[tbatchelli]

People seem to think that:

1. Auto-coups don't exist 2. Coups require tanks on the street 3. Once a coup is started it will succeed.

This is a an auto-coup, where the president is trying to seize power that is not granted by elections, and trying to make the legal system irrelevant. All in the name of urgency and saving the country (we call them "salva patrias" in Spain for a reason). No one can vote for this. Voting a president does not make the president all powerful.

Also, this coup does not need to succeed. We saw this recently in South Korea. This will only succeed if people don't oppose it. Don't believe them when they make you feel like you already lost.

Finally, the game has changed for the supporters of democracy. This is no longer about writing stern worded letters, if you catch my drift.

(references: I was born in a dictatorship and I lived through a failed military coup)

[red-iron-pine]

> This is no longer about writing stern worded letters, if you catch my drift.

I've been hoping the Pentagon would grow some balls, but that looks like it won't happen.

Guillotines it is, then

[sxyuan]

The choice isn't just between talking and violence. Here's a helpful thread that gives some examples of intermediate options at the end: https://bsky.app/profile/chadloder.bsky.social/post/3lh5gch3...

Link that should work without signin: https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile...

If things escalate all the way to widespread violence, we've all collectively failed.

[Ancalagon]

That requires a sign in…

[sxyuan]

Apologies, updated to include a link that should hopefully work without sign in.

[trod1234]

still requires a sign-in, and the second link is throwing an error.

[Ancalagon]

thanks!

[raxxorraxor]

To be fair, this is the modus operandi since early 2000 at least. Terrorism it was at that point. Broad surveillance and control policies were justified by a constant threat and there was always some threat and democracy had to take a backseat, even constitutional rights (I am not from the US, but developments were similar in my country).

Trump might behave more colorfully here, but I have to be honest that this isn't at all unfamiliar. I think a lot of Trumps current power stems from pretty weak defenders of democracy. Not referring to the previous government and instead of the common sentiment of 21st century politics. It doesn't lend itself to give a convincing picture.

Maybe that is a trap, but it just isn't that outrageous anymore in an overall outrageous context. Perhaps it is indeed worse, but I think a lot of damage was already done.

[scarface_74]

People aren’t opposing it. The legislation is letting Trump usurp their power. This is something that old school Republicans wouldn’t have let happen. But the Republican Party has been taking over by Trump.

Also, why would the majority oppose it? What he is doing is affecting illegal immigrants (who can’t vote), the poorest people who those just one level up think they are “only temporarily poor”, minorities, trans - you notice that he only removed the T from LGBT while he is taking down “wokeness”.

You also have to remember he has the evangelical Christian block in his pocket who literally believe he was sent by God to keep America from descending in hell fire. You can’t “reason” with devout religious people. Religion requires you to ignore logic and science (born and raised in the Bible Belt).

You notice he isn’t disrupting farmers in red states with immigration raids? Also because of gerrymandering and how the Senate is designed. The low population red states have much more power than their population calls for.

[locopati]

"you notice that he only removed the T from LGBT"

for now... it won't stop there

[scarface_74]

The Log Cabin Republicans serve as their shield that “they aren’t homophobic” just like they trot out Tim Scott as their token Black to show they aren’t racist. As a Black person, there is no way in the world I would be put on stage to shuck and jive for the modern Republican Party even if I did agree with some of their policies before 2016.

Besides plenty of Christians have had to come to terms with the fact that at least one person they care about is gay. Many fewer have someone they care about that is trans.

[stogot]

> You also have to remember he has the evangelical Christian block in his pocket who literally believe he was sent by God to keep America from descending in hell fire. You can’t “reason” with devout religious people.

No not true. only a few people believe that. Most do not. Stop grouping religious people into the few who interview on tv.

> Religion requires you to ignore logic and science (born and raised in the Bible Belt).

Also wildly not true and you’re extending an experience you had to a whole population, which is a biased opinion.

