>Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean?
In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.
NIH and NSF ultimately report to the executive branch and if their reach can be expanded under executive fiat in a democratic administration, I don't see why they can't be limited under a republican one?
"The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests."
Supposed to, but the consequences for not doing so are... overly complicated, see the various impeachments and court cases he's already had and defeated.
The bounds and laws should have been finetuned long ago, reducing the power of the President on the one side, and reforming the government to be more representative instead of a two party Us vs Them system. But that is also a democratic process and neither side has had a majority or incentive to do so.
Totally agree that there have been several past failures to reinforce the system and make it less of a good faith / handshake agreement to keep it on the rails.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up and call bullshit on what's happening. It's important to call it what it is. It's important to speak up.
But you knew he doesn’t care. Your highest court ruled that laws don’t apply to the man. He can be a dictator if he wants and „whatcha gonna do ’bout it”?
Protest, support others who protest, annoy the shit out of my representatives, and loudly declare "THIS SHIT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever the opportunity presents itself.
It may become necessary for Trump and Musk to show their potential for brutality before people's minds change, unfortunately. But it has worked, in the past. The Kent State shooting is a good example; the obviously excessive brutality of the state caused a massive increase in willingness to speak out, protest, strike, etc. That massive public response became too large to ignore.
I also recognize that by speaking up I may make myself a target for that brutality. At this point, I've decided "so be it, if that happens, it happens."
Evil wins when good people stand by and do nothing.
You guys did this the last 4 years he was in office and nothing happened. I'm going to sign myself in for another 4 years of screaming while nothing happens.
By the way, posting about how much you hate the government on bluesky is not revolutionary activity, and talking about expecting "brutality" in retaliation shows just how out of touch you are with reality.
Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon.
>> Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon.
Even those who crafted the American system knew that it was not perfect. Benjamin Franklin said:
"I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government."
> you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that
Most certainly not overwhelmingly:
Trump: 49.80%
Harris: 48.32%
This is one of the more frustrating aspects of the United States. Not even 1.5% more and the result is "near total evisceration of the federal government" compared to "largely the same".
The result is even worse with the Senate. 55.9m votes for Democratic Senators, 54.4m for Republican Senators, and yet Republicans ended up with 53 seats.
And this doesn't even get into gerrymandering for House seats, which is predominantly Republican-driven.
This is by a good margin not a representative government.
Both the President and the Senate are representatives of and voted on by the States, not the people. The only representative of the people in the US Federal government is aptly named House of Representatives.
When people vote for President, it is only to inform the State of how they want the State to vote, and the State has significant freedom to allocate its votes for President how it wishes e.g. some States use a proportional allocation instead of winner-takes-all.
Popular vote for Federal office was largely a 20th century invention.
And? That doesn't change the fact that he was not "overwhelmingly" elected. He won by a slim margin. People acting like he has a massive mandate from the people are at best ignoring the facts, and are mostly trying to delegitimize the opposition.
My point is that the popular vote is misdirection no matter who uses it, people weren't voting to get the most votes nationally and strategy reflects that. It focuses people on a thing that doesn't matter to push a narrative.
The only votes that matter are the votes of the State. It may still not be "overwhelming" at 58% (312 out of 538) but pretending that wasn't the result only serves to muddy the water.
I think you’re making an academic rather than practical point. Sure, he won a much larger share of the electoral college than the popular vote and the existence of the electoral college likely influences some voting patterns. Even then though, in PA he won with barely 1.5% more of the vote yet got all 19 electoral votes. Given the how close the election was forecast and how important PA was, I don’t think the electoral college drove much of the voting patterns. So my point still stands: he barely has a mandate and most certainly did not win an overwhelming victory. And yet, he gets to implement a radically destructive gutting of the federal government.
Uh maybe read the declaration of independence and some of the writings of the founders? They most certainly did NOT want the executive branch to be a king...
ALso a slim majority of the 60% who voted is not an overwhelming majority. Biden's win against Trump was bigger.
Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean?
Trump does exactly how he promised he would do if you elected him, and you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that.