As a person who lived in the States for a bit, and listened to a lot of news, I remember always this almost fawning over the Founding Fathers, checks and balances and great American constitution. It is remarkable, how easy it all goes, and most people don't do anything (i.e. out of 100 top law firms, only a handful joined the lawsuit against the government, etc.)
As an American, I agree - I'm pretty surprised at how nakedly transparent the whole thing has been. One basic example - I thought pretty much everyone agreed that at least some level of due process is just inherent to the rights of everyone in the US. When I hear administration figures arguing that flying the Venezuelans to El Salvadoran prisons is a good thing because "they're really bad dudes", I think "OK, and we're just supposed to trust that you and you alone can make that determination?" It has already been reported that multiple people had no ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, but were solely imprisoned due to their tattoos. When I took civics in high school this is exactly the type of stuff that we learned that basically "the US does not do", and there was an inherent pride in that fact. So like you I'm surprised at how quickly and transparently it all got washed away.
They started this tactic of "They're bad dudes trust us don't need a trial" during the Bush administration and many many people pointed out this would come to our shores soon, and it did and it's here again.
Yeah, not prosecuting serious violations of law like war crimes, tortue, and mass surveillance was a serious mistake that lead to this situation. It reinforced a culture of impunity for those in power.
Because people allowed this to happen, the current administration is now more emboldened than its recent predecessors ever have been.
My point is that even getting to that ruling would've been much harder if there was actual respect for the law and more importantly, the democratic values behind those laws. And by respect, I mean the general population actually enforcing it by holding those in power accountable.
True, in the event that government fails to hold someone accountable, it falls on the people to do that instead. I think there are different visions of what that justice looks like when carried out that way.
Obama ordered the assassination of a US citizen[0] with no due process, so I don't think the rhetoric of "they're bad dudes trust us" ever really went away. Tried to hide it, maybe, but never gone.
> Venezuela's Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said on Friday that none of the hundreds of Venezuelans deported by the U.S. to a Salvadoran prison is a member of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua criminal gang, the reason Washington gave for expelling them.
> "I believe with absolute responsibility that not a single one appears on the organizational chart of the now-extinct Tren de Aragua organization, not a single one," Cabello said on a podcast, saying he had names of the deportees from U.S. media and his own source.
> Venezuela says Tren de Aragua was effectively wiped out in 2023, and that the idea that it still exists is based on a claim from the country's political opposition.
Exactly. I'm willing to believe some of these people were indeed "bad dudes", but literally 0 evidence was provided one way or the other. And these people weren't just deported back to their home countries - they were imprisoned in demonstrably brutal fashion.
Yeah, yeah, Godwin's Law and all that, but the similarities with mid-20th century fascism are undeniable here. The administration specifically started with targeting a small, well-defined minority (that is, people in the US illegally, or at least purported to be here illegally), and then extended to valid visa holders (what's the point of being on legal visa if it can be revoked at any moment with no judicial review and then you can be imprisoned for weeks/months) and now legal permanent residents. It's just classic creeping fascism.
This is what happens when “rule of law” is subverted on the generational scale — eg, by enabling illicit mass migration opposed by the majority of the people. They eventually feel that appeals to “rule of law” are merely emotional manipulation used against them and stop caring in pursuit of a solution to what they perceive as a problem.
Do people really think imperfect enforcement of immigration law is an excuse to willfully discard the right to trial or constraints on presidential power?
The people that simply want an excuse to be racist do. That's a part of the country that people like trump enable. Happened in 2017 and is happening again.
What we’re experiencing is a group exploiting the biggest vulnerability in the American system, one that was known to the founding fathers. If you can get enough people to vote for you and your friends, then all of the checks and balances will eventually fail against you, because in the end they’re all dependent on the populace not voting for people who corrupt the system.
It probably wouldn’t have seemed plausible to them that someone could be impeached twice and convicted of fraud, then win the popular vote.