Many of us use science and logic daily, in conversations, and there are well received physicists who argue for an existence of a God using logic. The Bible says to use both wisdom and knowledge (logic and science).

[monkeyfun]

Absolutely have to disagree on both counts. However, since you do at least sound reasonable, I'll prefer to just focus on the first claim, as we'd otherwise easily spend hours just debating basic philosophy in circles, and arguing about what even counts as valid logic.

We're already just engaging in anecdotes, but having lived all around the south from virginia to texas, I've found that almost "god-king" belief extremely common in southern baptists in particular and christians in general -- especially if you done it down ever so slightly to: "Trump has God's favor, he was probably sent by God to save our country, which is God's favorite on Earth". I have, however, little experience with the north or the west -- almost only the traditional US south.

So, my questions for you would have to be, do you live in the south or elsewhere? Also, what would your analysis be in general about such people? (Regardless of if they are many or few)

[scarface_74]

> No not true. only a few people believe that. Most do not. Stop grouping religious people into the few who interview on tv.

60-72% of White Christians voted for Trump.

> Many of us use science and logic daily, in conversations, and there are well received physicists who argue for an existence of a God using logic. The Bible says to use both wisdom and knowledge (logic and science).

Context: you’re replying to someone who spent his entire elementary school education in a private Christian school and even through the first year of high school was part of a “leadership group” going to Bible bowls.

So tell me one line in Genesis or Exodus that makes sense scientifically? Do you think humans ever lived to be 900 years old? The Jews ever being in Egypt has never been backed up by any historical record. Do you believe any of the miracles have a scientific basis? Do you believe in creation or evolution? Noah’s ark?

Now let’s go to the New Testament. Do you believe that Jesus was born to a virgin? He arose from the dead?

You can not believe anything that the Bible said happened and be science based.

I’m not pasting the following link to “prove” anything. It is a better summation of my opinion that is better written than I would do

https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/

[mafuy]

There does not exist a proper argument for the existence of God that does not require use of "God is above logic".

I'll believe that many Christians do not see Trump as savior, though. Following true Christian values in these times is a great idea.

[scarface_74]

“True Christian values” don’t jibe with voting for the modern national Republican Party.

Pence was probably the most “Christian” of the Republican candidates last year and he had the fewest votes.

None of the prior Republican candidates for President would have stood a chance in todays environment.

[normalaccess]

Pence is a "Dominionist" and wants to reinstate a theocracy. Last time we tried that was called the Dark Ages and we tortured people and burned them at the stake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/30/a-theology-of-power-...

[scarface_74]

And at least that jibes with Christianity. I’m not saying I agree with it.

[jrs235]

As a proclaimed Christian, I agree. Never have I ever voted for fewer Republicans than in the last election.

[jrs235]

>I'll believe that many Christians do not see Trump as savior, though.

As a Christian that is certainly concerned about Christians supporting and voting for Trump, sadly I think many do (see him as a Savior and one who can do no wrong) but don't realize it. They excuse excuse excuse. What I see happening is history repeating itself. The Isrealites pleaded for a strong man king like the other countries even though God said they didn't need one as long as they lived by "following true Christian values". They still wanted one so God let them have one. Saul, being an insecure man, began oppressing them shortly after getting the throne.

[scarface_74]

You really don’t think they realize it? These are the same “Christians” in the 60s who supported Jim Crow.

Bob Jones University didn’t end the interracial dating ban until 2000.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national...

The entire Christian Organization is corrupt. From the wide support of Trump by its leaders from the national and local level to systematic covering of child abuse in the Catholic Church.

If the abuses in the Catholic Church had happened anywhere else it would have come under RICO charges

[jrs235]

I suppose many of them think God needs them to speed things up and usher in the antichrist. They certainly are letting their hearts turn cold. I wonder if they realize that they are the ones disobeying Jesus' commands to love others, our neighbors and our enemenies. To take care of the poor and those in need. To give the coat off our backs if asked. To offer the other cheek if struck. "Depart from me, I never knew you."...

