Hacker News Reader

Comment by liontwist | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Whether or not you’ve been duly elected has nothing to do with whether or not you behave like a fascist afterwards. Most fascists were elected.

Indeed 20th century fascist revolutions used the guise of law for their takeover. Following them would include banning the existence of other parties, changing the constitution to give all power to executive, cancelling elections, etc.

I assumed the poster was using facist to mean “bad authoritarian government” - not that trump is actually a disciple of Mussolini style philosophy.

Right now the democratic system is working as designed, minus the incredible power of the executive branch which has been built up since FDR. Obama pioneered this approach to executive order.

Following them would include

Basically, your argument boils down to "you're wrong, the current sitation is not fascist enough yet"?

banning the existence of other parties

They don't need to. Similar to Russia, they will allow the appearance of other parties and elections, but the outcomes will be pre-determined.

changing the constitution to give all power to executive

SCOTUS has already done that: everything the president does is legal by default.

cancelling elections

Again, they won't need to. They proved in November that they already have done the right amount of voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering to secure a win.

> the current sitation is not fascist enough yet"?

You are putting the burden on me to argue they are NOT fascist? (whatever meaning you want to attach to that word)

> They proved in November that they already have done the right amount of voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering to secure a win.

Ah so you think the election was stolen?

> gerrymandering

How do you gerrymander state boundaries?

You took that burden upon yourself by choosing to deride the GGP above, who said "The US is undergoing a fascist takeover basically". Don't put this on me, you opened this line of argumentation. I am merely trying to get you to commit to an actual argument with substance rather than deflecting and whining.

>Following them would include banning the existence of other parties, changing the constitution to give all power to executive, cancelling elections, etc.

Let's check back on these in a few years (months?).

MVSSOLINI HA SEMPRE RAGIONE

If you ask me those are boxes yet to be ticked, but we’ll see.

Allende is a good example.

Which cabinet position was Musk appointed to? (In fact, in the U.S. the president doesn’t appoint cabinet members, but sure, you don’t understand the basics of how the govt works but you know what fascism is better than experts who’ve studied and written about it for decades).

Is Musk the head of the OPM?

Also, policy cannot break the law and certainly cannot break the constitution. That is fascism. The executive doesn’t get to rewrite laws and the constitution.

> In fact, in the U.S. the president doesn’t appoint cabinet members

What? That's exactly what happens. The president (or his puppet masters) chooses the person, and then they go through a Senate confirmation process. I don't see how this isn't being appointed

There is another comment explaining his appointment.

It’s really hard to argue why the president cannot get advice from anyone he would like. His staff includes anyone he wants to employ. He just can’t freely give them positions of official authority.

> The executive doesn’t get to rewrite laws and the constitution.

the judicial branch is working and can challenge orders and take them to court. And is already doing so.

> That is fascism.

It’s really not. You should study what fascists believed rather than using them as a caricature for bad policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com