General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSomething that has been bothering me: just how bad would a President Trump or
President Cruz be, presiding over a (presumably) Republican Congress with the power to appoint members of SCOTUS and the federal judiciary (with few or no blocks to their confirmation)? Would there be any remaining institutional checks on a President Trump or Cruz?
One of my Socialist comrades posted this in response to my stating my fears: "one party temporarily holding a strong majority (does not) mean a 'one-party fascist state' ". He pooh-poohs the idea that a President Trump or Cruz would be demonstrably worse than a President Sanders or Clinton. He therefore implies that I am letting my fears get the best of my good sense.
So why am I so frightened of a Trump or Cruz presidency? Are my fears overblown? Or am I correct to be scared shitless?
shraby
(21,946 posts)the states and the congress involved.
The idiots you named cannot do much on their own, or even with the help of congress. They need a majority of the states to also agree.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)also had a constitution (of sorts) but that did not stop Hitler from getting his Enabling Act passed.
The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (English: "Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich" . This legislation was ostensibly passed at the Kroll Opera House, where the legislators were surrounded by, and threatened by, members of SA and SS. The Communists had already been banned and were therefore not present and not able to vote, while several Social Democrats were kept away as well. In the end, nearly all the parties present voted for the act, with the Social Democrats being the only ones voting against.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 (Emphasis added)
dembotoz
(16,825 posts)now that they have gotten the hang of it
it really is bad
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)that and the Bush Junta.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)sole campaign strategy is to make you so afraid of the Republicans that you don't look too closely at the Democrats' capitulation to corporate America.
To paraphrase from Aaron Sorkin's The American President (1995):
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Social Democrat Bernie Sanders.
So unless you are using the 'you' rhetorically and not for me personally, I'm all too aware of the Democratic Party's devil's dance with capitalism.
That said, I would remind you that Hitler first eliminated the Socialists and Communists before he turned his attention and malevolence to the Jews and other "undesirables". So there is more than a little self-interest involved in my post.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I agree with your friend: our fear of a Trump/Cruz Presidency is probably worse than the actuality. Prediction as argument is fraught with error.
Would it be bad? Of course. Will it be THE WORST THING EVER AAAGGHHHHH!!!!! ?? Probably not.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)those Trump rallies (and Trump's defense of his supporters afterwards), I doubt I would be quite as worried.
California is so thoroughly blue throughout (except of pockets of red) that I have a hard time envisioning Trump or Cruz actually implementing the ethnic cleansing they hint at here. But, I'm sure residents of Berlin in 1933 pooh-poohed the possibility that things would get as bad as they did.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They've been chafing under the lunacy of the Tea Party for years now - they created a monster, and lost control of it. I doubt they want to give Trump the keys to the kingdom.
Consider the cannon shot that the National Review just fired across Trump's bow:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-nationalreview-218079
"Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones, the editorial reads.
I agree that Trump's rhetoric is about as disgusting as is possible for an American politician, and the fact that he can openly call for Nazi policies and be cheered is indicative of a problem that is bigger than Trump himself. But our system of government is not quite as shaky as the Weimar Republic - yet.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)structural instability. Add to which the fact that Weimar was still in its infancy, whereas the U.S. is at least in adolescence (perhaps perpetual, eh?
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)union rights, dismantle all worker protections, get rid of ACA and any hope of single pay medicine, remove environmental protections.
I'm not sure what would scare you.
Since I'm in the top .5% i'll benefit financially, but will feel bad for the rest of the country and the world.
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)That would give us a glimpse of how bad it would be, wars, recessions and poverty beyond compare would be the expectation if Trump or Cruz get in the Oval Office.
Your fears are not overblown.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 22, 2016, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)
history to remain entirely sanguine (as I did to my regret in 2000).
I think prudence suggests we hope for the best but plan for the worst. But I'm still noodling on this.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)they could undo basically everything good that happened in the last 100 years, if they so chose.
They could destroy social security. They could get us into some more endless wars. They could sell off every acre of federal land to extraction industries. They could make abortion and birth control illegal....
I'm sure I'm forgetting some good stuff, but you get the idea.
And that's assuming they don't just take control, "handmaid's tale" style, or Nazi style. In my opinion, anybody who thinks Trump wouldn't attempt that isn't paying attention to what he's saying and doing, and what his fans are like.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)sure where to go from here, but I appreciate your thoughts and they echo some of my own.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Need we say more?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Heck, we even progressed on some issues (e.g. LGBTQ rights). In spite of, not as a result of, Bush of course.
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)trump is a pragmatist, he likes to get things done, make "deals," and put check marks on his "stuff i made happen" list. i think he will disappoint a lot of his rw supporters by being quite reasonable and centrist.
cruz is a flat out lunatic. he worries me.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)unable to distinguish between them in practical or realistic terms. I only know about Trump's proposal to ethnically cleanse undocumented Latinos from the U.S. I don't really know much about Cruz other than what I read here and on Daily Kos.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)he likes victories, and he likes to be accomplished. he prides himself on getting along with everyone and making great deals. he can't do that if he acts like the petulant obstructionist R congress. So he will make deals, he will trade, he will even give ground on occasion to get the big W in his column and add to his fantastic list of "great stuff i did as president".
cruz is the penultimate conservative bordering on fascist. he is a totalarian bully amd brat, and i think he will collude with a repub congress to screw us over and give the corporate masters what they want.
just my two cents.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)at pollution, more income gap, lower wages, more outsourcing, etc.
Retrograde
(10,146 posts)Someone else mentioned a court full of Scalias - I dread a court with more Thomases echoing Alito's reactionary opinions.
Aside from Federal judgeships, the president gets to appoint cabinet secretaries and ambassadors who reflect his policies. Can you picture a cadre of Palin clones representing the US abroad?
The president also has veto power. Even if the electorate come to their senses in 2018 and elect a solid majority to both houses a Republican president can still veto anything they decide to do. (unless the majority is so large they can override vetos)