and have no integrity. If they stand in the way, then maybe they just finally had the numbers to rein in the executive branch like conservatives have been arguing for for generations. I don't think we have enough information at this point to judge which is more likely (though I know most here will disagree with me on that point).
  • redeux 2y ago
    What say you of the Trump vs United States (appropriately named) ruling that gives the president immunity from crimes committed while in office? Does that align with the idea that SCOTUS may reign in presidential power? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
    • readthenotes1 2y ago
      The article you attached does not say that the ruling gives the president immunity from all crimes committed while in office.
      • throw16180339 2y ago
        That's the practical effect of the ruling. It would have prevented Nixon from being prosecuted.
        • kelnos 2y ago
          Maybe, maybe not. It's not clear that Nixon's legal team could have successfully argued that planting listening devices in the DNC offices would constitute an "official act" of presidential power. I would hope that, in this hypothetical reality, a judge and jury would still find that laughable. Even if such a ruling would have kept Nixon safe from prosecution, Congress still could have impeached him, and at least that would have kicked him out of office. Of course, Nixon was preemptively pardoned, so we didn't even get to see how that would have played out in the reality of the time.
• cavisne 2y ago
  Having a permanent bureaucracy that ignores directives from the executive only really benefits democrats (look at the Washington DC presidential vote totals). So this executive order is not a both sides thing, or about executive overreach. Something like the REINS Act, forcing regulations to be voted on by congress, would be something that hurts both sides & prevents executive overreach.
  • alwa 2y ago
    I’d note that the Washington DC vote totals mainly reflect people who live in the District proper, most of whom are not federal civil servants. Plenty of those seem to live in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs, or closer to their federal workplaces in other parts of the United States. Something tells me presidential vote totals around Fort Bragg or Oak Ridge—both home to notable numbers of career federal employees—might give a different impression. E.g. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2025/01/18/the-data-shows-where-most-federal-employees-are-located/ https://news.clearancejobs.com/2025/01/18/the-data-shows-whe...
  • kelnos 2y ago
    > look at the Washington DC presidential vote totals Most federal civil servants live in Maryland or Virginia, not in DC.
• generic92034 2y ago
  > Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further. Are you sure this is going to be a fact, in the future? How likely is it, that the next elections will still be (somewhat) fair?
  • cpitman 2y ago
    Very. Election officials, across states and across parties, have been faithfully discharging their duties, often under pressure to not do so. This is a responsibility of the states, and not the federal government. If you're concerned, then work as a poll officer on election day. In Virginia, I get to participate an incredibly professional and structured process that makes it easy for everyone who can vote to vote and makes sure there are many checks that the process is being followed correctly.
    • rurp 2y ago
      Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This administration is already much more aggressive and corrupt than the previous go around. Trump has been abundantly clear that he does not like or respect democracy and he might very well have the power to end it now. Congress's authority is already being usurped in blatant ways and they are openly talking about not following court orders. If they completely toss the courts aside and survive the resulting backlash (very likely) our system of government as we know it is over. The conditions for this are being set as we watch. Dictators always prize loyalty above competence, which is exactly what our current leader is doing. I don't doubt that nearly everyone involved in managing our recent elections are conscientious and professional, but what are they going to do if a bunch of troops with guns show up to change the results?
      • margalabargala 2y ago
        On the other hand, the popular power of the GOP is currently concentrated around a single person, someone who is also the oldest person to ever start a presidential term, and who does not lead a particularly healthy lifestyle. There is every chance that "What will Trump do during the 2028 election?" will be a question resolved by time and nature. There is no one waiting in the wings to take over popularly if this happens. Previous people who have at various times looked like they might, have fallen mightily from grace in the eyes of the party, such as DeSantis. It all falls apart without Trump. And Trump is an old man, doing a stressful job.
• jmyeet 2y ago
  This is an example of what I like to call the "both sides fallacy". There are several reasons why people try and make a both sides equivalence in US politics. For example: - As a way of not having to know anything while appearing intellectual or somehow "above it all"; - Genuine and fundamental misunderstanding of the political forces in the US. Example: thinking there's such a thing as "socialism" or "the far left" in America; - To knowingly deflect from the excesses of the conservative movement. Here are the two political forces in American politics: 1. The fascist party who has had a 50+ year project to take over and subvert every aspect of government to destroy any aspect of democracy and create a neofuedal dystopia masquerading as a Christian theocracy; and 2. The controlled opposition party who loves nothing more than to be out of power and, when in power, to do nothing. It's why Democrats not in office are suddenly for progressive policies like medicare-for-all (as Kamala Harris was in 2019) but when on the cusp of taking power, they have a policy of no longer opposing the death penalty, capitulating to right-wing immigratino policy, arming a genocidal apartheid state and the only tax breaks proposed are for startups. Look at how successful progressive voter initatives were in the last election compared to the performance of the Democratic Party. Florida overwhelmingly passed recreational marijuana and abortion access (~57% for, unfortunately you need 60%+ to pass in Florida) while Trump carried the state by 14. Minimum wage increases passed in deep red Missouri. In fact, abortion access has never failed to garner a mjaority of votes whenever it's allowed to be put in front of voters, no matter how deep red the state. So why if progressive policies are so popular, are the Democrats so opposed to them as a platform? Really think about that. The Democratic Party doesn't exist to abuse power. It exists to destroy progressive momentum at every level of government above all else.
• klipt 2y ago
  What you want is a parliament with proportional representation. Parliaments don't experience gridlock nearly as often.
  • istjohn 2y ago
    The oldest democracy in the world is getting rusty.
• dclowd9901 2y ago
  While I agree with the essential point you're making, it's pretty clear this overreach was always part of this administration's game plan. At least until Pence delayed it through validating the 2020 elections.
• meristohm 2y ago
  Yeah, it's the higher-amplitude wobbles of a complex system before it snaps and finds a new equilibrium.
• protocolture 2y ago
  If you are going to build a machine that can damage you, build it so that you aren't afraid of it being operated by your worst enemy.