American democracy under threat! President violates constitution and law enforcement bodies ignore court orders!
Congress:
https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/06/94/76...vyoepcc3Bu.jpg
Printable View
American democracy under threat! President violates constitution and law enforcement bodies ignore court orders!
Congress:
https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/06/94/76...vyoepcc3Bu.jpg
What has Trump done so far that the American voters weren't aware he wanted to do before they chose to elect him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You don't gain a right to ignore the constitution just because your platform promised to ignore the constitution. The constitution is the highest law in the land. Not the people. Not Congress. And certainly not the president.
Reminds me of student body elections in middle and high school.
"Don't claim you're going to extend the lunch hour, or change PE."
Still not a good idea to elect someone who has pledged to ignore the Constitution and implied he'd refuse to accept the result if he loses. That was a pretty dumb move America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Where does that leave you, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
(That thread has not aged well)
It leaves me with my original thoughts: "the shock and disappointment of seeing the US vote for the orange buffoon".
I was in that thread looking for "silver linings" and ended up being hopeful that Trump would turn out to be a liar, not mean what he said during the election and "change tack" and not be insane. Instead he seems to be a Ronseal politician rather than the Pinocchio I was hoping he was. So again, pretty dumb move America.
If we had Trump in office for ten years and engaged in this kind of thing throughout then I would absolutely say it would significantly weaken our democracy and the rule of law here in the US. I just have a hard time seeing him accomplishing that kind of term combined with this kind of behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I don't see a coup there, but I do see a Madoff. If that happens then I say good luck to Trump on managing to avoid either extradition or extraction and repatriation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
That bit about resistance fatigue in particular is just bullshit. I already mentioned a different effect though, it makes for great fodder to show the populists about how the administration tried but the damn lawyers and judges wouldn't let them. Actually, there's a whole bunch of crap in that piece.
Here's the beginning of the move against protesters you were looking for:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Quote:
Bills Across The Country Could Increase Penalties For Protesters
From the Black Lives Matter movement to environmentalists trying to stop new oil pipelines to the recent Women's March against President Trump, the past year has been filled with large, often spontaneous protests.
Now the reaction to those protests is appearing in a number of Republican-controlled statehouses across the country where lawmakers are introducing proposals to increase penalties for those who block roadways while protesting.
A bill in Iowa was inspired by a protest against Donald Trump shortly after the November election. More than 100 demonstrators blocked traffic on Interstate 80, just outside of Iowa City, stopping traffic on the busy trucking route for almost a half-hour.
"You're not just stopping traffic," said Republican Senator Jake Chapman about his bill, which would apply to people blocking highways with speeds posted above 55 mph. Violators could get a felony and spend 5 years in prison, plus a fine of up to $7,500
"You're impeding law enforcement ability to get to call where there could be serious life threatening situations," said Chapman, who also works for an ambulance service.
National pattern
Opponents of the bill call it an attack on free speech.
"Republicans have taken over state legislatures across the country and they appear interested in punishing people with different views than theirs," said Democratic Senator Joe Bolckom of Iowa City.
In North Dakota, where protests have gone on for months over construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, a lawmaker has introduced a bill that would allow motorists to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway as long as the driver did not do it intentionally.
Bills that would increase penalties on unauthorized protests have also been introduced in Michigan and Washington.
Last week in Minnesota, a House committee approved legislation that would increase penalties and charge demonstrators the cost of policing protests. After the fatal shooting by police of an unarmed black man, Philando Castile, Black Lives Matter protests blocked busy interstates in the Twin Cities. Republican state Rep. Nick Zerwas cited the cost of responding to protests for taxpayers as justification for the bill.
"These individuals have broken the law," Zerwas said at the hearing. "It is against state statute to be on the freeway."
The hearing became heated when John Thompson, a friend of Castile, testified, telling lawmakers the protesters were trying to focus attention on the issue of police killings.
"You know what they were doing? They were asking for all you guys to come out and say what is it we can do to help you," Thompson said. "Not one of you came out!"
Free speech concerns
As protests continue to ramp up nationwide, Rita Bettis with the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, says elected officials should be protecting free speech rights. She says bills like the one in her state do the opposite.
"In our country where the government's power flows from the people, peaceful protest is a source of democratic strength not a weakness and it deserves to be protected and cherished," Bettis says. "Not attacked."
