Is it" hysterical" to point out this section of the EO?
> The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.
Because, to put it in plain words, this is ordering all members of the executive to obey exclusively the President and the Attorney General when it comes to how all law should be enforced. That includes the U.S. Marshals Service that provides enforcement duties for federal courts and the Supreme Court.
How is that related to a dictatorship though? The executive comes under the control of its democratically elected head, which is pretty normal and not considered a dictatorship.
Forget the police, I thought the US president actually has much more direct and undisputed power over the military than some other executive agencies, which could be much more dangerous in the wrong hands, yet that is still is not considered a dictatorship (e.g., not even when Obama ordered the extrajudicial execution of a US citizen and was protected by presidential immunity, nor when past presidents have launched undeclared wars of aggression or interventions and bombing campaigns against sovereign nations), at least not in mainstream political thinking.
This EO seems like just shuffling responsibility around within the executive, moving interpretation of laws directly under the president rather than delegating it out to various unelected bureaucrats in different agencies making their own interpretations. I'm sure there are argument for and against it but it doesn't seem outlandish, or an kind of crazy power grab beyond what the executive branch already has.
I think everything has to be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence.
I may be wrong, but I think in the US enough voters have been deceived by Donald that they were not well-informed, and so elections are no longer valid.
By this, he is in power, and Congress and Senate have been subverted.
I also see Donald looking to have complete and untrammeled control, and this is one more act in that direction.
An entire political party has spent an entire mandate actively and vocally claiming the election was stolen, and one comment on a random website is what bothers you, only because it came from “the other side”?
I’m pretty sure you know. Forgive me for not responding further, but your username doesn’t inspire confidence that you’d be willing to engage in an honest exchange of ideas. I hope to be wrong, but experience says that people who feel the need to advertise their tribal affiliation so overtly are seldom open to challenging their personal world view.
I don't know actually, perhaps I didn't follow context closely enough to see which team you affiliated yourself with. Either way that's okay if you aren't capable of standing by what you wrote or arguing in good faith, then my experience tells me that it's a good signal that it's not worth engaging with anyway.
Most likely the 2020 election, which involved the January 6 insurrection and Trump's fake electors plot [1] (which goes beyond falsely claiming that the election was stolen).
I don't agree because they were simply talking election denial, so 2016 and 2020 both equally fit. Unfortunately there looks to be a lot of denial and conspiracy theories around 2024 too now, which is very dangerous to democracy.
