well ok but we are in a different world now. There's never been a president like trump, who wants to be a dictator and clearly admires foreign dictators more than democratic leaders. And who has a scotus ruling in his pocket saying he's immune, and who has made a political party 99% at his service.
Trump is willing to do things no other president ever has. He is eliminating all checks and balances one by one. If you are relying on those...they are disappearing quickly and might be gone already.
The two problems for trump are midterms and the state system. Losing 40 seats in the house next year would slow him down, and states can resist his push to some degree.
Maybe orban in hungary is a better, but similar parallel. Degrading all institutions except for those who support orban. Trump is working in that direction.
A thoughtful counterpoint recognizes the gravity of the concern while emphasizing systemic resilience. While Trump has challenged norms, U.S. institutions have demonstrated their capacity to resist overreach, evident in judicial rulings, state-level pushback, and robust electoral processes. Unlike Hungary, the U.S. federal structure and decentralized election systems make unilateral consolidation of power far more difficult. Furthermore, public opinion and electoral accountability remain powerful deterrents to authoritarian ambitions, as demonstrated by the midterms of 2018 and subsequent political shifts. Hyperbolic comparisons risk overshadowing opportunities for civic engagement and institutional strengthening, which remain vital to preserving democracy.
While Hungary plays a pivotal role in its region, particularly concerning Russia and the establishment's efforts to consolidate control and diminish populist leadership, the U.S. system’s federalism and constitutional safeguards make it far less vulnerable to such centralization. Trump’s populism has undoubtedly attracted intense scrutiny and opposition, as it challenges entrenched political norms and power structures. However, conflating his actions with authoritarian parallels risks oversimplifying the nuanced checks and balances that still function robustly in the U.S. context. Rather than succumbing to fatalism, efforts to engage with and reinforce these institutions remain the most effective way to address concerns about democratic integrity.
I do stand by our agreement to do away with name calling and toddler-level back and forth.
This is correct. The public can create friction. And friction is a problem for a new administration doing a warp speed dismantling of our federal government. It can cause other people to stand up and resist. Watch very closely what Trump does as these protests become more prevalent. We know what he wanted to do in Trump 1.0. He wanted the military to step in but he could not get them to. Now he has his loyal guy in Hegseth.
A thoughtful counterpoint recognizes the gravity of the concern while emphasizing systemic resilience. While Trump has challenged norms, U.S. institutions have demonstrated their capacity to resist overreach, evident in judicial rulings, state-level pushback, and robust electoral processes. Unlike Hungary, the U.S. federal structure and decentralized election systems make unilateral consolidation of power far more difficult. Furthermore, public opinion and electoral accountability remain powerful deterrents to authoritarian ambitions, as demonstrated by the midterms of 2018 and subsequent political shifts. Hyperbolic comparisons risk overshadowing opportunities for civic engagement and institutional strengthening, which remain vital to preserving democracy.
While Hungary plays a pivotal role in its region, particularly concerning Russia and the establishment's efforts to consolidate control and diminish populist leadership, the U.S. system’s federalism and constitutional safeguards make it far less vulnerable to such centralization. Trump’s populism has undoubtedly attracted intense scrutiny and opposition, as it challenges entrenched political norms and power structures. However, conflating his actions with authoritarian parallels risks oversimplifying the nuanced checks and balances that still function robustly in the U.S. context. Rather than succumbing to fatalism, efforts to engage with and reinforce these institutions remain the most effective way to address concerns about democratic integrity.
I do stand by our agreement to do away with name calling and toddler-level back and forth.
This is correct. The public can create friction. And friction is a problem for a new administration doing a warp speed dismantling of our federal government. It can cause other people to stand up and resist. Watch very closely what Trump does as these protests become more prevalent. We know what he wanted to do in Trump 1.0. He wanted the military to step in but he could not get them to. Now he has his loyal guy in Hegseth.
yeah it's a battle now.
If offered a crown, Trump would take it without question. He's already said we should tear up the Constitution and jhe already led an insurrection. He's 'joking' about staying in power a third term. He's put in lackies in at FBI, CIA, Sec Def to help him.
The question is if there are enough brave souls in the R party to push back as he eliminates checks and balances.
I don't think there are, but midterms loom, and the states will push back.
This post was edited 52 seconds after it was posted.
Constitutional Framework: Trump has teased publicly with cancelling it. And his actions are proving he has no regard for it already. Appropriations clause.
Independent judiciary: Trump is mainstreaming the idea of impeaching Judges and disregarding court orders. And the judiciary can't rule on the legality of cases when no cases are brought before them. And the SCOTUS is in the tank for Trump.
