Unit2Sucks said:
BearGoggles said:
Calling Trump a fascist authoritarian doesn't make it so. Like his predecessors he has pushed executive power (see e.g., Obama and DACA and the Obamacare executive orders, all of which were authoritarian and unlawful in nature). But each and every time Trump has lost in court (and he has lost a lot) or at the ballot box, he has honored the court/election decision. Objectively, that is the opposite of fascism or authoritarianism.
And for the record, you have democratic candidates who are far more authoritarian. Kamala has promised to adopt executive orders imposing gun control restrictions not authorized under current law if congress doesn't act within 100 days. In other words, if the law isn't passed, then she will just impose it (much like Obama and Daca). That is, by definition, authoritarian - imposing a law that was rejected by the legislature
.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/08/10/kamala-harris-election-2020-iowa-state-fair-soapbox-caucus/1881749001/
You are holding Trump to a different set of standards than democrats. If you think imposing by executive order what you can't get done through Congress is authoritarian, than why only mention it when Kamala has called for it and ignore all the times Trump has actually done it. There have been any number of laws and regulations which Trump has unwound through executive order or shoddy administrative rulemaking rather than convincing congress to pass a law - because he has absolutely no interest or ability in adhering to democratic norms or process. Look at healthcare, immigration, trade, environmental protection and on and on. Arguing that Moscow Mitch should go nuclear for everything seems pretty authoritarian to me.
And not only that but Trump has lost in court and gone back with disingenuously revised EOs as well - look no further than the Muslim Ban where he forced the DOJ to take counterfactual positions. He fired the attorney general for not supporting his authoritarian whims and chose a new AG who is an avowed supporter of executive power. It's laughable to say that Trump has honored the courts or election decisions. He claimed without evidence that millions of illegal votes were cast!
I'm fine with you throwing around the word authoritarian to describe candidates but you aren't being intellectually honest if you ignore all the authoritarian actions Trump has already taken to focus on threats by a candidate.
Unit 2 - read what I wrote. I'll repeat it: "Like his predecessors [Trump] has pushed executive power." My point is that he is doing what all presidents have done since at least FDR. He is no more authoritarian than any of the others, yet the original post and apparently you think that somehow Trump is different or worse in that respect, making him (and only him) authoritarian. He is not. I am holding Dems to exactly the same standard.
When the political party's change, each new administration comes in and: (i) revoke prior executive order with replacement EOs; and (ii) changes/revises regulations it doesn't like. Clinton did it. Bush II did it, Obama did it, and so has Trump. Live by the EO and die by it. Trump is not worse just because you don't like his policies.
Has Trump pushed the envelope? Yes. Just like when Obama lost on DARPA ruling in the supreme court and many others.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/index.htmlIn fact, Obama lost at the Supreme court,
unanimously, more than any other President in modern history. But only Trump pushes the envelope?
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-has-lost-supreme-court-more-any-modern-presidentWe have a system of checks and balances. Each branch is expected to push it prerogatives. When there is executive branch overreach, the other branches push back. The key is that if/when there is a judicial ruling, that the other parties follow it - to not do so would be authoritarianism.
Obama spent 6+ years claiming he couldn't unilaterally change immigration law, then he adopted DACA/DARPA. He literally admitted he did something lawless - primarily for political purposes - and then defended it in court with, as you put it, counterfactual positions. There was literally no legislation authorization or delegation authorizing these actions.
In contrast, Trumps "Muslim Ban" was expressly authorized by a congressional delegation in a prior law - the Supreme Court eventually ruled as such. Even if you think the ruling was legally wrong, Trump at least had a colorable (and eventually victorious) position.
Unequivocally, Trump has followed each and every court ruling, including the very questionable Ninth Circuit penchant for issuing nationwide injunctions. Similarly, when the dems won back the house, Trump didn't not challenge it or claim election fraud. Contrast that, by the way, with Stacey Abrams who is still running around claiming she won an election despite getting 50,000 fewer votes.
Does Trump lie and say a lot of stupid things (e.g., your example re the illegal vote claim)? Yes. Is that ok? No. But that makes him a liar (and a politician), not a fascist or authoritarian.