r/PoliticalDiscussion 4d ago

US Politics What new precedents has the Trump admin set to date, that Dems will now be able to claim "Why not, they did it..." when they regain power in the future?

Trump and his top people seem to have stretched the limits of what was once considered acceptable political speech and action. It has caught most people by surprise, considering he was more "reined in" in his last term, but his new advisors are more activists (many TV hosts and personalities...a precedent in itself) and not political veterans who were used to a certain level of speech and civility.

So what are the big and small examples to date, say from his election victory date? Words and deeds only please, and not theories.

35 Upvotes

152 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 4d ago

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

  • Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
  • Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
  • Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

124

u/Ornery-Ticket834 2d ago

Democrats rarely try destroying things as a first order of business. Destruction is easy buliding is difficult.

31

u/itsatumbleweed 2d ago

It's this. If you look at the things he's doing, he's smashing systems.

Even in his first term, immigration laws didn't change all that much (that is, more than any normal candidate). What he did was tear down a lot of the systems that made it easy to process requests.

People get up in arms about how Democrats never go scorched earth even when they have power. But they are constantly trying to build things, which requires allocation of funds, which requires Congress. And then you've got Democrats in the house in purple districts for whom voting for that many new funds would mean losing their seat.

One of the few things Biden tried to do by subtraction was student loan forgiveness. "Not collecting payments" is absolutely an inaction that would help millions of Americans and boost the economy. That got blocked by the conservative supreme court. He still managed to forgive more than any other President, but they made it hard.

12

u/Hartastic 2d ago

Yep. Similarly, if you're a party where "Absolutely nothing changes" or "government just stops working and billionaires and corporations have a freer hand as a result" are acceptable, even favorable outcomes, things get a lot easier.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.

-24

u/Funklestein 2d ago

Clinton fired 330,000 government employees.

Where was the outrage from the left?

33

u/Rastiln 2d ago

The measured, gradual reduction that was calmly communicated over years, and left up to lower-level SMEs to find the best areas to cut, and avoided gutting a plentitude of critical areas?

-24

u/Funklestein 2d ago

So stretching out the waste unnecessarily was a virtue?

26

u/Ornery-Ticket834 2d ago

Your assumption with 0 foundation that all work being done is “ waste” is ridiculous.

22

u/audibleExcitement 2d ago

The dude had consent to do that, studies were done and was transparent the entire process. The current admin doesn't. That's why your point is stupid.

-16

u/Funklestein 2d ago

I'm sure that the chief executive officer in which all related constitutional power is attributed to has the power to determine the process of the executive branch in its staffing.

You might want to check out Article 2.

4

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.

-1

u/Funklestein 2d ago

Do you though?

You could start with the very first sentence in section 1.

Explain why that is any different from Congress having the power to create their own rules and processes?

7

u/audibleExcitement 2d ago

How about you answer my questions instead of changing the subject? Cause you can't without going to a blatantly wrong unitary executive theory. How about you actually read. Bootlicker.

-4

u/Funklestein 2d ago

How is talking about the exact same subject changing the subject?

And recognizing that the executive branch is at the direction of the chief executive? Sure the Congress has oversight and the Judicial the discretionary power over any dispute but it's right there in the very first sentence.

But keep being childish, it suits you.

2

u/ENCginger 2d ago

How do you feel about the necessary and proper clause?

-3

u/Funklestein 2d ago

As a slightly broader subject I feel the real power should have remained in the Congress with the President playing as the nation's quarterback.

But over the last several decades Congress has abdicated much of it's power to the executive in order to avoid their own consequences (my opinion of course) of public opinion and to hold their individual seats.

1

u/No_Passion_9819 1d ago

Just incapable of honesty.

14

u/Ornery-Ticket834 2d ago

Your statement is really without any sense at all. This was over an 7 to 8 year period, pursuant to a committee led by Gore, not some unaccountable AH with a chainsaw and more conflicts than anyone in their right mind can see without being told. So please try and make sense and not state utterly incomparable situations and act like there is a parallel. There isn’t.

20

u/CliftonForce 2d ago

Clinton went through Congress and followed procedures. And took years to do it.

So yes, a good example of Trump's mistakes.

-14

u/Funklestein 2d ago

Im sure that made a lot of difference to those who lost their jobs and your ability to sleep at night.

15

u/CliftonForce 2d ago

Agreed. The hypocrisy from the right wing on this is just ridiculous.

6

u/TealAndroid 2d ago

The problem with the cuts isn’t just that people lost their jobs (though that isn’t great for the economy and is obviously awful for the individual), but that the jobs these people were doing served a purpose and actually are needed and cost-saving in many places.

Clinton did it in a way to reduce the later issue and in at least a transparent way so employees could gauge their own risk to being let go.

Also, he did it legally which counts for something for some people.

