634
If leaders stay silent, the US won’t survive Trump’s next 100 days | Robert Reich
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
634 points (97.9% liked)
News
29156 readers
3652 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I hope we can agree that "different" and "not surviving" is not the same thing!
No it's not, according to the rules of the federation, no state is allowed to secede according to the constitution!!
You seem to be arguing from a personal opinion of what USA should be rather than reality of what it really is.
Yes that's true, and it's not supposed to be like that, but in reality it always was a risk by the way the federation clearly always can trump the states. This is VERY different from EU, which is built with way way higher without comparison better protection of the member states.
Hah, it's now a discussion of literal existentialism. No, I would say one could reasonably believe that "different" and "not surviving" are symonomous. The form that something existed in did not survive, and now only the new, different form exists. Ship of Theseus. If you replace every part of the old country one-by-one, once every part is replaced is it the same country or a different one? In this case, I think it's not useful to try to claim it's the same country.
Again, that's not what justified the civil war. Again, I agree that a peaceful democratic secession should be allowed, but again that's neither here nor there. Because here is a federal government ignoring the states' checks/balances, and there is a crime against humanity that was justified in being stopped by the other states, not a federal government acting outside of the states' checks/balances.
I am arguing based on the founding doctrine of the US and the concept of Federalism.
The assumption you're making is that the federal govt was designed to have autonomy of its own separate from the states. But the federal govt was intended to only be a democratic-republically determined representation of the states' intentions. Trump has the same misunderstanding, which is why he's using the "activist judges" rhetoric. But by design of the US constitution, the states are intended to have checks on the power of the federal govt. Regardless of how any 2A nut interprets the 2nd Amendment, that is the actual intended purpose: to prevent a federally organized military from staging a coup. The federation was always intended to be a way for the states to hold the power to regulate themselves.
The EU is fine for now, but I could easily see them going down a road to toward the same mistakes the US made. Especially if, in response to the failure of the US, they end up organizing a centralized EU-controlled military, and then all it takes is a bit of FUD to put a demagogue into power and wield that military to oppress.
No If USA falls into a fascist dictatorship, and the fedetal government takes full control, but in another 10 years, the fascist regime is exchanged for democracy again.
How can you say USA didn't survive, just because they had a bad period?
You are arguing arbitrary points that have no impact on my original claim.
No what I argue is based on the reality that the president has the executive power, and can choose to ignore the checks and balances, because they are poorly designed, and only work when everybody respects them.
But again all that is besides the point.
I've stated pretty clearly at least 3 times now that in that specific scenario, I would consider the re-established democracy to be the same country.
The inverse. You keep noting that the EU would allow a peaceful secession, but the US would not, and I'm saying that's irrelevant now and it was also irrelevant during the civil war.
Again, the inverse is true. Executive Decisions are simply a notice of intent, they are not law. Only the legislative branch can create laws. But the situation we find ourselves in is both Congress and scotus respecting the Executive Decisions as law. That was never supposed to happen. Now the state judges are trying to act as the last line of defense. This is not besides the point, this is literally what the entire thread, and my original comment is about.