Advocates like Bettis say if a few states can reduce a demonstrator's ability to block traffic, it could have a chilling effect on Americans' right to protest.
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512636..._campaign=news
Sounds like a good bill. You can assemble without blocking the highways. Protest groups should also be billed for any litter they leave behind - you have a right to freely assemble but not a right to expect other people to pick up your trash.
In Case It Wasn’t Clear Yet, Steve Bannon Is Our PresidentQuote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
That pretty much covers every type of public gathering. Guess Buckingham Palace should get the bill for cleaning up after the tourists go.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Actually pretty much all event organisers typically do have a duty to clean up their mess so no this would not be shocking to anyone else.
No, it sounds like any old horseshit put in place to try to stop people protesting things either the GOP or Trump's team of idiots don't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Tens or hundreds of thousands of people protesting without using a road? Use the pavement? What?
RB: "We're gonna build the biggest roads, believe me! Their sidewalks are gonna be YUGE."
This refers not to all roads but to Interstates [our equivalent is Motorways] and roads over 55mph [our equivalent is National Speed Limit]. If I wanted to protest I sure wouldn't do so by standing on the M6!Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Yes you can use pavements, or you could use roads more suitable for pedestrian usage like those in city centers where cars are restricted to travelling at much lower speeds.
I'm sure many of you have read this already, but in opposition to my relatively optimistic view that American institutions are resilient to this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/513872/
Frum is hardly a leftist demagogue who will predict the end of American democracy because the GOP holds power. He is a thoughtful conservative who appears to be genuinely concerned about a Trump autocracy. Worth reading.
This changes everything.
In fact most Tea Party protests took it as a sign of pride to make sure their protest area was spotless afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
some protests. I'd love to you see prove most. Protip: Google Images would not be a good place to start to defend your claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
just like some protests from all walks of life for all sorts of reasons can sometimes be spreadheaded by a group that can get everyone to pack out what they packed in.
In fact that was one of the things that CNN took shit for during the BLM / police shooting protests. Editing when speakers would talk about not trashing their own neighborhoods.
I've been to football games that created more trash than our Gasparilla parade. One of the largest parades in the country. One is not representative of the whole.
Is this coming from the same person who lumped the whole of our armed services into a single monolithic group?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I know a few veterans - none of them have taken credit for allowing Keystone to lapse. So please, while we are providing evidence for bold, baseless claims, I'd be interested to see where you are drawing your facts from.Quote:
and a lot of that had to do with being tired of the way things are. A largely "politicians are all the same mentality".
None of them expected that he would be so hostile against so many citizens so quickly. The veterans take credit for being the tipping point for Obama allowing Keystone to lapse. I could see that mentality of protecting average citizens spreading like wildfire if Trump were to move aggressively against protesters, especially if the pipeline fight reignites first.
Pretty sure the football stadium operators will have a duty to clear up the mess that was created rather than leave it to the city to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
For how far? and how do you hold a football stadium responsible for the trash thats spread over what is commonly a mile wide circle? Cause our college down here would love a solution that doesn't put the bill on them. And calling for police to escort ~60,000 fans off property goes no where considering the police's first task is to get those people out of and away from the stadium as fast and orderly as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
A possible path for the future? Sure. But not a plausible one, I think. As he said fairly early on, it is a path which requires the rest of the government to tacitly endorse whatever shenanigans Trump wants to get up to. And I don't see that happening for four years. I can already name five GOP senators who are questioning or otherwise being critical of Trump. Have they turned on him entirely? No. But the man hasn't been in office a full two weeks yet. This is his "honeymoon period," and prominent figures in his own party are already being critical. Frum also highlights how weariness in some things, like reports of lies or financial misconduct, will work in his favor but neglects the same weariness will also undermine those things which Frum talks about firing up the base, like BLM protests. If Trump does even worse in four years than he did in November (which is fairly normal when Presidents run for reelection) than it would be very hard for him to hold onto the White House. It would genuinely take a major improvement for the lower and middle class labor markets to get that sort of result (Frum himself suggests that in his scenario) but who here thinks that's likely to be in the cards over the next four years. Any economic indicators pointing at such a result? I'm not aware of any.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I actually agree with you. I don't think Frum thinks this is a likely scenario - I just think he finds it frighteningly possible, albeit not a high probability one.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I am less sanguine about Congressional pushback, especially if Trump lets them enact whatever agenda they want on top policy priorities with the exception of his pet vanity/populist projects. I am somewhat more confident in the professionalized bureaucracy and our legal system providing substantial checks on executive power; most countries Frum uses as examples simply didn't have the same entrenched and well developed systems that the US has - remember that Hungary and Poland are relatively new to democracy and Venezuela never really had one.