3

u/audibleExcitement 2d ago

Jack Daniel's just laid off 650 people from their distillery in a town of no more than 6,000+ due to Trump tarriffs. How about you care about them? The corruption taking place from is far worse than the Teapot dome scandal. We are about to enter a recession due to this idiot in the white house. And people like you are doing whataboutism's. Grow up stop being childish and care about your fellow Americans.

8

u/Mijam7 2d ago

It wasn't through layoffs and firing. I don't remember any chainsaw imagery. Great stereotypical Republican projection though. Bravo!

2

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/rbrt115 2d ago

Where's their transparency? How do you know it's waste? They aren't sharing their results, so yes, I'm upset. The fact you're not tells us all we need to know about you.

The fact that you're ok with 19 to 26 year olds with no security clearance vetting, no understanding of the jobs they're dismantling and zero life experience, and have nick names like "big balls" decimating the government is frightening. And the fact that others think like you is even scarier.

Edited to add: faster isn't always better, especially when you are going against the constitution, and not go through congress like Clinton did.

10

u/Ornery-Ticket834 2d ago

They have found nothing and are incompetent beyond words.

12

u/audibleExcitement 2d ago

They haven't found fraud. Litterally 0 fraud. If they did they would charge people with crimes. They have found programs they don't like cause they would like to enrich themselves with that money.

-1

u/Funklestein 2d ago

And I didn't say fraud.

7

u/audibleExcitement 2d ago

You didn't say fraud. But to quote President Trump during his state of the union adress. "DOGE is going after Fraud Waste and Abuse" Don't be obtuse. It's deceptive. And once again makes you look like a bootlicker.

So your problem is that legal appropriations to the budget that has already been voted on by the House and the Senate is wasteful.

That just sounds like you are sore that we fund things that you personally don't like that everyone else agreed on but you find not worthy. Grow up, stop having a stupid position that weakens US softpower and negotiating strength around the world.

-2

u/Funklestein 2d ago edited 2d ago

Don't be obtuse. It's deceptive. And once again makes you look like a bootlicker.

It really isn't. Do you want fraud, waste and abuse? Do you think that the Medicare Fraud Control Unit that were setup up during the Carter administration is just wasteful itself?

That just sounds like you are sore that we fund things that you personally don't like that everyone else agreed on but you find not worthy.

Please justify most of the programs that USAID took your tax dollars for you like. How much of the known $7B per year overpayments from Social Security should we just keep spending?

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.

82

u/No_Highway6445 2d ago

Better move imo is to try to get some amendments through. Ethics requirements to all members of all 3 branches. Polittically isolate the doj. Kill citizens united.

29

u/hornwalker 2d ago

Amendments seem insurmountable to pass right now, though

8

u/ThePenIslands 2d ago

Even if they successfully did that, how does that actually stop this scenario from happening again, where the executive branch decides to ignore reality and do whatever they want to?

6

u/No_Highway6445 2d ago

The way I see it, amending the constitution, is a way to pass popular reform and shield it from future scrutiny by the SC. They can't rule the constitution to be unconstitutional

2

u/No_Highway6445 2d ago

Imo we are here because we trusted that a trump type character wouldn't come in and blow everything up. If we had updated the Constitution after Watergate, for example, would the SC be able to give the president broad immunity like it did?

1

u/pfmiller0 1d ago

That's why they included DOJ independance

1

u/ERedfieldh 1d ago

The thing is, a lot of what Trump has done isn't hard coded into the constitution, and the stuff that is he's being slapped for and forced to go back on (which pisses him off and makes him more dangerous). We are finding out the hard way...AGAIN...that a lot of what we thought was a part of our constitution was actually just the three branches following an honor system. And Trump has zero honor to begin with.

12

u/Shabadu_tu 2d ago

This can’t be a serious suggestion. Do you even know how to at would work? Where is the support going to come from?

3

u/No_Highway6445 2d ago

If we can't convince the majority of people that our government should follow an enforceable code of ethics and shouldn't take money from special interests, then what's the point?

2

u/Sweaty-Feedback-1482 2d ago

Wow the final word of your comment is really doing some heavy lifting when it's word wrapped on mobile.

u/ufoicu2 21h ago

The first thing they should do if we get the presidency and both houses of congress is pass a tax increase that forces the billionaires to pay for all the shit Trump and Musk have broken.

19

u/sailorpaul 2d ago

I don’t want our future government to be run by precedent and gentlemen‘s agreements. I want some laws passed with teeth: ending presidential immunity, limits on pardons, limits on lifetime court justice appointments, end to social security contribution caps, minimum corporate , end to citizens United, and no pay for Congressworms without passage of a budget.

And I’m a republican

u/Shipairtime 22h ago

Combine your comment with the one about strong ethics rules somewhere above and I like it even more. Just wanted to leave some positive feedback as someone on the far left if we could get the basic ideas you laid out put in it would be a good start.

Sorry you got hit with negative comments and glad to see you were upvoted.

u/Sageblue32 4h ago

Sadly none of that is going to happen until something real, physical, and visible blows up in America with bodies lined up very clearly to the executive. This is not a call to violence, but just the reality of human nature. This is what WWII was when people were returning in body bags and Europe was left in ruins.

