18 ms·
This EO, combined with his proclamation that "He who saves the country does not violate any law" paint a very concerning picture. This has, historically speakin
by Zamaamiro 2y ago
This EO, combined with his proclamation that "He who saves the country does not violate any law" paint a very concerning picture. This has, historically speaking, been the language of tyrants. No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary.
“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins”
- jokoon 2y ago[flagged]
- Zamaamiro 2y agoI don't like using the Hitler comparison because it makes people have a kneejerk reaction and tune you out, but it is plainly undeniable that Trump makes many statements that could be attributed, word for word, to any number of authoritarians and tyrants throughout history.
- andrewinardeer 2y agoModern-day America exhibits striking parallels to Nazi Germany prior to Trump’s election, revealing serious concerns about the current state of national identity and political culture. One of the most significant similarities is the prominent use of the eagle as a national symbol, which deeply reinforces American patriotism. This motif is prominently showcased in iconic films and features in imposing architecture, such as the U.S. Capitol and various government buildings. Though rooted in ancient Rome, its invocation in modern America serves to solidify a sense of unity and national pride. Moreover, the practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is a powerful tool for instilling civic identity among students. This act fosters a strong collective loyalty to the nation, echoing how Nazi Germany indoctrinated its youth. Mass gatherings—be it political conventions, presidential inaugurations, or significant events like the Fourth of July—serve to invigorate the populace and create a palpable emotional connection to the state. Nazi Germany revered the military as the backbone of society, exemplified by uniforms and grand military parades showcasing their might. The United States mirrors this sentiment through events such as Veterans Day, honoring those who have served by prioritizing them in boarding processes and glorifying military prowess during flyovers at major sporting events. Uniforms and visual identity are crucial in both contexts. Nazi Germany was obsessed with uniforms—whether the imposing SS black or the earthy brown of the brownshirts—which represented discipline and loyalty to the regime. Similarly, in the U.S., uniforms convey a range of services, from military camouflage to police blue and even political campaign attire. While Nazi uniforms symbolized rigid hierarchy, American uniforms reflect a diverse array of service and community; both utilize attire to assert belonging and authority. Leadership cults flourish on both sides of the political spectrum. Nazi ideology unflinchingly fixated on racial and cultural “purity,” scapegoating and vilifying groups such as Jews and Romani people. In modern America, incendiary debates over immigration, “American values,” and “law and order” revolve around preserving a cohesive national identity, often at the expense of marginalized communities. The glorification of physical fitness plays a vital role in both societies. The Nazis showcased Aryan athleticism at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, weaponizing athletic success to promote their ideology. Likewise, America celebrates its sporting champions across football, basketball, and baseball, intertwining national pride with athletic excellence. Color schemes serve as powerful symbols in both contexts. The swastika flag’s black, white, and red colors were deliberately designed to evoke the ideas of blood, soil, and purity—central tenets of Nazi ideology. In contrast, the U.S. flag’s red, white, and blue represent foundational ideals like valor, purity, and justice. Both nations skillfully leverage bold, simple color schemes to provoke visceral emotions and establish a coherent identity, despite starkly different histories and narratives. The narrative of an "enemy from within" was fundamental to the Nazis and continues to resonate today. While the U.S. is not engaged in genocide on its own soil, political rhetoric often frames “elites,” “socialists,” or “extremists” as existential threats to the nation. The Nazis exploited this fear to justify horrific purges; in America, similar dynamics fuel extremism and exacerbate partisan divides, tapping into deep anxieties of betrayal. Additionally, monumental engineering feats—like the Autobahn and V-2 rockets—were proudly showcased by the Nazis to assert their technological superiority and national prowess. The United States boasts monumental achievements like the moon landing, groundbreaking innovations from Silicon Valley, and advanced military technology. Both societies firmly link innovation to national greatness; however, while Nazi pursuits were driven by warfare, America aims to enhance its global image and achieve broader ambitions through its technological advancements. The groundwork for a potential dictatorial state has been meticulously laid over the years. Trump is not merely facilitating change; he is actively pushing for a fundamental shift that could redefine the very fabric of democracy.
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago[dead]
- bagels 2y agoThere is so much evidence that he is actually, intentionally, emulating Hitler though. He quotes Hitler "poisoning the blood of the country", kept Hitler's speeches by his bedside, was reported by his cabinet to have admired Hitler.
- throwway120385 2y agoNapoleon was a tyrant too.
- dimal 2y agoI see him more as a Caesar. In this analogy, Musk would sort of be Augustus. The senate still existed, and there were still consuls and all the trappings of a republic, but he was made princeps. It was a title with no significant official power, but he had the real power. At this point, it seems to me like Musk is more powerful than Trump. He owns Trump. Trump only wants power. He doesn’t care what it’s for. Musk is on a mission. I don’t see how anyone could NOT be concerned that they’d do damage. They’ve already done irreparable damage. All the norms we used to have in place are gone. It’s anything goes.