Free Press is being neutered by Trump cutting off any that speak negatively of him. And the free press is now governed by corporate $. So they are bowing in fealty to Trump.
The entire project 2025 MO is based on unitary executive theory. Meaning that Trump controls all federal agencies even if these agencies are established and funded by Congress. He is centralizing authority. This will make it up to SCOTUS soon.
American power is not diffused. We have Congress willingly giving up all their authority to Trump. Including spending. They might as well not exist anymore. We have at best 1.5 branches of government and the .5 is hanging by a thread with no teeth to enforce anything.
Trump teases a lot of things daily and it shocks the liberals every time.
The argument exaggerates the extent to which Trump has dismantled the foundational pillars of American governance. While Trump has tested norms, the Constitution remains firmly in place, with no actual movement toward its cancellation. Courts have repeatedly blocked Trump’s actions, demonstrating the judiciary's independence despite rhetoric about impeaching judges, which remains far from actionable.
The free press, far from being neutered, continues to scrutinize Trump relentlessly, proving its resilience even under pressure. Claims about Congress abdicating power are overgeneralized—while partisan dynamics sometimes lead to deference, Congress retains its constitutional authority and has used it, such as during impeachment proceedings.
Project 2025 and the unitary executive theory are ideological arguments rather than fully implemented realities, requiring significant legal and institutional changes to materialize. American institutions are not infallible but have proven adaptable and resistant to centralization efforts. Alarmism risks diverting energy from the proactive engagement needed to protect and strengthen the system. Further, Vance and Trump have both stated publicly they are unassociated with that particular think tank's published work and have not read it.
Would you like to point out a few things from project 2025 you disagree with?
Constitutional Framework: Trump has teased publicly with cancelling it. And his actions are proving he has no regard for it already. Appropriations clause.
Independent judiciary: Trump is mainstreaming the idea of impeaching Judges and disregarding court orders. And the judiciary can't rule on the legality of cases when no cases are brought before them. And the SCOTUS is in the tank for Trump.
Free Press is being neutered by Trump cutting off any that speak negatively of him. And the free press is now governed by corporate $. So they are bowing in fealty to Trump.
The entire project 2025 MO is based on unitary executive theory. Meaning that Trump controls all federal agencies even if these agencies are established and funded by Congress. He is centralizing authority. This will make it up to SCOTUS soon.
American power is not diffused. We have Congress willingly giving up all their authority to Trump. Including spending. They might as well not exist anymore. We have at best 1.5 branches of government and the .5 is hanging by a thread with no teeth to enforce anything.
Trump teases a lot of things daily and it shocks the liberals every time.
The argument exaggerates the extent to which Trump has dismantled the foundational pillars of American governance. While Trump has tested norms, the Constitution remains firmly in place, with no actual movement toward its cancellation. Courts have repeatedly blocked Trump’s actions, demonstrating the judiciary's independence despite rhetoric about impeaching judges, which remains far from actionable.
The free press, far from being neutered, continues to scrutinize Trump relentlessly, proving its resilience even under pressure. Claims about Congress abdicating power are overgeneralized—while partisan dynamics sometimes lead to deference, Congress retains its constitutional authority and has used it, such as during impeachment proceedings.
Project 2025 and the unitary executive theory are ideological arguments rather than fully implemented realities, requiring significant legal and institutional changes to materialize. American institutions are not infallible but have proven adaptable and resistant to centralization efforts. Alarmism risks diverting energy from the proactive engagement needed to protect and strengthen the system. Further, Vance and Trump have both stated publicly they are unassociated with that particular think tank's published work and have not read it.
Would you like to point out a few things from project 2025 you disagree with?
My main beef with Project 2025
It operates under the Heritage foundation's long standing belief that Unitary executive theory gives Presidents unlimited power. The executive branch by definition (Executive is a form of the term execute) is the branch of government that every single agency gets put under. And the agency executes what it does. Even if it is congress that wills that agency into existence. It is like a big bucket for everything the federal government does. Project 2025 believes that Trump is boss of all of that simply because it gets put into his branch's lap. The Supreme court has already ruled against this.
Project 2025 seeks to control all federal agencies that could possibly push back on the Trump agenda. They want Trump to be able to fire all these people without cause. There are enormous dangers in having the entire federal government become a partisan organization that changes every 4 years and bends to the whims of the president.
For example, The federal reserve. No countries allow the leader to screw around with monetary policy because it is an invitation for disaster by a partisan. Nobody wants to do biz with a country that they can't rely on with sound fiscal responsibility.