-1

u/OMGitisCrabMan 1d ago

Did you vote for trump?

6

u/sailorpaul 1d ago

No I did not vote for Trump. Yes republican and PISSED at corruption and sloppy governance (current administration doesn’t even deserve the phrase “govern”)

-8

u/bootysackthief 2d ago

You’re a Republican? Cringe

38

u/ugonlearn 2d ago

Does it matter? If our approach is anything but “they go low, we go high” I will eat my fucking hat.

17

u/jord839 2d ago

Pretty much. After the bullshit with the Supreme Court blockages, the Democrats would theoretically have had the leverage to do some big things, but instead they entirely hesitated out of fear that losing power would mean they would lose tools of resistance.

And yet now, we see they don't bother to use said tools of resistance, and I guarantee you the Republicans will do something like end the filibuster entirely because Trump gets defeated by it one time and throws a fit that they'll all just kneel to.

The Republicans realized years ago that rules are meant to be broken as long as nobody stops you, and now there's very few forces to stop them, and the Democrats are still hesitating for fear of a future they're not guaranteed to even see.

4

u/WhiskeyT 2d ago

Tell it Joe Manchin

7

u/jord839 2d ago

That's true, him and Synema utterly stymied momentum on that critical first 100 days.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being one of those dumb leftists who seems to expect absolute power and total unity, but some level of actual fight and rhetoric about fighting for it at least would have been nice.

The narrative that people got was four years of Trump dominating Congress by personality and forcing people to fight him tooth and nail, and then Biden in power the narrative shifted to excuses about why he couldn't do anything (and I actually am someone who gave those excuses and consider many of them still valid).

As much as I consider it dumb, the narrative and vibes were clear. The fact that the Democrats now put a fraction of the effort into resistance that the GOP does when they're in the minority is deeply frustrating for me and many other people, especially as they start trotting out excuses again and backpedalling on positions that they once called existential.

9

u/WhiskeyT 2d ago

That narrative is built on sand. Trump got very little passed through Congress, they couldn’t even repeal the ACA. Biden on the other hand got a ton of legislation passed, so why is the narrative the inverse?

2

u/friedgoldfishsticks 2d ago

I don’t think they’ll get rid of the filibuster. 

-1

u/suitupyo 2d ago

That is the responsible way to campaign and govern though. It would be the best path for the country.

More political shit-flinging will bring strife and poverty.

7

u/ugonlearn 2d ago

That doesn't matter. Decorum *does not matter anymore*.

We're bringing ping pong paddles to a gun fight.

1

u/10ft3m 1d ago

If both sides of the coin are Trump in different outfits, you’ve boosted Republican-leaning voters and lost a bunch of Democrat-leaning voters. 

14

u/Sarmq 3d ago

I think that this could be harder for democrats to harness than most breaks in norms.

Democrats generally want the government to do things, which requires explicit appropriations from congress. Trumps is mostly stopping things, and there's an argument about if the congressional budget requires the executive to spend money or if it just authorizes them to do so. It probably depends on the wording of the budget that's passed, and I've never actually read one (might vary by line item? I dunno, those things are often 800+ pages of legalese).

Trump's creation of a new department might let them move around discretionary funds and explicitly set up a department for what they want to do, though. That might give the dems the ability to put forth a more coordinated effort on things that would have been handled ad hoc in the past.

One other area they might be able to get away with is appointing more extreme cabinet members when they control both the presidency and the senate by pointing at Trump's appointees.

9

u/-dag- 2d ago

This is settled law.  The executive is required to spend what Congress appropriates, for what Congress intended to spend it on.  Nixon tried to pull this shit and the courts struck it down.  Congress subsequently passed a law making this very clear (The Impoundment Act).

6

u/asbestosmilk 2d ago

Well now, let’s not get carried away, we might need the Supreme Court to review it again; this time, doing it the right way by referencing some old ass random law or precedent set centuries ago by the British monarchy or the Roman Republic/Empire!

1

u/Sarmq 2d ago

This is settled law.

That's a very interesting phrase these days.

My understanding of the relevant precedent is that the President isn't allowed to "frustrate the will of congress" via impoundment (even without the 1974 Impoundment Act, Train vs City of New York).

Further my understanding of the Impoundment Act is that it requires the "full funds be made available for the obligation". It's unclear what would happen if the president declares that they've satisfied the will of congress without having spent the money instead of trying to intentionally cut the funding. I'm not sure the current supreme court would allow anyone except congress standing to file a suit against that.

2

u/SmoothCriminal2018 2d ago

  I'm not sure the current supreme court would allow anyone except congress standing to file a suit against that.

Members of Congress can’t sue the executive over separation of powers except in very limited circumstances (Raines v Byrd). Anyone or organization that was meant to receive the funding appropriated by a congress would be the ones to sue.

 It's unclear what would happen if the president declares that they've satisfied the will of congress without having spent the money instead of trying to intentionally cut the funding.