- jsbisviewtiful 2y ago> and I am not really worried that he might do a lot of damage "His" "policy" of firing a large portion of the federal workforce is going to come crashing into the private sector very shortly when it comes time to renew contracts. That's not even mentioning what's about to happen to the job market when the unemployment rate skyrockets all at once and the private sector only has low income positions to offer - or none at all. Republicans are flirting with defaulting on US debt too, which will damage the value of USD - catastrophic when he's throwing tariffs around like confetti. That people keep posting things like "I'm not too worried" is mind-boggling. That's _only_ discussing the financial disaster to the economy and not the plethora of other problems Republicans are signing off on.
- 65 2y agoHe seems more like Pinochet than anything (maybe without the murdering). Neoliberal deregulation, privatizing state owned assets, etc. while consolidating power to himself. Which ended up in extreme economic inequality and fear of opposing the ruler.
- throw0101c 2y ago> I don't really want to agree to it, and I am not really worried that he might do a lot of damage, but it is difficult to see it otherwise. See perhaps "How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days": * https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-germany-constitution-authoritarianism/681233/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive...
- axus 2y agoThe Supreme Court literally said that Trump has absolute immunity for criminal use of presidential power. Combined with the statistical impossibility of a 2/3 senate majority for impeachment, this is a license to grab as much power as that same court will allow.
- bagels 2y agoRepublican Senators want this. It's not about statistics. They believe in this stupid Unitary Executive thing (aka, we should have a King).
- masklinn 2y agoThey don’t actually believe in unitary executive theory, as can plainly be seen any time a democrat is elected president.
- rowanG077 2y agoI'm curious how do we know this? I don't plainly see this it all.
- michaelt 2y agoI think masklinn is arguing that, if Republican senators truly believed the president should be an elected king with nigh-limitless power, then during Democrat administrations they would have been eager to approve anything the president put forward, as he was the president-king at that time. Whereas what we saw instead was them blocking everything they could, government shutdowns etc. Unless "Unitary Executive" means something a good deal more nuanced than the president being king, that is.
- nerdponx 2y agoThey do truly believe it, but only when a Republican is the sitting president.
- 2y ago
- jmyeet 2y agoJust remember, none of this was a surprise. It was advertised ie Project 2025. It is the culmination of the 50+ year Republican Project. And yet we had no opposition to it. The Biden administration and Kamala Harris were more interested in defending and providing material support for war crimes than stopping any of this. The Democratic Party is more comfortable with Trump as a dictator than an actual progressive getting in power. If the Democrats opposed and sabotaged Republicans half as well as they did Bernie Sanders, we would be in a very different place. It’s quite literally “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” They throw their hands up and surrender. You want a playbook? Look at what the Republicans did at any point from 2010 to 2016 and just do any of that.
- hypeatei 2y agoI think it was definitely bad that Joe held on so long before letting Kamala run but incumbents lost globally[0], not just here in the US. People aren't happy with the effects COVID had, which is valid, but misplaced the blame which is how we got here. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-incumbents-defeated-c80fbd4e667de86fe08aac025b333f95 https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-incumbents-...
- troupo 2y agoIt's definitely bad that Democrats could not come up with a single candidate, and a strategy for that candidate, but held on to Biden and then presented Kamala as a saviour when she was a meh candidate at best
- beezlebroxxxxxx 2y agoThey need to hold an actual primary.
- neaden 2y agoWho are the "Democrats" that you are talking about? No one held on to Joe Biden, he was president and decided he was going to run for re-election. No one seriously ran against him because people generally don't try to run against a sitting president in a primary and if they had they would have almost certainly lost in a landslide. Biden didn't need anyone's permission to run, and no one could have stopped him from running. Then he dropped out and endorsed Harris no credible person attempted to run against her. There is no secret party leadership who decides on the candidate that we can now blame, and besides some of the efforts to convince Biden to drop out everything was done very publicly.
- tptacek 2y agoWhat is it that you think this EO says? The first Trump administration went all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that he could coerce ALJs. There are already extensive internal checks on FTC, SEC, and FCC --- places where to exercise independent power those agencies still need the cooperation of DOJ. There's a clear norms violation happening here, but I don't see the power grab everybody else is seeing. These are powers the Presidency already had.
- mfkp 2y agoUncommon tptacek L. "extensive internal checks" that's laughable given what's been going on lately with the executive overreach.
- tptacek 2y agoYou misunderstand me. I'm not saying those internal checks are a good thing; I mean that the President already has extensive mechanisms to control what these agencies do.
- Jare 2y agoHe seems to be optimizing and polishing his ability to do so, which is very dangerous even if technically the reach is the same.
- rco8786 2y ago> These are powers the Presidency already had. Then what, in your mind, is the purpose of this EO?
- colechristensen 2y ago>paint a very concerning picture Donald Trump is trying to be dictator. He has been doing all but wearing a sign around his neck saying so for a long time. Please don't act surprised. It is not the time for quotes or being shocked at his actions.
