5 ms·
I appreciate the perspective, and I know it's trite, but it's important: how would you feel about a resident of 1933 Germany writing your comment? Some good peo
by bbor 2y ago
I appreciate the perspective, and I know it's trite, but it's important: how would you feel about a resident of 1933 Germany writing your comment? Some good people fled, true, but staying and complying because mass protest seems "unlikely" is almost definitely something posterity will frown upon -- not to mention the rest of the world. I think that's something that should give one pause.
Remember, mass protest to (push congress to) oust an authoritarian executive has never happened before in the USA -- but we've also never had an authoritative executive to anywhere near this extent before.
- btilly 2y agoFDR was more extreme than Trump so far. For instance consider banning private ownership of gold by executive order. Mind you, Trump could still declare himself dictator. But based on what's happened so far? FDR was more extreme.
- IAmGraydon 2y agoFDR's order regarding gold was part of a broader effort to combat the Great Depression by stopping gold hoarding, allowing the government to inflate the money supply and stimulate the economy. It wasn’t a total seizure — people were compensated at the then-official rate of $20.67 per ounce. The comparison doesn't hold water whatsoever.
- btilly 2y agoName me 5 executive orders by Trump which, combined, disrupt normal economic affairs by as much as that single one. As for the broader efforts, the New Deal required various things like reinterpreting the Commerce Clause. Look up "the switch in time which saved nine" for why the Supreme Court went along with it. Not to mention things like the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW 2. No, FDR was the closest thing we've had to a king. There is a reason why the 22nd amendment was passed so quickly after he died.
- throwaway48476 2y agoClosest since Lincoln.
- throwyouaway 2y agoLincoln held the Union together and led to a USA that saved Europe and beyond. He also advocated letting the defeated South “up easy” in an effort to rebuild some sort of national unity after the greatest loss of life we have ever experienced in this nation. Could you imagine Trump doing the same? Lincoln guided us through a national disaster as best as possible for a person to do, I don’t recall him enriching himself either.
- throwaway48476 2y agoGuided us through a national disaster by starting a war? You don't get credit for guidance if you were the cause of the disaster. The history of America was one of political compromise, that he threw out in favor of war. A lot of people got fabulously rich off the war and then the carpet bagging. And for those that believe it was about slavery then why did the emancipation proclamation free 0 slaves? He exempted the slave counties the union controlled because the goal wasn't an end to slavery. He could have freed the slaves but chose not to.
- throwyouaway 2y agoLincoln started the war? Lincoln’s actions didn’t result in the eventual freeing of the slaves? Lincoln was unpopular in the South and so they wanted to take their ball and go home; the South started the war - the North ended it and has the graciousness not to take absolute vengeance on the remains. Lincoln was imperfect and could have done more so you think Trump would have done anything? Except make a “deal” swapping citizens for money?
- throwaway48476 2y agoIts a good thing you are gracious not to take absolute vengeance on your neighbors when they annoy you. I feel bad for them to have to live near someone so violently unhinged. Politics is the art of compromise.