• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I was born after Watergate, but I’ve read enough about the era to know that when it was revealed that Nixon has an ‘enemies list,’ it was a massive scandal. There seemed to be a general consensus that was not something a president should have.

    Fast forward to 2024 and Trump.

    I guess when your enemies list isn’t a secret one, it’s fine?

    • toothpaste_sandwich@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Hot take: I also think that such a list is not something a president should have.

      Then again I think having a president with so much power is a silly idea in the first place.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Honestly with the internet, we might be able to live in the first technologically viable direct democracy. I’d be curious to see a proposal for how that could be implemented.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Direct democracy sounds like a horrible system for national governance, though. The average person has nowhere near the capacity to be informed enough on a wide range of issues to make good decisions. You need specialists with deep domain knowledge to guide policy decisions, not lots of laypersons.

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Our elected representatives aren’t specialists with deep domain knowledge either. Ideally you have specialists in a specific role as drafters of legislation, administrative people appointed to filter through the bills, but the final vote goes to the people instead of Congress. That way you don’t get fiascos like abortion rights where you have a small group of people controlling us despite overwhelming support.

            • enkers@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              No they aren’t, but at least they’ll typically be working with and advised by people who do have that domain knowledge. And yeah, I could see a system working where there’s basically a veto vote for the people.

              • Pennomi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Yeah I’m not pretending I’ve thought deeply about my proposed system. But the people at very least deserve the ability to have a direct hand in legislation. Politicians are not scared enough of their electorate.

                • tacosplease@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I used to agree that people should be able to vote directly on issues. Not sure where I land anymore. We seem way more vulnerable to propaganda than one would have expected.

                  If the status quo somehow carries on for another decade I wouldn’t be surprised if the 20% to 30% of extremist nuts becomes 50% or higher.

                  Wish I had a solution.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I don’t know if I would trust an internet where a guy played a long con with xz Utils development to engineer a back door into Linux systems with accurately tabulating votes.

  • ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Because he has nothing, policy-wise. It’s just what his ‘best’ hires tell him and he just goes with it, without any comprehension of the issue at hand, nor the consequences of his choice. You might as well be flipping a coin, weighted on the side that benefits him, as an imbecil, and now convicted felon, the most.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    In short, if your aren’t one of his obedient, adoring, loyal, sycophants, you are his enemy, even then if you screw up you go to his enemies list.

  • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This article touches on important: what are the Democrats in Congress doing to prepare for another Trump presidency?

    He’s been pretty vocal about his vindictive he wants to be so you would expect them to say least be trying to push laws to restrict the abuse that he, or any other president could on political enemies.

    The article mentions a bipartisan bill that passed the house but couldn’t get through the Senate. Why aren’t Democrats talking about that bill more publicly to get it passed?

  • jobby
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    He has no sense of humour, or sense of care for others. All he has is greed and the ability to screech negativity.