Not entirely true, they did consider that possibility, and their solution was the electoral college: the only reason for its existence is as a safeguard against installing a populist president that would corrupt the system.
If anything, it enabled it through acts like gerrymandering. That's how Trump won the first term in the 2nd or 3rd time in 250 years the electoral college defied the popular vote.
Is your argument that when a political party hold all major branches of government that it is implicitly corrupt? Or are you arguing that one side is corrupt and the other is not?
Is there a theoretical situation where a single party gaining control is simply the will of the voters? That appears to be a potential valid outcome.
In order: no, of course not; neither side is angelic but only one is corrupt and incompetent at a historic level; and yes, the fatal vulnerability in the system is that a demagogue can win a valid election, allowing them to ignore the safeguards and destroy the system.
The issue is not that a single party has control; it’s that a single person has control, having purged that party of all disloyalty or contradiction, and is now proceeding to remake the entire government according to their rather erratic whims, with very little effective restraint.
The argument is that when a corrupt party against all the levers of power, there is little to stop it from doing whatever it wants. The American government is built on some assumptions about keeping nakedly corrupt, amoral authoritarians away from power.
As an American born to immigrants, I love the vision of the founding fathers, but I don't understand why they are so revered by some. They were slave owners who, at the time, had some pretty radical ideas for how to run a country. Some ideas were great and stood the test of time, and some were terrible and required amendments. We can't solve today's problems by thinking like dudes from the 1700s.
At the same time, some ideas were great but scales of economy and population ruined them. e.g. The house of represenatives should probably number over 1000 today to properly work as structured in the founding papers. But we somewhat arbitrarily capped it at 435 100 years ago. now while that's way too many people per rep, most political scientists don't really suggest that we should have 1200 reps in the House. proposals end up more around 700.
some reverence may simply be patriotism. I suppose it's no different than any other kinds of celebrity style of worship. people like a role model.
Fundamentally, patriotism is no different than other kinds of celebrity worship, but practically, more people are willing to do terrible things in the name of patriotism than they are for any A List celebrity. Can substitute patriotism with religion as well. Patriotism seems more akin to religion to me, now that I think of it. I don't know if that is good or bad.
The fawning is always about whatever topic the speaker cares about. It just an emotional tactic. Not everyone cares about the founding father's views in the same way. Not to mention, there was a variety of opinions even amongst themselves.
I’ve lived in the USA and saw the Iowa caucus and election process up close. For a country that was the self proclaimed arbitrator of democracy all over the world, I’m shocked how fragile their own checks-and-balances system is. The lack of opposition to this complete takeover is astounding. I hope USA survives this phase and comes out stronger and more resilient to further such events.
During the first Trump term, most of the institutions did resist Trump. The fact that he go reelected after his first term was so chaotic and scandalous has basically demoralized everyone. There are other factors, like the utter failure of Biden and the democrats, but its hard to recon with the fact that people are so far gone at this point.
My understanding is, anyone who resists will get crucified and lose money. Nobody wants to lose customers or money. It's funny when you talk to people with money, who completely disagree with the administration, will go and say the opposite publicly because they don't want to deal with the mob.
"President Donald Trump's administration made a calculated decision to ignore a judge's directive to turn around two flights containing hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News."[1]
> The article is showing one side.
Please share the other side of the examples given in the article.
Displays of nationalism and patriotism is mostly just a disciplining tactic by authoritarians who want unquestioning loyalty simply by displaying superficial symbols and gestures.
It's a way to claim the authority of the dead, to manufacture legitimacy through association. So now you're questioning the flag as opposed to the person waving it telling you what to do.
> The people fawning and the people rejecting the Founders' intentions are two separate groups of people.
The same people supporting Trump, from national thought leaders like Heritage and the Federalist society, to Murdoch publications (Fos, WSJ), to everyday people on social media have long pushed hard for expanded Second Amendment rights, expended freedom of religion which outweighs all other considerations and rights, and freedom of speech, etc. for right-wing hate speech (including their focus on social media moderation) - just as examples.
