Comment by jhp123
2 days ago
let me ask you a question. Richard Nixon had a special team under his direct control, they're popularly known as the white house plumbers. He asked this team to engage in activities not directly authorized by congress including various wiretaps and break-ins. Eventually these activities were discovered, it became a scandal and ended his Presidency.
Do you think Nixon did something wrong by creating this team?
If not, then we have an answer for why most people see this whole thing differently from you — most people see the Nixon presidency as clear overreach and abuse of power.
If so, what is the significant difference between Nixon's plumbers and the DOGE team, in your view?
Were the "white house plumbers" operating in the clear? On a defined task that was campaigned on? Working with legal as well as existing employees within each organization (yes I get they were simply stealing info)?
This was campaigned on, The election was won. In this instance the outcome is what the majority elected. You don't have to like it, some may change their mind, but this was made clear as a goal from day 1.
I've also not been cagey in my support. I fully support what is going on. If you see overreach follow the processes in place and litigate. That's how the country works. There's two distinct issues people have here, the "WHO" and the "WHAT" no one questions the "WHY", because no one can stand here and say we don't need to have cuts across the board. Ignoring the "WHO", the "WHAT" so far has been pretty clear. It's things that socially are supported by one party and not the other. This is the outcome of an election and it's going to keep going until someone proves they are outside of their authorities and the courts agree.
It sucks to have a narrative perspective for years and then see everything supported under that narrative cut back. I get the emotions, but ultimately none of that matters if we can't afford to keep the proverbial lights on.
Nixon had a 25% approval after he left office. I think there's a baseline of about 20-30% of people who are pro-authoritarian, and they don't really want to admit it yet, but they're fine with their team doing whatever they want, as long as they get their way.
Interestingly I feel the same way about the left, where things like pronouns were forced onto people, taxpayers were forced to pay off others student loans, the first and second amendments regularly attacked and if you spoke out against any of this it could lead to you losing your job.
You can’t with a straight face call the party of small government pro authoritarian. Unless you’re purposely skewing reality.
They are not the party of small government; every time they have been in power, they have used it to increase the size of the government. Show me a Republican President in the last 40 years who has decreased the power of the federal government.
And don't say Trump because he is currently asserting federal authority over NY for the laws they passed, and claiming he is a king. In his last term he spent more money than all other presidents combined. He argued in court he had the right as President to use the military to assassinate his political opponents. The Biden administration argued against that idea. I forget, is murdering your political opponents an expression of authoritarian or democratic values?
As far as Democrats, they didn't storm the Capitol and beat police when they lost this year, so that's a false equivalence. One side is happy to burn down the Capitol if they don't win, the other grumbles but accepts the results of the election. One response is authoritarian, the other is democratic.
1 reply →
Trump is not directing "wiretaps" or "break-ins" into entities outside the executive branch of the federal government.