5 ms·

I just found it interesting they think that the majority of Americans elected a candidate who supposedly ran on "authoritarian" ideals to be the leader of the f

I just found it interesting they think that the majority of Americans elected a candidate who supposedly ran on "authoritarian" ideals to be the leader of the free world. Don't you think that's a bit unbelievable? You don't think there's a bit of bias/hyperbole there? If you disagree, respond with a specific policy you think is "authoritarian" so everyone can debate it. -- post limit, replying to below -- In 4 years if your side makes a convincing argument then you can undo those executive orders you feel are "authoritarian". Until then, we feel they aren't and they are just, and they are the right thing to do. And the law agrees. Sorry you disagree but that's how it is. Sometimes your side doesn't call the shots. But the system is still working. I promise you another person that aligns with you will be in power eventually... unfortunately.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago
A +1% majority thinks authoritarianism is good for America, and maybe this democracy experiment that the founding fathers wasn’t such a great idea. He is literally ruling by executive fiat, and owns the Supreme Court while congress is inert, so there is nothing there to stop him. Executive orders, at least, are completely ephemeral. The other side doesn’t have to make an argument, they just need to win the presidency. All of Trump’s executive orders can be undone on day one of the new president’s term. Only laws made by congress are binding past the president’s term. Even Trump supporters should know that, Apple definitely does.
tdb7893 1y ago
"I just found it interesting they think that the majority of Americans elected a candidate who supposedly ran on "authoritarian" ideals to be the leader of the free world." -> I mean it is obviously interesting but it sure as hell is not surprising based on my experience talking to people. I've met a lot of people for who democratic norms are pretty low down on their list of politically important things (you can see this in all the anti-democratic stuff like gerrymandering that is pretty rampant in the US. Americans are often willing to sacrifice some amount of democracy for policy goals). Specifically for examples, I mean the most classic authoritarian action is to wield authority to try to stay in power (which the fact that it was unsuccessful doesn't make it not authoritarian, especially when the lesson from it seems to have been to further consolidate power as he's done this term), it's pretty hard to get more cut and dry than that. But it's also pretty clear in how Trump has taken control of government funding in the US , by centralizing more funding power under him (especially the ability to arbitrarily cut programs legally funded by Congress). It's not really about the specific policies though, its the general pattern of centralization of authority and entrenchment of that authority that we've been seeing. P.S. this Federalist Paper highlights why the power of the purse is only in Congress in the US and I think is interesting, especially when talking about budget in regards to authoritarianism (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0207 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-02... this paper was written by Madison, who is better known as the primary writer of the Constitution). Relevant excerpt: "The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

seanmcdirmid 1y ago

A +1% majority thinks authoritarianism is good for America, and maybe this democracy experiment that the founding fathers wasn’t such a great idea. He is literally ruling by executive fiat, and owns the Supreme Court while congress is inert, so there is nothing there to stop him. Executive orders, at least, are completely ephemeral. The other side doesn’t have to make an argument, they just need to win the presidency. All of Trump’s executive orders can be undone on day one of the new president’s term. Only laws made by congress are binding past the president’s term. Even Trump supporters should know that, Apple definitely does.

tdb7893 1y ago

"I just found it interesting they think that the majority of Americans elected a candidate who supposedly ran on "authoritarian" ideals to be the leader of the free world." -> I mean it is obviously interesting but it sure as hell is not surprising based on my experience talking to people. I've met a lot of people for who democratic norms are pretty low down on their list of politically important things (you can see this in all the anti-democratic stuff like gerrymandering that is pretty rampant in the US. Americans are often willing to sacrifice some amount of democracy for policy goals). Specifically for examples, I mean the most classic authoritarian action is to wield authority to try to stay in power (which the fact that it was unsuccessful doesn't make it not authoritarian, especially when the lesson from it seems to have been to further consolidate power as he's done this term), it's pretty hard to get more cut and dry than that. But it's also pretty clear in how Trump has taken control of government funding in the US , by centralizing more funding power under him (especially the ability to arbitrarily cut programs legally funded by Congress). It's not really about the specific policies though, its the general pattern of centralization of authority and entrenchment of that authority that we've been seeing. P.S. this Federalist Paper highlights why the power of the purse is only in Congress in the US and I think is interesting, especially when talking about budget in regards to authoritarianism (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0207 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-02... this paper was written by Madison, who is better known as the primary writer of the Constitution). Relevant excerpt: "The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."