4 ms·

It's hard for me to see this as anything more than "they resisted Trump, that pissed him off and now he's further retaliating." Side question I've been wrestli

It's hard for me to see this as anything more than "they resisted Trump, that pissed him off and now he's further retaliating." Side question I've been wrestling with to whoever feels like commenting: At what point would you look at our current US situation and say "yep, we're now in a dictatorship"

lenerdenator 1y ago
Dictatorships require at least some sort of state monopoly on violence. That's how power ultimately works. As of now there's no way for the state to enact such a monopoly in the US.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    An election only puts a few people in an office. If those people try to exert their will through force (which, I wouldn’t classify cutting Harvard off as using force, just being a jerk) and there can be severe physical consequences done to the state for that action, then I wouldn’t call it a dictatorship at that point.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      The US regulatory system is intertwined with enough of the country that dictatorship can be wrought through its abuse. E.g. if the US court system were more MAGA, Trump would be ignoring the Constitution today (habeas corpus), instead of toeing around the line E.g. Trump silencing media speech by abusing FCC spectrum transfer authority Institutions and the Constitution are what prevent the US from being a dictatorship, and ultimately both of those things rest on elected (indirectly or directly) officials, and therefore free and fair elections.
    - multjoy 1y ago
      There are no consequences. The president has immunity and the courts are about to have the option of criminal contempt prosecutions removed. Cletus and his stockpile of ammunition are going to have little or no impact and he will be hunted down by law enforcement who are very much toeing the line.
    - hn_acker 1y ago
      Most of my money is not in my wallet and I'm only wearing one of my many pairs of pants, but if someone stabs my wallet with a knife and puts a hole in my pants pocket, they are using force.
- simonh 1y ago
  Agreed, dictatorship is a gross exaggeration. Sliding toward fascism? Sure. Would Tump like to do away with election? He’s said he does, that they won’t be necessary.
  - multjoy 1y ago
    In the bill that has recently been passed, the republicans have inserted a clause that means no administration official can be found guilty of criminal contempt by the federal courts. This will mean that the courts are literally powerless against the administration's malfeasance. The executive will be able to do what they like, and even if this bill doesn't pass the senate, SCOTUS will likely strike down as unconstitutional any appointment by the courts of a private attorney to prosecute criminal contempt because it has been stuffed with useful idiots. This isn't sliding towards fascism, this is speed running 30's Germany.
    - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
      SCOTUS was packed even before Trump's first term. This is speed-running the cherry on top of a sundae that was already made.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  the usa is seeing the state employ that monopoly right now: - against opposing members of the legislative branch (lamonica mciver) - against opposing members of the judicial branch (hannah dugan) - against opposing members of the executive branch (ras baraka, andrew cuomo) - against opposing private organizations (harvard, institute for peace) - against opposing private individuals (chris krebs) - against defenders of opponents (multiple lawfirms) - not to mention rewarding private individuals who employed private violence against political enemies -- we saw this during duterte (ashli babbitt, the rest of the insurrectionists) if there is no monopoly on violence in the usa, who else exactly is the monopolist permitting to use it?
  - jachee 1y ago
    The proletariat has the capacity to violently resist (See: Butler,PA), but the Venn overlap among those with the most firepower and those who actually support the oppressors is two concentric circles.
TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
At least a couple of months ago.
jachee 1y ago
The day Kilmar Abrego Garcia was supposed to be brought back, but defiantly wasn’t.
- neogodless 1y ago
  You know, usually I'd assume this was a misspelling of "definitely" but this time, I'm really not sure.
  - jachee 1y ago
    It was definitely a deliberate choice. :)
goodluckchuck 1y ago
I would read the constitution and come to terms with the fact that the executive authority is vested in a president. It’s not quite a king, because it’s not passed down by inheritance and they can’t enact laws by fiat… but the president is supremely powerful during their term. And that’s good. There’s no denying that the executive branch (its agencies, officers, regulators, etc) is supremely powerful. The only question is whether the public have any democratic control over the exercise of that authority.

lenerdenator 1y ago

Dictatorships require at least some sort of state monopoly on violence. That's how power ultimately works. As of now there's no way for the state to enact such a monopoly in the US.

ethbr1 1y ago
[flagged]
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  An election only puts a few people in an office. If those people try to exert their will through force (which, I wouldn’t classify cutting Harvard off as using force, just being a jerk) and there can be severe physical consequences done to the state for that action, then I wouldn’t call it a dictatorship at that point.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    The US regulatory system is intertwined with enough of the country that dictatorship can be wrought through its abuse. E.g. if the US court system were more MAGA, Trump would be ignoring the Constitution today (habeas corpus), instead of toeing around the line E.g. Trump silencing media speech by abusing FCC spectrum transfer authority Institutions and the Constitution are what prevent the US from being a dictatorship, and ultimately both of those things rest on elected (indirectly or directly) officials, and therefore free and fair elections.
  - multjoy 1y ago
    There are no consequences. The president has immunity and the courts are about to have the option of criminal contempt prosecutions removed. Cletus and his stockpile of ammunition are going to have little or no impact and he will be hunted down by law enforcement who are very much toeing the line.
  - hn_acker 1y ago
    Most of my money is not in my wallet and I'm only wearing one of my many pairs of pants, but if someone stabs my wallet with a knife and puts a hole in my pants pocket, they are using force.
simonh 1y ago
Agreed, dictatorship is a gross exaggeration. Sliding toward fascism? Sure. Would Tump like to do away with election? He’s said he does, that they won’t be necessary.
- multjoy 1y ago
  In the bill that has recently been passed, the republicans have inserted a clause that means no administration official can be found guilty of criminal contempt by the federal courts. This will mean that the courts are literally powerless against the administration's malfeasance. The executive will be able to do what they like, and even if this bill doesn't pass the senate, SCOTUS will likely strike down as unconstitutional any appointment by the courts of a private attorney to prosecute criminal contempt because it has been stuffed with useful idiots. This isn't sliding towards fascism, this is speed running 30's Germany.
  - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
    SCOTUS was packed even before Trump's first term. This is speed-running the cherry on top of a sundae that was already made.
ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
the usa is seeing the state employ that monopoly right now: - against opposing members of the legislative branch (lamonica mciver) - against opposing members of the judicial branch (hannah dugan) - against opposing members of the executive branch (ras baraka, andrew cuomo) - against opposing private organizations (harvard, institute for peace) - against opposing private individuals (chris krebs) - against defenders of opponents (multiple lawfirms) - not to mention rewarding private individuals who employed private violence against political enemies -- we saw this during duterte (ashli babbitt, the rest of the insurrectionists) if there is no monopoly on violence in the usa, who else exactly is the monopolist permitting to use it?
- jachee 1y ago
  The proletariat has the capacity to violently resist (See: Butler,PA), but the Venn overlap among those with the most firepower and those who actually support the oppressors is two concentric circles.

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago

At least a couple of months ago.

jachee 1y ago

The day Kilmar Abrego Garcia was supposed to be brought back, but defiantly wasn’t.

neogodless 1y ago
You know, usually I'd assume this was a misspelling of "definitely" but this time, I'm really not sure.
- jachee 1y ago
  It was definitely a deliberate choice. :)

goodluckchuck 1y ago

I would read the constitution and come to terms with the fact that the executive authority is vested in a president. It’s not quite a king, because it’s not passed down by inheritance and they can’t enact laws by fiat… but the president is supremely powerful during their term. And that’s good. There’s no denying that the executive branch (its agencies, officers, regulators, etc) is supremely powerful. The only question is whether the public have any democratic control over the exercise of that authority.