Also the SEC. Trump wants control of that one too. Can you imagine the President deciding which financial scams get looked at and which don't? Like Crypto etc.
A thoughtful counterpoint recognizes the gravity of the concern while emphasizing systemic resilience. While Trump has challenged norms, U.S. institutions have demonstrated their capacity to resist overreach, evident in judicial rulings, state-level pushback, and robust electoral processes. Unlike Hungary, the U.S. federal structure and decentralized election systems make unilateral consolidation of power far more difficult. Furthermore, public opinion and electoral accountability remain powerful deterrents to authoritarian ambitions, as demonstrated by the midterms of 2018 and subsequent political shifts. Hyperbolic comparisons risk overshadowing opportunities for civic engagement and institutional strengthening, which remain vital to preserving democracy.
While Hungary plays a pivotal role in its region, particularly concerning Russia and the establishment's efforts to consolidate control and diminish populist leadership, the U.S. system’s federalism and constitutional safeguards make it far less vulnerable to such centralization. Trump’s populism has undoubtedly attracted intense scrutiny and opposition, as it challenges entrenched political norms and power structures. However, conflating his actions with authoritarian parallels risks oversimplifying the nuanced checks and balances that still function robustly in the U.S. context. Rather than succumbing to fatalism, efforts to engage with and reinforce these institutions remain the most effective way to address concerns about democratic integrity.
I do stand by our agreement to do away with name calling and toddler-level back and forth.
This is correct. The public can create friction. And friction is a problem for a new administration doing a warp speed dismantling of our federal government. It can cause other people to stand up and resist. Watch very closely what Trump does as these protests become more prevalent. We know what he wanted to do in Trump 1.0. He wanted the military to step in but he could not get them to. Now he has his loyal guy in Hegseth.
While concerns about leveraging loyalists, such as Hegseth, to counter resistance are valid, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) limits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, and institutional checks under Article I of the Constitution ensure congressional oversight. Furthermore, judicial review under Article III provides a legal safeguard against executive overreach, reinforcing the difficulty of bypassing established legal and institutional constraints.
In any case, the liberals are free to voice their opinions. It seems the voters who voted him in are generally happy with the results. He is certainly doing what he campaigned on and more. Some say shaking things up every once in a while is a good thing.
The biggest thing that stands out for me personally is Musk's occasional unprofessional manner.
This post was edited 56 seconds after it was posted.
This is correct. The public can create friction. And friction is a problem for a new administration doing a warp speed dismantling of our federal government. It can cause other people to stand up and resist. Watch very closely what Trump does as these protests become more prevalent. We know what he wanted to do in Trump 1.0. He wanted the military to step in but he could not get them to. Now he has his loyal guy in Hegseth.
While concerns about leveraging loyalists, such as Hegseth, to counter resistance are valid, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) limits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, and institutional checks under Article I of the Constitution ensure congressional oversight. Furthermore, judicial review under Article III provides a legal safeguard against executive overreach, reinforcing the difficulty of bypassing established legal and institutional constraints.
In any case, the liberals are free to voice their opinions. It seems the voters who voted him in are generally happy with the results. He is certainly doing what he campaigned on and more. Some say shaking things up every once in a while is a good thing.
The biggest thing that stands out for me personally is Musk's child-like attitude toward discovering new things that have been happening for decades. It doesn't come off professional and at times is embarrassing.
Liberals install loyalists every time they win as well.
The issue is liberals lack self awareness and can't comprehend this.
This is correct. The public can create friction. And friction is a problem for a new administration doing a warp speed dismantling of our federal government. It can cause other people to stand up and resist. Watch very closely what Trump does as these protests become more prevalent. We know what he wanted to do in Trump 1.0. He wanted the military to step in but he could not get them to. Now he has his loyal guy in Hegseth.
yeah it's a battle now.
If offered a crown, Trump would take it without question. He's already said we should tear up the Constitution and jhe already led an insurrection. He's 'joking' about staying in power a third term. He's put in lackies in at FBI, CIA, Sec Def to help him.
The question is if there are enough brave souls in the R party to push back as he eliminates checks and balances.
I don't think there are, but midterms loom, and the states will push back.
This statement relies heavily on conjecture and speculative assumptions without substantial evidence. While Trump has made provocative remarks, including jokes about extending his presidency, such statements do not equate to actionable plans or realistic threats to constitutional governance.