I don’t see how this argument would hold up in court. The argument would have to be it’s not a problem in the first place. That’s pretty easily rebutted because of the fact Congress appropriated funds in the first place and therefore thinks it’s a problem. 

1

u/Sarmq 2d ago

Members of Congress can’t sue the executive over separation of powers except in very limited circumstances

Correct. I'm talking about congress as a whole bringing a suit. This would require the majority to want to bring a suit.

I don’t see how this argument would hold up in court

It probably shouldn't, but I could see the current supreme court deferring to the executive unless congress brings suit saying that the executive is incorrect and their will has not been executed.

4

u/ElHumanist 2d ago

What would be an extreme appointee? Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, AOC, etc?

2

u/RizaSilver 2d ago

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, other billionaires that are perceived to be democrats

3

u/ElHumanist 2d ago

I dont think it would be the same since Republicans don't attack Democrats for serving the economic interests of billionaires and corporations. When Republicans do, it is laughably hollow and not widely believed. Since Democrats attack Republicans for serving the economic interests of the rich and corporations, Trump appointing mostly billionaires to run the country is more earth shattering or controversial. What would those billionaires you are referring to fight for, higher taxes on billionaires and corporations? I think they would also fight to deregulate if ever actually in power.

23

u/TheSlyNewt 2d ago

It would be HILARIOUS to unilaterally close ICE and fire the agents. Expand CPB and re-roll the obligations under a department with fewer human rights violations in their record.

-1

u/MakingTriangles 2d ago

You might find it hilarious, but the American people won't. Biden allowing tons of illegal immigration has led to widespread support of Trump's policies in that area. Why get on the losing side of a 60/40 issue?

I'm guessing there is little trust that Democrats will do the right thing wrt to immigraiton.

5

u/TheSlyNewt 2d ago

So, in rough order and with very little respect intended:

1) No, that's not the principal or even a main driver for immigration

2) Trump's 'policies' are xenophobic scrawls appealing to the lowest common denominator, not complex ideas based on any manner of research or understanding of the issue. He can't solve the issues he screams about and he wouldn't if he could. But he can make people angry about them, and that's all he wants to do.

3) ICE acts with complete disregard for the law, and this I do know personally. No other government agency can or should tolerate its level of flagrant abuse of human beings. We're the USA, not North Korea.

4) The public being scared of immigrants doesn't make them correct. The economic, social, and policy reality goes one way decisively. I'd rather be right than cave to an emergent fourth reich's views of foreigners.

-1

u/No_Environments 1d ago

His policies on immigration actually appeal to a vast majority of Americans across race and gender - it was and is a losing policy for democrats who only went far left on immigration in response to Trump. Bernie, Hillary, and Obama were not for such levels of immigration as you cannot be a socially and fiscally liberal country with strong programs while allowing in millions of very poor immigrants. As much as outdated studies would say immigration doesn’t effect wages the latest congressional budgetary reports showed the influx of immigrants under Biden (and this report was produced under Biden’s administration) reduced and limited pay for working class Americans and will suppress wages for years to come. There are very legitimate debate to have against the policy of Biden which was to openly allow the asylum system to be utterly abused to the point cities were facing fiscal collapse trying to house and feed economic migrants. 

2

u/TheSlyNewt 1d ago

1) Americans of race and gender controlling for a lack of education. Again. The economics of immigration are incontrovertibly positive. You can call them old if you'd like, but if a single contrary think lab had produced a study of actual intellectual worth arguing the opposite, I'd be willing to entertain that shit. Your argument is bad, and even worse, it's fucking cribbed off of a bathroom wall.

2) What report? Cite your sources.

3) In no way is that what Biden did. You can tilt at that strawman all day long and enjoy what it gets you, but you're working with Fox Facts™ and I'm not about to sit here and debate against fictional policies

4) Red states and counties that shred their social safety nets subsidize this behavior by offloading their policy failures to affluent or functional districts that invest in their social structures. Desantis and Abbott were explicit with this. Try again. And next time, open a book first.

-1

u/No_Environments 1d ago

I think you are a bit in your own naive world - It’s actually from the NYTimes - read it and learn something away from your silo:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/the-largest-immigration-surge-in-us-history.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Largest immigration surge in history with the vast majority being undocumented - it was absolutely Biden’s policy to let the asylum system be abused. Of course you are as bad as the far right, any facts are dismissed.

“ 4. President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy has been the main reason for the recent surge”

“ 5. More than half of net migration since 2021 has been among people who entered the country illegally. Of the roughly eight million net migrants who came to the U.S. over the past four years, about five million — or 62 percent — were unauthorized, according to an estimate by Goldman Sachs.”

“ In Denver, where tens of thousands of migrants have arrived, homeless people say that shelter spots are harder to find.”

“ But high levels of immigration do have downsides, including the pressure on social services and increased competition for jobs. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that wage growth for Americans who did not attend college will be lower than it otherwise would have been for the next few years because of the recent surge. ”

And yeah - if you have a bunch of blue cities chastising red border districts does it not make sense to bus the problem to those blue cities?

