567
Trump signs new order to vastly expand presidential powers (www.thedailybeast.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/politics@lemmy.world
134 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary

Donald Trump signed an executive order expanding presidential control over independent agencies, including the FTC, FCC, and SEC.

The order enforces the “unitary executive theory,” which argues the president has sole authority over the executive branch. It grants Trump’s budget chief, Russell Vought, oversight of these agencies’ performance and budgets.

The move is expected to face legal challenges, as past presidents have largely respected agency independence.

Trump defended the order, stating, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 105 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)

America, when are you going to stop this? You finally have a chance to exercise the second amendment, to defend your freedom and to show the world you aren't the bad guys; And you do nothing...

Trump/Musk are literally following the steps laid out by Hitler and they aren't even hiding it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 113 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I see this sentiment a lot. "Why aren't Americans doing anything? Why aren't leftist militias rising up to take back the capital? Etc. Etc. Etc."

    First of all, asking "why aren't Americans doing anything" is a highly unaware question. We are doing things, but they aren't going to give any airtime to the protests, marches, boycotts, and legal efforts taking place, because the media is now firmly on the side of those with power, not the common people.

    Second of all, it's pretty heartless of you to just casually ask us to "exercise the second amendment", because when you ask that, you're asking for at least some of us to die. Put yourselves in our shoes, and be honest - if you were in our position, would it be so easy and casual to just pick up a gun and join a violent revolution? Would you be willing to risk death in that situation? Personally, I'm not a soldier, I've never had an interest in guns, I'd be less than useless in that capacity. So I'm looking at other things we can do before escalating to that.

    I get that everyone's scared because the nation with the most powerful military on earth is falling into fascism. That's terrifying to most Americans as well, and I think a lot of us are still frozen with that fear. I understand and agree that this problem is on Americans to fix. But I hope the rest of the world will be willing to help when we call on them, instead of just sitting idly by wondering when that magical second amendment is gonna kick in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] 36 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Also, even if they were, who do they have access to murder? It's almost begging people to take their frustrations out on their neighbors, which will only make things so much worse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    I have plenty of guns and ammo to use for the defense of myself and family. As a disabled vet I can barely feed my family, let alone March alone from Colorado to overthrow the President.

    When they come to me, then I can fight. I can't afford to join a secessionist movement because we still have a group of people that still are supposed to fight using the law and wors before the guns come out. The 1st Ammendment is 1st for a reason. The 2nd is the last resort which most sane gun owners don't want to have to use.

    There's supposed to be an opposition party to fight the executive encroachment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    Probably because they expect your military to start murdering them with zero regards to how it plays out within the next 4 years.

    This is essentially what happened within Nazi Germany before World War 2

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    I think the second amendment is pointed out so readily, because most of the world has watched America and their guns and ridiculous gun problems, and that is usually what is pointed at in some kind of gotcha defence. Second, we do see the protests and legal efforts, and honestly looking in, seems like that's pissing into the wind.

    As for myself committing violence in an situation similar to America's? Can't honestly answer one way or the other until I am in the situation myself, but don't think it would be a hard no, I'm not opposed to violence in the correct situation, and boy you guys are, if not there already, very very close to that correct situation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The answer is no, most of these people calling for violence are cowards themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Not cowards just have sense, better someone else dows the violence rather than your own life get ruined the end goal is you having a better life if you do the violence your own life gets worse objectively.

    We all want luigis, but none of us are desperate enough to be luigis, because we obviously dont want our own lives to goto shit? There is no happy ending for them

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You can try to justify it any way you want. If you call for someone else to commit violence in your stead, you are a coward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    There's also the fact that people with consumer grade weapons aren't going to be doing shit against the military, which is what would be brought out against them. If I knew there was even a good chance that I could do something leading to my death that would do a damn bit of good, I'd do it. But there isn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Let me know when clever chants and signs held by a few hundred people bring about change

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It has before. Women didn't get the right to vote from a massive war. Martin Luther King wasn't an army general. You're being just as dismissive and ignorant as the other guy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    MLK would get nothing done without Malcolm X. Imagine thinking the civil rights movement was a peaceful protest! That's wild you would try to retcon the history of that fight.

    Women's suffrage groups used the slogan "Deeds not words." They committed arson and bombings.

    I'd argue you're being naive. Every American movement has to have violence attached to it. That is sadly how everything gets done in this shithole.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Lol ok, since you want to be pedantic, let's really get into some details, because you're just wrong about MLK to start.

    Civil Rights Act of 1964

    How did it happen? The Civil Rights Movement itself was largely nonviolent, with most of the violence happening towards protestors. Figures like Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized civil disobedience, boycotts, and peaceful protests.

