laborcontract
5 months ago
This is clearly bothersome, and this administration bothers me at a deep level. One open question I have is: how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations, democratic or republican, from exercising unilateral power at such scale? Clearly it's to curtail the power of the executive, but I'm afraid that neither will resist the temptation to (over)correct or double down, respectively
foogazi
5 months ago
> how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations,
Isn’t this ignoring the elephant in power right now ?
Why project this current reality into the future? It’s right here
red-iron-pine
5 months ago
and they are trying their hardest to game future elections. trump himself has repeatedly said "you won't have to vote again", and laura loomer is literally calling to make him a dictator.
"future administrations" is a pipedream, the USA-ians are gonna have to try pretty hard to protect themselves right now...
Gigachad
5 months ago
Systems and laws only exist if people are willing to enforce them. If the majority of the population support someone disregarding it all, laws on paper are fairly worthless.
jimmydoe
5 months ago
That means laws should be modified based on people’s will. For example, in United Kingdom of America, law can still punish murder as long as it’s not done by the king. It’s a different law than today’s , but still useful to quite some degree. Plus it may not be that different than today’s.
arp242
5 months ago
You don't really. I think that's the big worry.
The way to fix it is to change the constitution (for example [1], although bigger changes are probably needed, IMHO anyway, but this is a good start) but the constitution is so hard to change that this is not really feasible in the short to medium term. And making it easier to change the constitution is a catch-22.
And while the Democratic party is obviously tons better than the Republican party, that's only because the Republican party is so awful. The Dems seem to have only tepid interest to fix this at best.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/21/opinion/trump-constitutio...
bruce511
5 months ago
It's not the democrats job to fix this. It's the voters job.
The voters decided to vote democrats out of office. They are the ones with the power here.
Democracy is about majority rule. Blaming the minority for not fixing the problem is to miss the whole point of voting.
The public decided that this guy, this party, should win the last election. The public will decide who wins the next one.
The really ugly truth is that a significant slice of the public think this is going well. Another significant slice thinks this is OK, let's do more of this. You might not like it. I might not like it. Welcome to the minority. (And Democracy does not treat minorities well.)
laborcontract
5 months ago
Big worry indeed. What puzzles me is that, for all the claims of the death of monoculture, how is it that politics has resisted these fragmentations? How has Trump managed to consolidate power so strongly within the power? I don't keep up with politics, but I suspect even those in the know have no clue either.
Thanks for this link. I wonder how the USA would have fared with that one change in the sentence.
TimorousBestie
5 months ago
> One open question I have is: how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations, democratic or republican, from exercising unilateral power at such scale?
Well, it’s quite simple. If a Democratic president does happen to get elected again (hard to imagine happening in my lifetime), SCOTUS will clam up and reverse most of these little executive power loopholes. Recall how Biden didn’t have the authority to order the Department of Education to forgive student loans? But now Posse Comitatus is just, like, a suggestion.
tdeck
5 months ago
When a Democrat is in office it's the Major Questions doctrine, or some other excuse. When it's a Republican it's Unitary Executive all the way.
user
5 months ago
Yizahi
5 months ago
How you keep a politician or political party afraid in any arbitrary democratic country? You threaten them with possibility of not being re-elected. That is practically the only non-violent way.
Now the question applied to USA would be - can citizens of USA elect an alternative politician or party? They can't, due to medieval first past the post system. And this is really your answer - until you keep the election system as is, you will get the same politicians or worse. Because they are not afraid anymore.
dfxm12
5 months ago
Consider, when has a Democrat politician done this at any level or has talked about doing it? A democratic congress had gotten in Biden's way on really arcane technicalities.
Trump is more or less doing what he campaigned on and has a history of doing. At a minimum, don't vote for anyone involved worth supporting his admin. Don't vote for anyone with the same major donors (you can look up donors on open secrets), or the same project 2025/federalist background. Pay attention to your primary elections.
The simplest way to keep subsequent admins from doing this is to not vote R.
bruce511
5 months ago
I would add that it's a false equivalence to take the behavior of one party, and then worry about the parties not behaving that way "but they might".
In other words the worth is not "what a future hypothetical democrat" might do, but rather what the "current republican is doing.
To answer your point though, the only real thing you can do is vote. That is your lever of power.
Make no mistake, Americans voted for this behavior. All of it was explicitly telegraphed in the campaign. He is doing exactly what people voted him to do.