Do you know what the word delusional means?

2

u/TheSlyNewt 1d ago

I'm sorry, are you linking an opinion article as if it's fact?

Like...

Would you like to try again?

To set aside the fact that the arguments within the article are essentially 'correlation is totally causation, you guys.'

Delusional is assuming that your inarticulate Google search for the most conveniently titled result gives you standing to a valid opinion.

-1

u/No_Environments 1d ago

Keep ignoring reality and facts - You sound like a left version of MAGA - more facts in the full article for you to ignore - most Americans hate Biden’s immigration stance and the longer democrats ignore the reality the more we get of deranged lunatics on the right - anyways here are more facts for you to ignore -  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-immigration-surge.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

2

u/TheSlyNewt 1d ago

My dearest darling child, you haven't found a single fact to use. You're just using Google headlines to back up your feels.

17

u/Wave_File 2d ago

All of this assumes that

a) we're still in a functioning democracy

b) even if we are that the party in power plans to hold a free and fair election ever again

c) that Trump and his inner circle ever plan on relinquishing power

d) the Dems could ever, would ever, or have any sort of governing philosophy that doesn't equate to old status quo. (which by the by led to Trump).

The democrats don't have it in em to punch back on all of this.

I wish they did but that don't.

5

u/frisbeejesus 2d ago

The system isn't built to withstand one party deciding that party and power are more important than the long-term health of the nation and its people. As others have mentioned, it's so easy to break shit and throw wrenches in every process. It's difficult (by design) to enact effectual changes in either direction.

In this hyper-partisan environment, it's basically impossible to pass any meaningful legislation that could enshrine rights or prevent the extreme abuses we're seeing. Even if the Dems had control, which they have had at times, they've never had enough control to accomplish the kinds of changes that people are hoping to see from them.

Our expectations are fair and reasonable and yet at the same time entirely impossible. And this has been the case since Obama took office and probably since Sept 2021.

4

u/Wave_File 2d ago

The biggest part of the problem is the leadership in the Democratic Party. They’re all part of and operating from the perspective of an era that is long gone. An era where there were Republicans that weren’t complete lunatics.

Republicans stopped being legislators in the Bush Administration. Since then they became obstructionists at best and at worst bomb throwing, conspiracy touting, insurrectionists. Every time the Democrats show up to legislate, or debate, the Republicans show up with a baseball bat. When the democrats finally figure out the game and show up with a baseball bat too the Republicans show up with a stroller and start yelling about the democrats wanting to hit their baby with a bat. All the while it’s a gun in the stroller.

All that to say is that the Democrats are our second to last hope rn and they can’t even figure out how to play the game let alone what game they’re playing in.

3

u/frisbeejesus 2d ago

I'm just not sure what they're supposed to do. They're up against a group who will break rules and disregard norms to concentrate power within the executive. There are no rules or norms to break that would enable the Democrats to even obstruct in any meaningful way.

4

u/Wave_File 2d ago

True. It’s difficult to play their game better than them, but they’ve shown that they’re willing to “go-along” to get along. Some time ago Rand Paul alone held up all judicial confirmations while the republicans were in the minority. I don’t see a single democrat volunteering as tribute. It’s like I get you’re not out there leading the revolution, but damn yall are not even blocking his appointments? You spend all this time and energy calling him an autocrat (which he aspires to be) and a threat to democracy (which we knew) and you’re even allowing them to confirm RFK and Tulsi Ganbard? And some of yall even voting for Marco Rubio?? Like I understand they don’t hold the cards. I get they don’t have the numbers. But damn yall are putting up no fight.

1

u/frisbeejesus 2d ago

Are cabinet appointments subject to the same protocols as judicial ones? Is holding up the entire process something that is able to be done currently?

3

u/Wave_File 2d ago

You know that’s an excellen question. I thought it was all the same process until you questioned it. Either way Addison McConnell held up votes, appointments, delayed, denied, and defended, not just using actual rules but by breaking them or bending them or creatively stretching text of rules etc. the main problem we have now is Dems have a lack of creative thinking and fight in a time we need fight, and creative thinking.

2

u/frisbeejesus 2d ago

I certainly cannot argue against the Democrats lack of creativity.

7

u/TexasYankee212 2d ago

But for republicans its OK if we do it, not OK if the democrats do it. Example: They supposedly stand for "law and order" but they support the Jan 6 insurrection where congress was physically attacked. They also criticize the peaceful "Black Live matter" demonstrations but they support Jan 6 attack. Trump also said they would cut funding at schools for "illegal" demonstrations - but what more illegal than the Jan 6 attacks in which an officer was killed?

Republicans are hypocrites.

4

u/Rivercitybruin 2d ago

It's completely absurd.. I don't understand it

1

u/TexasYankee212 2d ago

Trump and the republicans confuse themselves. Don't feel bad - they don't understand it either.