    Women suffrage

    Though some suffragettes engaged in civil disobedience, the broader movement relied on lobbying, protests, and legal appeals. That was the bulk. What you're calling out is one offs and trying to act like that was the norm or bulk of the movement. It was not.

    Marriage Equality

    Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. No violence needed.

    Disability Rights Movement, also known as the ADA

    Advocates lobbied for equal rights through demonstrations and legal battles. This resulted in the ADA being passed in 1990

    The Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) – Ending Child Labor & Establishing Minimum Wage

    Labor unions and activists pushed for reforms through strikes, negotiations, and legal battles.

    The Voting Rights Act (1965) – Protecting Minority Voter Rights

    The Selma to Montgomery March and other efforts, led by MLK and civil rights groups, put pressure on the government.

    Title IX (1972) – Gender Equality in Education & Sports

    Women’s rights activists lobbied for equal educational opportunities. This endned gender discrimination in schools receiving federal funding, revolutionizing women’s sports and education.

    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal (2011) – Allowing Open LGBTQ+ Military Service

    LGBTQ+ advocates, veterans, and lawmakers worked for repeal.

    So while you'd argue I'm being naive, I'd argue that you're not informed enough about the topic to make such statements. Especially such absolute statements like "every American movement has used violence" when that is objectively wrong. I don't remember the great Marriage Equality rioters killing people, or the War of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

    Please stop spreading misinformation.

    Edit: lol some people are mad that facts don't line up with their world view.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You think only killing each other is violence

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No I'm not?

    The comment was made that violence is needed for any change. Violence happens because of issues, but violence did not help move these forward. Unless you can explain how.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The labor movement was a very bloody fight. Blair mountain, and Triangle Shirtwaist was a lot of death.

    There were bombings during the Civil rights era, it wasn't just sit-ins. Lots of people died due to lunching.

    Also anything during the 30's was filled with bodies due to the Geat Depression and fights like the Battle of Central Park.

    Only when the President had enough bad blood did they decide to push changes against their own interests. No US political changes came without bloodshed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Blair Mountain? These are entirely different. The labor rights I mentioned were 17 years after that. Blair mountain was in 1921, fair labor standards was 1938. They are not the same thing. And triangle shirtwaist was 10 more years before that and had nothing to do with workers rights, it was an accident that exposed safety issues, not some attack. This is more dishonesty. The incident I mentioned move forward without violence. Other instances having violence doesn't change that.

    Yes there were bombings, sure. There are always radicals, tell me how it moved the needle. Doesn't prove anything.

    See, the problem with the statement that there always has to be violence is that it's an absolute statement. One instance to the contrary proves it wrong. This idea also puts forward this idea that violence is the ONLY way to make progress. So if you want change, start hurting people. That's so wrong, factually.

    Then you bring in deaths from the depression? What? This is all over the place, those deaths were not the result of people acting for change, those are victims of the economy. Not every death ever is for a cause.

    But maybe I'm wrong, how many people died or got hurt in attacks for marriage equality? Because I remember it all being very legislative in nature. Sure there were hate crimes, but that's not violence effecting change, it was the thing that needed to change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    On top of this. It isn't just Dump. It's the entire GOP. Plus the douche crew and his nazi youth that have been ransacking shit that they don't understand. Yeah, going in armedmay get you 1 person. It won't do any good. You're cutting a small scale off of a large shit snake.

    The best we can do is arm ourselves (and I fucking hate that I have to resort to this option) and prep for when shit goes south. I suspect that will be mid terms. We'll see armed yokels "guarding" vote drop off locations and polling locations. If there is any sign of a dem win anywhere, all hell will break loose with diaperdon claiming fraud. He'll probably pull some shit like his attempted coup and we'll see the polling station yokels going nuts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    I think you're right, but the chance is very high they will cancel midterms shortly before the date.

    Probably spouting some excuse. Either in the line of it undermining "democracy" because Trump was already chosen, or they'll go the way of it being a plan to block the current path for the USA so it will be postponed until the plan is on more solid grounds, "for the good of the country".

    If they do let the midterms proceed, Trump will dismiss the results whatever they are, citing that by then he only has governing power.

    He already has made an executive order that only he and a sole AG decide what the law is...

    A promise was made that when he was chosen he'd make it so that there would be no need to vote again...