The claim that he "led an insurrection" regarding January 6 is contested, as the events of that day—though deeply concerning—do not meet the legal definition of an insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Moreover, the denial of the National Guard's deployment involved multiple layers of bureaucracy and decisions, including input from the Capitol Police Board, not solely Speaker Pelosi, which indicates a more complex political context.
Assertions about "lackies" in federal agencies also lack direct evidence that appointees acted unlawfully or unconstitutionally. While vigilance is warranted, discourse should focus on verifiable actions rather than speculative interpretations.
This post was edited 31 seconds after it was posted.
While concerns about leveraging loyalists, such as Hegseth, to counter resistance are valid, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) limits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, and institutional checks under Article I of the Constitution ensure congressional oversight. Furthermore, judicial review under Article III provides a legal safeguard against executive overreach, reinforcing the difficulty of bypassing established legal and institutional constraints.
In any case, the liberals are free to voice their opinions. It seems the voters who voted him in are generally happy with the results. He is certainly doing what he campaigned on and more. Some say shaking things up every once in a while is a good thing.
The biggest thing that stands out for me personally is Musk's child-like attitude toward discovering new things that have been happening for decades. It doesn't come off professional and at times is embarrassing.
Liberals install loyalists every time they win as well.
The issue is liberals lack self awareness and can't comprehend this.
It's also interesting they frame the current situation as "dismantling the government." The establishment is so gigantic something like that in 4 years would be almost certainly impossible.
"A leading spokesperson in the Department of Health and Human Services announced his resignation Monday after stark disagreements with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over how to manage the growing measles outbreak. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Thomas Corry resigned effective immediately on Friday only two weeks after starting the job, he posted on LinkedIn, wishing his colleagues in the department “the best and great success.” Corry reportedly butted heads with Kennedy and Kennedy’s principal deputy chief of staff, Stefanie Spear, over how to manage the department. "
"A leading spokesperson in the Department of Health and Human Services announced his resignation Monday after stark disagreements with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over how to manage the growing measles outbreak. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Thomas Corry resigned effective immediately on Friday only two weeks after starting the job, he posted on LinkedIn, wishing his colleagues in the department “the best and great success.” Corry reportedly butted heads with Kennedy and Kennedy’s principal deputy chief of staff, Stefanie Spear, over how to manage the department. "
Trump needs some guardrails. I won't say he is unhinged but he needs some people telling him to back off. You are president. Act like it. These tarriffs suck.
"A leading spokesperson in the Department of Health and Human Services announced his resignation Monday after stark disagreements with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over how to manage the growing measles outbreak. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Thomas Corry resigned effective immediately on Friday only two weeks after starting the job, he posted on LinkedIn, wishing his colleagues in the department “the best and great success.” Corry reportedly butted heads with Kennedy and Kennedy’s principal deputy chief of staff, Stefanie Spear, over how to manage the department. "
Trump needs some guardrails. I won't say he is unhinged but he needs some people telling him to back off. You are president. Act like it. These tarriffs suck.
Better be careful Sally - You and your compadres were attacking people for saying the exact same thing, just one short month ago.
See, everyone with common sense already knows the things that you're just now coming around to.
This is correct. The public can create friction. And friction is a problem for a new administration doing a warp speed dismantling of our federal government. It can cause other people to stand up and resist. Watch very closely what Trump does as these protests become more prevalent. We know what he wanted to do in Trump 1.0. He wanted the military to step in but he could not get them to. Now he has his loyal guy in Hegseth.
While concerns about leveraging loyalists, such as Hegseth, to counter resistance are valid, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) limits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, and institutional checks under Article I of the Constitution ensure congressional oversight. Furthermore, judicial review under Article III provides a legal safeguard against executive overreach, reinforcing the difficulty of bypassing established legal and institutional constraints.
In any case, the liberals are free to voice their opinions. It seems the voters who voted him in are generally happy with the results. He is certainly doing what he campaigned on and more. Some say shaking things up every once in a while is a good thing.
The biggest thing that stands out for me personally is Musk's occasional unprofessional manner.
not the open corruption, the pardoning of trump's felonious insurrectionists or the conquering of the southern district of NY to pardon the NYC mayor? None of that bugs you too much, but Musk does.
doesn't bug you as much as musk's occasional behavior?
Maybe this? Making bribery the way of US politics? That's not a big deal?
"Business leaders can secure a one-on-one meeting with the president at Mar-a-Lago for $5 million, according to sources with direct knowledge of the meetings. At a so-called candlelight dinner held as recently as this past Saturday, prospective Mar-a-Lago guests were asked to spend $1 million to reserve a seat, according to an invitation obtained by WIRED."