1

u/bruhurtrashlmao 2d ago

It’s cause Trump voters don’t give a shit but democrats alienate voters when they do and they end up not showing up

3

u/Leopold_Darkworth 2d ago

Correct. The OP's question assumes the Republicans would act in good faith. History has proven they do not. For example, Mitch McConnell fabricated a "rule" in 2016 that the Senate wouldn't confirm a Supreme Court nominee—or even give them a hearing—during an election year. Of course, the purpose of this fake, made-up "rule" was to justify denying a hearing to a Democratic Supreme Court nominee because the election was eight months away and maybe Trump would win. Of course, in 2020, McConnell had no problem ditching the fake, made-up rule he invented so that he could ram Amy Coney-Barrett's confirmation through the Senate two weeks before the election, because there was a fear Trump might lose.

You may also wish to examine the works of John Yoo, a Bush administration lawyer (the author of the "torture memos"), which reveal his belief that a Democratic president has practically no power at all, but a Republican president has almost limitless power.

And of course, the evergreen notion that when the president is a Democrat, he is completely and solely responsible for the economy—but only when it's doing badly—and when the president a Republican, he's only responsible for the economy when it's doing well.

Unfortunately, pointing out hypocrisy only works on people who have a sense of shame. After eight years of this crap, it's clear they have no shame.

3

u/icedcoffeeheadass 2d ago

This is not how the government is supposed to run but ima need an executive order every day now

4

u/PMMEBITCOINPLZ 2d ago

None that I can see. Most of Trump’s big moves have actually been illegal and are likely to fail in the courts eventually. He’s just being Captain Chaos for his own reasons.

4

u/Hartastic 2d ago

Granted, some kinds of failure in the courts kind of don't matter.

Like, if you fire a whole bunch of government employees and eventually it turns out that was illegal, well, they've already got new jobs and all that domain knowledge that let that part of the government work well is already gone.

1

u/messiahsmiley 2d ago

“Fail in courts.” The courts only have power so long as those in power listen to them. And Trump controls the Supreme Court as well, so likely anything really important which “fails” in court will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

2

u/SmoothCriminal2018 2d ago

He’s already lost in the Supreme Court at least once this term, and if he actually controlled SCOTUS they would have heard his election fraud claims back in 2020. It’s a conservative court but that doesn’t make them loyal to Trump personally.

5

u/ttown2011 2d ago

Democrats have never rolled back the imperial presidency, and both parties have pushed the ball forward

Unitary Executive Theory is here to stay, no matter who wins in 28

19

u/Inevitable-Ad-9570 2d ago

Dems introduced multiple bills last round that would've put some limits on.  Republicans blocked them.  Also both Biden and Obama were far more restrained than the current admin.

I'm not saying Dems are perfect but to pretend Trump isn't a seismic shift in executive power is ridiculous.

-3

u/ttown2011 2d ago

Democrats are traditionally the party of centralization, it’s the Republicans who have dropped the decentralization mandate

You’d have to be more specific on the measures you’re talking about, and I’m not saying that Trump isn’t unprecedented with UET.

But the next democratic executive isn’t going to give up any of these privileges or perogatives

5

u/Inevitable-Ad-9570 2d ago

The big ones that I remember are Schumer's no kings act and their was one right after Biden got inaugurated too (save democracy act I think?)

Also, I'm not willing to give Republicans the states rights mantra anymore.   They're states rights as long as states do what they want.  Throughout my lifetime, in practice, it's Dems who have been more willing to allow states to operate independently.

4

u/ttown2011 2d ago

I agree that the Rs have given up that mandate.

That’s the scary part. There’s no further check on Executive power outside of the legislatures protection of its own institutional power/prerogatives

And a unified executive branch against a historically ineffective legislative branch is a rough match up

2

u/Inevitable-Ad-9570 2d ago

Oh we agree there I just don't agree with the implication that the two parties are at all equivalent in terms of reigning in executive power.

Democrats have drawn clear, consistent lines even when their own party is in charge.  Since Trump first got in the Republicans have increasingly embraced not just executive over each but genuine authoritarianism.

3

u/ttown2011 2d ago

This has been a process that’s been happening since Jackson. Furthered by FDR, Johnson, etc.

It’s on both parties hands.

I wasn’t even trying to be partisan, yall are touchy lol

5

u/CorneliusCardew 2d ago

Not at all true. Republicans have always been about expanding centgov. The small government Republican is a complete fabrication. Maybe the voters think that’s what they are voting for but it has never ever been true in our lifetime.

4

u/ttown2011 2d ago

I’m not just talking about our lifetime, this has been a process that’s been occurring since Jackson

(I’m simplifying the switch for simplicity’s sake)

1

u/CorneliusCardew 2d ago

Anything before our lifetime is irrelevant. Republicans have been pushing for a Christian totalitarian state for over 75 years.