That being said, I share your hope that some prominent center-right Senators will wield the real power for this presidential term, essentially dictating which portions of Trump's agenda (at least that part which requires legislative backing) will go forward. I find this encouraging, but I wonder just how much they're willing to compromise their principles for power.
This is what Robert Reich had to say on Facebook in response to the below Washington Post article and, predictably I'm sure, I agree completely. Republicans want to keep him in office so they can get the spoils of their electoral win, but fuckinay. Can't they do that with Pence, FFS?
WP Article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.e11780b631e5
Quote:
Trump’s personality disorder is relatively harmless when, for example, at this morning’s National Prayer Breakfast he asked attendees to "pray for former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger," who replaced him as the host of NBC’s The Celebrity Apprentice, because the show’s ratings haven’t reached the level they did with Trump as the star.
But the disorder is dangerous when Trump tweets, as he did late last night, that a deal between the U.S. and Australia to resettle refugees is “dumb” -- after berating Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on the phone, accusing Australia of seeking to export the “next Boston bombers,” boasting about the magnitude of his electoral college win, and then, 25 minutes into what was planned as an hour-long call, abruptly ending it by telling Turnbull “this was the worst call by far” of the calls he had with foreign leaders.
Australia is one of our closest allies. We share intelligence with Australia, support one another diplomatically and have fought together in wars including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Officials say Trump has behaved similarly in conversations with leaders of other countries, including Mexico – deriding them, while boasting about his electoral win, the size of the crowd at his inauguration, and the mandate he has from the American people.
Friends, he’s seriously nuts, and the consequences are really dangerous. I don’t know whether it’s through impeachment or the 25th Amendment, but I do know that adults in both parties have to get this man-child out of the presidency before he blows us all up.
Trump is just a symptom. Though it might be reasonable to expect opposition or obstruction from within the GOP ranks--or from prominent players in the GOP establishment machine--on some specific matters of policy or on some of the most unseemly expressions of Trump's character flaws, I don't think we're likely to see a concerted effort from the GOP to forcefully reject--or otherwise deal with--the deeper issues and the underlying attitudes that ultimately brought about the Trump presidency. The illness underlying the symptom, if you will. If anything, prominent Republican politicians seem to be increasingly inclined to embrace that illness as it can help them sustain their political momentum and the edge they currently have over the democrats--as well as over their more moderate peers, whose approval ratings probably take a major hit whenever they dare criticize Trump. Why would they--as a collective--go any further when this illness can be made to work in their favour, to help them make other changes they've been dying to push through for decades?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Whether or not he gets impeached, or beaten, or JFK:d, by the end of Trump's presidency he will have helped establish a new normal that may well give rise to another leader cast in the same mold--or perhaps one more cracked--a couple of terms down the line. I think Frum was mistaken to cast Trump as the antagonist at the heart of his near-future dystopia. Trump won't be that autocrat--but he'll set the stage for the one who will be, and if he can't do it with the help of the government he'll do it with the help of a greater power, namely the people.
The last paragraph is spot on.
The illness that brought about the Trump Presidency. Right. Aimless, I know you don't believe it but conservativism has not become just a modern mask for xenophobic racism. I know you've been painting all of it, whether in Poland, the UK, your own Scandinavia, and here, with that brush but you're doing the same thing that Lewk does with his "liberals" ideation.
There are a lot of factors which brought Trump to the Oval Office. Unintended consequences of revamped GOP nomination rules, the classic see-saw of party incumbency, middle class stagnation, media editorial mismanagement, etc. The "illness" you think of was and is not a very big part however visible it is to you.
Is it possible that Trump will establish a new normal? Maybe but I would consider it unlikely. It's something people are going to get tired of very quickly. About the only pernicious thing we've seen that I think might have staying power is the attitude toward truth and lies and that only works due to a media fragmentation that I don't think can be laid at anyone's door
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...w-archive-1933
Not to Godwin this, but most dictators don't seem like dictators at first. Neither is there an obvious cut-off point where it becomes clear that a country is descending into dictatorship.