    Everybody seems to hold on to the midterms as the slot where things will turn around again, but the project 2025 camp has plans to close this window for sure. And frankly, it feels by then fear will rule all and the slippery slope has shifted to a freefall.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    They don't need to cancel the mid-terms, they already fired everyone at CISA who is responsible for securing state elections. The elections will absolutely happen and miraculously the republicans will win across the board with a higher vote percentage than they've ever won by before, and they'll claim that this means the US population is 100% in support of the fascist policies of the GOP and accelerate the descent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The elections will absolutely happen and miraculously the republicans will win across the board with a higher vote percentage than they’ve ever won by before

    Elections just for show. To keep the masses thinking they live in a democracy.

    We'll be no better than Russia or any other shithole nation that runs elections just for show. This country is cooked. And it wasn't taken from us. We gave it all away. Utterly shameful. Our entire generation will be viewed as pathetic in the context of world history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    To be honest, this fascist autocracy was inevitable once the loathsome Newt Gingrich got the GOP to sign on to the idea that anyone who opposed the GOP's plans was an enemy to be destroyed, not a loyal opposition to persuade or with whom to compromise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    You're right in that, I just did not want to put that in words yet :-]

    I wonder how much another overwhelming fraudulous win for MAGA would be ignored, because it definitely is a clear sign bridges were burned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Everyone's quality of life would have to drastically decline and a significant number of citizens would have to start openly expressing the desire for rebellion, then leaders would materialize, and it would go from there.

    But we aren't even close to having enough people's quality of life declining enough for that to happen. If our oligarchs are smart, they'll keep us near that red line, without allowing us to go over it. But I'm starting to think their greed outweighs their intelligence.

    We're too complacent with our TV and Doritos. We need to start losing some material things before we wake up. Here's hoping it happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If our oligarchs are smart, they'll keep us near that red line, without allowing us to go over it.

    I'd describe this as the strategy since the Great Depression. The New Deal was a bandaid for capitalism to make it palatable enough for enough people to prevent revolution.

    But our oligarchs aren't smart, or at least they think they're smarter than their predecessors. They're dismantling the things that keep the masses mollified and more people are realizing it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Personally I'd resort to sabotage. It's incredibly easy to fabricate explosives in today's world compared to the rest of history.

    Hell, in America I'd imagine you could just buy explosives outright.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I also feel like a lot of people have a lot of barriers to plotting an assassination, besides the obvious "it's illegal" and "they'll kill you for trying" and "who has the time and money to plan an assassination." To give people some ideas of these barriers, I personally:

    • Am trans, so if I tried anything it would immediately be used as a Reichstag fire moment to start rounding up and killing trans people (I suspect the social minorities who will be most affected by the Administration will suffer the worst consequences for even trying to resist)
    • Am too young to own a gun in my state (you need to be 21, I suspect some people have the opposite reasoning as well, 'I'm too old to be an assassin bc I have kids to look after' or 'because I'm entrenched and needed at my job')
    • Since I have PTSD I don't trust myself to own a gun
    • I think I can contribute more to the world alive than throwing my life away to be a political assassin. Specifically, I'm very passionate about healthcare reform (obviously universal healthcare, also focusing more on preventative medicine instead of waiting for people to get so chronically sick the pharmaceutical industry can harvest money from them for the rest of their lives, also giving people diet & lifestyle recommendations to treat the underlying cause of their issues instead of just drugging them up to combat their symptoms of disease), and think I have a greater chance of making an impactful change by devoting myself to that

    In conclusion, the most convenient person to plot a political assassination is a 25-35 yo straight white man well trained in firearms with tons of money, mentally healthy enough to get a firearm yet crazy enough to throw their life away, ideally recently unemployed so they have nothing to lose.

    So... a security guard affected by the mass government downsizing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago*

    No one wants to impress Jodie Foster anymore.

    There were 2 confirmed assassination attempts on Donald Trump last year and potentially one more where an armed and suspicious individual was trying to get into a location where Trump was but the individual claims he wasn't planning anything malicious.

    Wikipedia reports ~8 more incidents during the years where he was involved in his first presidential term.

    I think Biden only had the one with the box truck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah unfortunately the gun crazies fully support what's happening, and it's a PITA to get a registered firearm if you aren't already a gun nut.

    Hey if anyone has a line on unregistered Kalashnikovs, hit me up. I just want it for "display purposes."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    Move to West Virginia, we need more people like you. I just got a beautiful Serbian made AK, all I had to do was wait for it to be shipped over and pick it up at my local gun shop. 15 minutes for the background check which is essentially no felonies, because I have an extensive misdemeanor record from when I was young and wild. All I had to do was listen to the workers and customers spout bullshit conspiracy theories and talk about the latest Joe Rogan episode. Small price to pay.

    Even my wife, who was previously anti-gun, bought a 9mm. Interesting times.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent