Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

You're gonna wait until he literally changes the flag to be a swastika before you say. "Hmm, maybe he's gone too far"

I didn't say i was supporting the actions, but that is something which can be said about any elected government's activities. What i care about is that they stay within the laws and mechanisms of the nation as that is what separates policy choices, even extreme ones, from authoritarianism.

Absolutely, he is receiving little pushback, but that is on the basis of the policy choices he is making. On occasion, the courts have ruled against the administration when they stretch a little far, and the response is to complain in a press release, insult someone, likely without any justification or nexus... but follow the legal process. The administration is going right up to the line, stretching the limits of its authority. Closer to the line than most any of the predecessors... but the critical bit is that he hasn't crossed it.

I wouldn't say that. In the first place, the administration has secured a ruling from the Supreme Court giving the president a sweeping immunity from prosecution. This has stymied a lot of court cases that would otherwise have been pursued. But "the President cannot be prosecuted for X" does not mean X is not illegal; it just means there is no remedy in the courts for X, when the President does it. It nevertheless remains the case that, when the President does X, he is breaking the law.

Relatedly, the courts are not the only law enforcement mechanism in the US, especially when it comes to public officials. A lot of the time, the courts refuse to move against the President, not on the grounds that what the President is doing is fine, but on the grounds that it's up to Congress, not the courts, to control this aspect of the President's behaviour. If Congress fails to take action, that doesn't mean the President is not breaking the law; it means the law is not being enforced against the President. Failure of law enforcement against public officials is in fact one of the classic routes from democracy to authoritariansm.

For example, in April (and several times since then) the President has imposed sweeping tariffs on almost every country in the world (except Russia, Cuba, North Korea and Belarus, all of which are countries that he admires). Consitutionally, the imposition of taxes is a matter for Congress. Congress has conferred a limited power on the President to impose tariffs during a national emergency involving a foreign threat. Trump has invoked that power to impose his tariffs; to do this he declared that the US's trade deficit is a "national emergency".

But (quite apart from the fact that Trump has used the power to impose tariffs on imports from countries with which the US has a trade surplus) this is nonsense; the US has had a trade deficit continually for at least 50 years; it has had a trade deficit of more or less the current size, relative to the economy, for the last 25 years. This is the established state of affairs, which is the polar opposite of an emergency. An emergency is a state of things unexpectedly arising, and urgently demanding immediate action. The whole point of giving the President powers to impose emergency tariffs is to allow him to respond to a new situation that demands faster action that the processes of Congress allow. That's clearly not what's happening here, where the US has had literally decades to formulate and implement measures to address the trade deficit, if indeed it's considered a threat. Trump, in imposing his Stupid Thursday tariffs, is plainly exceeding — and unconstitutionally exceeding — the authority that Congress has granted him.

The US Court of International Trade has already ruled to that effect; that ruling is under appeal. But Congress doesn't have to defer to the courts on this issue; the US has a separation of powers and Congress can act to restrain a President who usurps the authority of Congress; it doesn't have to wait for the Courts to do so. But Congress has done nothing. Every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but it seems they won't even uphold and defend the Constitutional provisions that relate to Congress itself.

So I think what we have here is not a President who goes close to the line but doesn't go over it; we have a President who routinely goes over it, secure in the knowledge either that there are no effective mechanisms that will hold the line against him, or that those who could hold the line will choose not to.

Democracy doesn't always die in these circumstances. But, when democracies die, these are commonly the circumstances in which it dies.

Trump, apparently, is not going over the line because if he was there

(1)would be riots in the street,

(2) Congress would ‘take him to task’ ,

(3) individual GOP Congress and GOP house members would be ‘shouting from the rooftops rooftops’, etc, etc, etc.

BUT, BUT anyone who challenges HIM
(1) will get demoted or

(2) will get sacked

(3) the organisation will be ‘decommissioned’ as not fit for purpose, etc.

(4) labels will be dished out to the opposing individuals, organisations

(5) blame for ‘bad news’ will be placed always elsewhere

(6) universities, organisations that do not behave as per Trumps thinking will have their budgets from federal coffers reduced or cancelled

DO I NEED TO GO ON?????

So anyone individual , government department or organisation who wants to challenge Trump re going over the line because, IMO, will THINK TWICE.
Individuals , organisations, organisation heads want to keep their jobs normally.

Trump is taking the TOURIST ROUTE re going over the line