Yes congress is weak. Yes the Supreme Court is bought and paid for. That doesn't help. But this isn't some accident. It was done openly, and voters rewarded it.
I get that lots of people didn't vote for him. But more people did. If you're not in love with the outcomes, make sure you turn out when the chance comes along. Encourage others to turn out. Because one side is not like the other, and making a choice matters.
And if you're in the "it doesn't matter who wins, they're all the same" camp, well, I'd respectfully suggest you're wrong. It does matter.
tdeck
5 months ago
> the only real thing you can do is vote. That is your lever of power.
This is not the only thing you can do, and this kind of engagement leads to a worse set of options each election cycle. No social movement has ever won rights simply by voting. There are many important ways to apply pressure between elections.
tdeck
5 months ago
> when has a Democrat politician done this at any level or has talked about doing it?
During the Red Scare.
pike_poker
5 months ago
> One open question I have is: how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations, democratic or republican, from exercising unilateral power at such scale
You can’t lol. This type of shit is the will of the people, Half of whom, remind you, have below average IQ.
xdi
5 months ago
[flagged]
laborcontract
5 months ago
I think it's possible to be bothered by your claim, the extermination of palestinians, and the consolidation of executive power.
rixed
5 months ago
Any source is better than "oh you know what I mean". Even if nobody is going to change their mind, it helps to stay aware of where others stand on an issue. Better than to be completely alien to each others.
arp242
5 months ago
Police can investigate. Judges can issue warrants. Trials can be held.
There are tools to deals with this sort of thing.
Separation of powers exists for a reason. It's basic civics that's being violated here. The details of the case are unimportant and a red herring.
energy123
5 months ago
But it wasn't working. It only stopped when Trump did something. The elephant in the room is that nobody can even acknowledge this truth, citation: this whole thread. Until liberals grapple with this unfortunate truth, there's going to be a large cohort of affected people who are unsure as to whether this is credibly in their interests, when it's them being harassed, and they're being lectured to by people who aren't being harassed and don't have to pay the costs of being wrong.
arp242
5 months ago
You don't just destroy foundational democratic principles just because it's convenient in the moment.
tdeck
5 months ago
The truth is that Zionism is a Jewish supermicist ideology. To some Jewish Zionists hearing bad things about Israel is considered a personal attack, and any suggestion that it might be wrong to support an ongoing genocide is antisemitic harassment directed at them personally. Their views about Israel are supposed to be sacrosanct in a way no other political position would be.
White supremacists complain in the same way when their ideology is attacked, but these days most institutions haven't been so differential to that line.
energy123
5 months ago
Thank you for the case in point, a live example of turning a blind eye to things like this[1], and part of the reason why Zionism exists in the first place. Jews know how to recognize the figurative blind eye, where such hostility against them as an ethnic group either isn't happening (most of the posters here) or is justified because of their collective behavior (your post). None of this is new. What is new is that Zionism is a mechanism that turns such ethnic hatred into collective strength, which is probably something you hate to hear, but is nevertheless the truth.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/former-cornell-stude...
tdeck
5 months ago
Doesn't this refute your point that nothing was being done? This indivudual made criminal threats and was charged with a crime in 2024.
Where are the charges for Zionists who beat Jewish pro-palestine protestors and sent them to the hospital? Jewish students are disproportionately represented in the Palestine movement on campuses, something I'm sure you prefer to ignore.
energy123
5 months ago
So we've quietly moved on from "they deserved it" or "they're making it up", have we?
tdeck
5 months ago
One instance of an actual threat or antisemitic harassment doesn't mean that this conversion isn't dominated by the exact thing I explained earlier: people with an etho-supremicist ideology complaining that there is any pushback at all and attempting to weaponize a victim narrative by conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. It shouldn't be hard to say you're against Israel's genocide of Palestinians regardless of your ethnicity or religious background.
ghostly_s
5 months ago
Good thing that's not happening, then.
xdi
5 months ago
[flagged]
an0malous
5 months ago
What was the harassment? Because it often seems that when you dig into these accusations, they’re counting protesting against Israel or wearing a keffiyeh as acts of antisemitism.
JumpCrisscross
5 months ago
> what was the harassment?
At least in New York, there was legitimate conflation between believing Israel has a right to exist and supporting a genocide.
user
5 months ago
user
5 months ago