[normalaccess]

I'm under the impression that trump is doing exactly what at least 51% of the population want him to do. He campaigned on dismantling the wheels of established power in DC.

EDIT: To expand on that Idea there is the exact apposing view that Biden was doing the same thing by the people that voted Trump in. But as we all know the media prefers one candidate over the other. Trump is the grenade that is supposed to destroy the power structures (the so called Deep State or permanent bureaucracy) in DC.

[thejazzman]

i agree in principle but it's not reality

my moms lifelong friend recently told us her grandkids are all trumpers

they're all on SSI. one had four abortions. and they LOVE trump.

every group in america was promised whatever they want, despite the endless hypocrisies/lies with that, and none of them seem to care whatsoever??

for this reason i see no way out of this hell. it's simply beyond reason at this point.

(this take is from pennsylvania)

[normalaccess]

If there is one thing about Trump everyone can agree on, it's that he is a devastatingly effective communicator.

And when I say that I don't mean good or correct or proper, I mean effective. He has an innate ability (and if you watch old clips always has) to pull the conversation where he wants it.

[anon_shill]

Correction: 31% of the eligible voting population and ~50% of the popular vote. A lot of people did not vote.

[normalaccess]

Thank you, that is an important point. Voting numbers can only estimate the totals.

I should have use the term *Electorate*.

  The collective people of a country, state, or electoral district who are entitled to vote.

[scarface_74]

And they too are getting exactly what they asked for by not voting.

[tweezy]

I think the issue is that this is not "dismantling the wheels of established power", so much as it is centralizing and increasing the power of the executive branch.

It's not getting rid of all these bureaucrats in DC and giving power back to the people. It's getting rid any sort of independence and removing the barriers to centralizing power under Trump so that he can grab even more power and control.

And just to be pedantic, Trump received 49% of the vote and Kamala receive 48%. And that's of people who voted. He received 77 million out 244 million of the voting-eligible population, or around 31%.

There may be a plurality of people who want the Executive branch under Trump to consolidate power, but it's not the majority.

https://election.lab.ufl.edu/2024-general-election-turnout/

[normalaccess]

I can see that, on the one hand he is removing what he thinks is bureaucratic fat while at the same time giving himself (or the position) powers to do so.

I personally believe the government of the USA is probably 10x the size it needs to be so i like seeing the cuts but I am well aware of the dangers you speak of.

Either way, we live in interesting times.

[scarface_74]

The cuts in the federal government aren’t going to come from getting rid of the civilian workforce. It’s going to have to come from decreasing the military and cutting social security and Medicare. Do you think he would be willing to do either?

[77pt77]

The militray? Never!

The other 2, depends.

[tweezy]

I wish I could find a link, but I remember a study that argued that large bureaucracies can actually impede authoritarian governments concentrating power.

The idea being that when there are so many levers to pull and a disjointed system managing them, it makes it effectively impossible for a small group to effectively wield power. It’s like a buffer against concentrating power into a single individual.

Not that I’m arguing for endless bloat to the US government, that comes with its own problems. I agree we need to rein it in.

But I think there is a freedom-centric argument for a slightly larger government bureaucracy than is strictly necessary.

Or thinking about it in reverse, the bureaucracy is currently preventing the executive branch from just doing whatever it wants. I know Congress and the Supreme Court should act as blocks, but to paraphrase Stalin how much infantry do they have?

A slow moving bureaucratic executive can act as a buffer against ineffective other branches.

Or for those that may support the current administration consolidating power, what if the tides turn? What if in 4 years whoever the liberal villain du jour is takes power? Are we making it so that AOC is the most powerful president in history?

[BlueTemplar]

You seem to assume that Trump will willingly give away his power in 4 years.

He most certainly remembers the January 6th failed coup and will likely spend the next 4 years making sure that he comes on top this time.

And yeah, if he fails, you better hope that the person which did succeed was liberal (and from I heard, AOC is not), because otherwise instead of putting back a system of checks and balances, they will just use the power that Trump concentrated to their own ends.