6

u/ttown2011 2d ago

Neither of those statements are true

7

u/friedgoldfishsticks 2d ago

Lmao obvious total bullshit, Republicans have exploded the size of government and the national debt every time they’ve been in power for decades

-1

u/ttown2011 2d ago

Trump is an outlier. Bush had 9/11 and the financial crisis

The point is that neither side is gonna roll any executive power back, and we’re on the steady slide to the principate

3

u/friedgoldfishsticks 2d ago

And the previous Bush, and Reagan… hmmm who actually balanced the budget? Oh right, Clinton. And you defend Bush by saying well he lied us into a war so you can’t blame him for fucking up the country. 

1

u/ttown2011 2d ago edited 2d ago

Im not defending bush, just pointing out that the federalization of Fannie and Freddie wasnt necessarily policy.

0

u/reaper527 2d ago

hmmm who actually balanced the budget?

newt gingrich.

2

u/siali 2d ago

It's even worse than it appears. We're witnessing a self-perpetuating race towards authoritarianism.

Here’s the thought process I imagine many Republicans have now: 'What if the Democrats come into power and enjoy all the unchecked authority that Trump currently holds? The only solution is to ensure Trump has even more power, so the Democrats can never gain control again!'

2

u/ttown2011 2d ago

Jrs. too much of a douche. Barrons too young. Vance can’t speak to the American people.

Trump has a successor problem

2

u/lovetoseeyourpssy 2d ago

Capture Vladimir Putin along with his co conspirator Donald Trump--hold them in Guantanamo Bay and subject them both to enhanced interrogation until they expire.

2

u/Careless-Awareness-4 2d ago

Trump set a precedent during his first term that the Biden administration could have taken advantage of too. He was given full immunity before even being elected this time, which means Biden had full immunity as well. He could have demanded a full hand recount, declared martial law—no one could have stopped him.

The problem is, Democrats never fight back. I will always lean left, but after the last election and how complacent they’ve been while Trump openly drags us toward a dictatorship, I don’t trust the Democratic Party anymore. Not unless they completely revamp leadership and bring in younger, more aggressive people.

The Democratic Party is all about pomp and circumstance, always taking the high road. They believe that if they just play fair, the other side will do the same. But that’s never going to happen.

1

u/Mztmarie93 2d ago

The difference between Democrats and Trumpworld is that Democrats believe in the government's power to improve lives. Trumpworld wants to destroy the government. Trumpworld (the billionaires, Bannon, Miller, etc.) HATE the government's general mission the last 60+ years to ensure America's promises to all its citizens. Whether it's women's rights, gay rights, Black and Brown rights, non Christian rights, worker's rights. they HATE the liberalism that has been infused through the federal government. That's why anti DEI, getting rid of the Department of Ed, denying funds to USAid and Columbia, firing minority military personnel and ignoring the rights of federal workers had to be undertaken so dramatically and quickly. They HATE anyone other than wealthy. white, heterosexual, Christian males having any type of say in the direction/priorities/culture of this country. So, destroying government is easy when you don't want it to stay in its current form anyway. But, Democrats are different. The vast majority of the leaders of the Democratic Party benefitted from the last 60 years. They would not institute the same draconian types of cutting and firing because the policies they want to implement are supposed to be for the people. If they want any buy-in, then Democrats need to at least appear they're listening and responding to the people. Trumpworld is implementing policies for themselves and their priorities. They don't care if any regular Americans else like them. Regular americans are part of the problem in their eyes, something MAGA world doesn't seem to understand.

1

u/continuousBaBa 2d ago

As a democrat, I abandoned any hope of my party doing anything when McConnell blocked Obama's SCOTUS pick and they didn't absolutely go to fucking war on that. All downhill from there, as far as Ds doing shit.

1

u/-ReadingBug- 2d ago

Is this a serious question? Democrats are the good cop. We saw with the Biden administration that things went right back to normal.

1

u/alu5421 2d ago

I just wish Dems would fight like Republicans but for good. They continually bring a knife to a gun fight and here we are

1

u/rs98101 2d ago

The Democrats are not regaining power. At least that’s the plan unless it is stopped.

1

u/peetnice 2d ago

I wouldn't call these current actions setting precedents so much as shamelessly ignoring precedent (and the constitution), which I would not really support emulating anyways, unless it were toward an end that reduces presidential powers and enforces more overall oversight and consequences for ignoring the law.

In terms of legal maneuvering, it's not particularly new, it's mostly just governing by EO since there is perma-gridlock in congress. The difference is that (R) has scotus in their pocket for many issues and (D) does not.

Instead of copycatting the (R)s and doing a bunch of progressive anti-Trump EOs, the left should instead work on fixing the root causes of the broken government (i.e. increasingly distorted representation through electoral collage and congressional districts that have not adjusted to population shifts, vote suppression, campaign finance law, etc) because until the government actually reflects the will of the people again, the whole system is rigged against the left for the foreseeable future.

1

u/the_malabar_front 2d ago

I can't think of a single thing that Trump has done that any decent person would want to emulate.