- NickC25 2y agoHe's literally said he wants to be a dictator. He's saluted Kim Jong-Un's generals. He's bent the knee to Vladimir Putain He's whined that it's not fair that he doesn't have the powers that Xi Jinping does. Growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, it was widely known that Donald Trump was a fraud and a complete clown. It will be studied for decades how many people just willingly gave up their ability to call a spade a spade and ignore reality when it comes to Donald Trump. How did people become so fucking stupid?
- colechristensen 2y agoIt's pretty simple, working class mostly conservative white Americans have been feeling extremely disenfranchised and the right phrase is nearly "discriminated against" by the left and what were mainstream republicans. This bloc of people were used by entities foreign and domestic to wield power. Large disgruntled groups of people are really good for this. Donald Trump is the perfect symbol for this group and there are even some strange almost religious feelings towards him in a few.
- NickC25 2y ago>Donald Trump is the perfect symbol for this group How a real estate & brand "billionaire" from NYC who wears orange makeup and lifts and speaks in the most basic of generalities became the rallying symbol for disenfranchised rural white working class conservatives speaks to the absolute degeneracy of our society. Awful.
- gottorf 2y agoOr, from another perspective: the "disenfranchised rural white[0] working class" was so abandoned by the Democratic Party, which previously represented that class, that a reality TV start from NYC with all of his flaws came to champion their needs instead[1]. [0]: Trump got a higher share of nonwhite votes of every stripe in 2024 than he did in 2016, so it's clearly more about class than race. [1]: https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1854645395856482568 https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1854645395856482568
- tiahura 2y agonor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary. That is incorrect, the president’s responsibility is to execute the laws of the United States. In order to execute a law, one must interpret it. The exclusive domain of the judiciary is the power to adjudicate cases. In order to adjudicate a case involving a law, one must also interpret.
- John23832 2y ago> In order to execute a law, one must interpret it. This isn't true. > The exclusive domain of the judiciary is the power to adjudicate cases. In order to adjudicate a case involving a law, one must also interpret. This is actually true.
- CharlesW 2y ago> In order to execute a law, one must interpret it. I mean, yes, but in a non-judicial sense. The judiciary has the constitutionally assigned duty to give binding interpretations in the course of adjudicating cases.
- avalys 2y agoThis EO says nothing about the Judicial branch and presents a perfectly reasonable policy statement about how legal decisions and interpretation should be made within the executive branch. What specific language in this EO do you have a problem with? I’m no fan of Trump, but this pattern of people hallucinating that Trump said something he didn’t and then freaking out about their nonexistent hallucination, is getting very tiresome.
- vharuck 2y agoConsider this hypothetical: a federal judge rules against the Trump administration's firing of the inspectors general and must offer the fired employees their positions back. The Attorney General says the judge overstepped his constitutional power and calls the ruling invalid. What should the person who would've rehired the employees do? Continue that hypothetical further: the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, who agrees with the federal judge. The executive branch continues to ignore the order. The Attorney General is held in contempt of court and fined a large amount of money. Who's going to collect it? Any executive branch employee trying to carry out that fine would be violating this executive order, and be dismissed. So the fine would never happen. Considering the president and vice president's recent disdain for judicial rulings against them, this may happen.
- avalys 2y agoWhat’s the solution you have in mind? Anyone in the Executive branch can interpret the law for themselves and disobey an order if they believe they have a legal basis to do so? That would be completely paralyzing.
- wnoise 2y agoYes. It would be completely paralyzing were the executive largely staffed with those that wanted to paralyze it. Usually that's not the case. I don't think that'd be case unless the orders were completely outrageous, in which case, yes, we absolutely want them disobeyed until adjudication could happen.
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago> nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary Everyone tasked with enforcing a law must necessarily interpret its meaning. The judiciary gets the final say though.
- colmmacc 2y agoAt least on criminal matters, pardons over-ride the judicial branch.
- NotYourLawyer 2y agoThat’s an unrelated issue.
- nielsbot 2y agoWho will enforce following the law if the executive branch ignores the judicial? In theory the military is sworn to defend the constitution, but if the DOD is headed by a Trump loyalist (it is), then what?
- NotYourLawyer 2y agoThere is no suggestion that that’s going to happen.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThe Vice-President of the United States is openly suggesting it. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
- dathinab 2y agoand the president did too in slightly more subtle way
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
- rchaud 2y ago"He who saves the country" sounds suspiciously close to the "Founder Mode" thinking that Valley CEOs have been bandwagoning behind.
- IAmGraydon 2y agoIt’s a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte. The funny part is that Napoleon soon found out he was completely wrong.
- lynndotpy 2y ago> No President is above the law, nor does the President "interpret" the law On paper, but not in practice, sadly. The meaning of the Constitution has been bent to serve Trump's will. He violated the law constantly during his first term, was not held accountable for the electoral violations or coup, and is now violating the law again. He's gotten away with it every single time. I'm sorry to say this. You are describing an America that no longer exists. We live in a new country with new rules that we don't quite understand yet.
- kelnos 2y agoI mean, he's been using dictator language for years now. This is certainly concerning, but it's nothing new.