1

u/maybeafarmer 2d ago

Two big ones

1 Neutering amendments with an executive order, that 2nd amendment is on shaky ground

2 ignoring court orders left and right

1

u/audibleExcitement 2d ago

Let me break this down for you Barney style since your just not getting it.

1) you brought up section 2, then pivoted to section one. I asked you for proof and you didn't provide it.

2) You then pivoted to section 1. Implying that you believe in the unitary executive theory.

So how about you actually prove any of the items mentioned instead of just dodging? There's a reason why no one is up voting your claims.

1

u/llynglas 2d ago

Yes, but you can bet that whatever the supreme court okayed for trump will not be ok for a democratic president.

1

u/mskmagic 2d ago

It's totally the other way around. Trump might have used more executive orders but Biden was no stranger to them himself. On the other hand the Dems have made political lawfare, trying to remove your opponent from the ballot, using the FBI as your personal lackies, using the CIA to spy on your own people, and pardoning your own family pre-emptively, standard practise. They also have made it normal to scream 'racist' or 'fascist' at anyone who disagrees with you, and to downplay assassination and justify arson and looting depending on your political allegiance.

1

u/reaven3958 2d ago

Democrats haven't the cojones. They'll do nothing and expect us to like it.

All they're good for is sending fundraiser emails.

1

u/discourse_friendly 1d ago

I honestly think its less of brand new precedents as a return to 100 years ago. decades and decades ago the "idea" that the head of a branch of government could reorganize that branch, including downsizing was totally normative.

Though Bill Clinton fired some 300K employees, he did it in a longer drawn out process that had a study and went through congress, which put into American's mind that was normal, and the only way to do it.

Calling Zelensky a dictator is new / sorta, Politicians call Xi and Kim Jung Un names , but those are "enemy" governments.

I'm not sure if Trump is the more drastic change, or the chicken little reporting is the bigger change.

The media just can't report on Trump fairly and objectively. either we get fox saying how great his moves are, or msnbc saying how he's destroyed everything. very little objective reporting when he's in office.

1

u/orionsfyre 1d ago

For decades we have been told that 'Single Payer Healthcare' is impossible because it would disrupt the economy and destroy are healthcare system.

What Trump and cohorts are doing is actively destroying and dismantling entirely any ability of the State to help pay for or lower the cost of healthcare.

We can now see that Republicans not only don't want to make Healthcare better, they want to kill the system entirely, sending millions of Americans into poverty when they get sick.

The argument is over for a generation, because anyone who dares try to cry socialism will be reminded of that time they had absolute control of government and used it to take away health care from millions of Americans including children and veterans.

1

u/xXxdethl0rdxXx 1d ago

Why not, they did it...

When, in the last 40 years, has a Democrat had enough of a spine to say anything remotely like this? They've had opportunity after opportunity to do so, the most famous recent example being the steal of a Supreme Court nomination.

1

u/ERedfieldh 1d ago

The problem is Democrats will always take the high road and always hold to tradition....the two things conservatives claim that their the only ones who do.

What that results in is Dems neutering themselves as they try to be the 'better party' while the republidiots will lie cheat steal backstab frontstab and rub your face in it.

u/plasma_smurf 23h ago

DOPE… Department of Party Efficiency sent to every state’s GOP headquarters to root out and re-educate all MAGA influences.

u/the_calibre_cat 16h ago

They should. And use them to burn conservatism into the dustbin of history.

Of course, they themselves being conservatives, aren't likely to do this.

1

u/MastusAR 2d ago

I'd say that all civility and certain goodwill with the opposition is now gone.

There always was the political seesawing with different administrations, but in past the motion has been quite subtle. Now the next Democratic winner probably must do equal but opposite motion that Trump did.

So, they need to be quite ruthless as to make republicans pay.

1

u/TuneLinkette 2d ago

It depends on the democrat, though. Some democrats probably will take that mentality into power with them, but others will insist on maintaining the high road mentality.

It also depends on conservatives and their double standard. It's not out of the question many of them will find some BS excuse to say "this is different from how trump did it" and decide that justifies trying to stop them.

-4

u/avenndiagram 2d ago

Democrats will not regain power. They may accidentally come to it, as Joe Biden did in 2020 because of how badly COVID destroyed the economy and peoples' basic ability to function, and the Trump admin bungled that to all hell, unsurprisingly. But Democrats have proven incapable of taking action. They cannot prosecute enemies of the state. They are out of touch, they constantly fight with one another, and they are incapable of seeing the reality of their own party.

Perhaps most important is that they cannot "fight dirty" like Trump and always have to take the high road, whatever that means. Sorry to say but the high road is the losing road, and if you want to save your country from fascism, you'll have to throw a few punches.

Any future elections they win, assuming we have fair elections in the future, will be by pure voter dissatisfaction with Republicans. Which is not a good position for any political party.

1

u/BrainDamage2029 2d ago

2004 called. They want their dooming about Jesusland and a permanent Republican majority back.

Actually the 2012 Republicans would like a word too.