Wow. Almost all of that is serious stretching, at best.
A president who outright lies and uses common propaganda techniques to create an us vs them endowment.
And doing less of it than the previous one. Most of that is being done by the opposition, which he is playing like Johnny plays a fiddle. If they'd stop making anti-Trump their basic policy position, much, if not most, of it, would disappear. It only works because when he says something
slightly not equitable, it gets multiplied as it is passed around.
Going after political enemies (lock her up, lock comey up).
Nothing new, just mud-slinging in political races. Except that there was some substance for it, there (though it's not politically worth it to follow through).
Ignoring or tearing down our allies (talking shit about other world leaders who happen to be our allies, talking crap about NATO).
Oh no, we have someone who isn't polite. Woe is us. Being allies doesn't necessitate niceties, but a guarantee of boots on the ground when neede, no nasty trade sanctions, and so on.
Openly admiring dictators and authoritarian strongmen.
You mean like trying to make a path towards having NK and Russia not just be enemies for another generation? I'm still concerned about Putin's Russia, but I'm optimistic for NK. Both leaders want their egos stroked, and Trump is much like them, in that way.
Ignoring outside threats to our democracy and elections.
Since when? It's taken ages for the MSM to wake up to that sort of thing going on, regarding elections, but it's not the President's job, nor something within his power, to fix. Foreign propaganda is not new. All that's new is the MSM realizing that platforms like Facebook and Twitter aren't strictly controlled.
Normalizing violence and hate (see Charlottesville).
Did you see any of what went on there other than the MSM coverage? It was a cluster, for sure, but crapping on everyone would be bad, because no, not everyone there was Neo-Nazi or Antifa.
Essentially using a tv network to push the propaganda of the state.
Then we've been on the path to Nazism since at least 2000. W's admininistration was the first to do it well, IMO, and Obama did it with more than one network at his feet. I don't like it, but it's nothing new for this admin, and would be going on with Clinton, if she got elected, too. OTOH, I get a kick out of the Republicans, in general, treating Fox News like it's their best friend, when it's another ratings-seeking tabloid network, like the rest.
Going after "citizens that might have fallen through the cracks" with regard to immigration.
So get Congress to stop him. Bitch and moan to your reps, including threatening to campaign for any other candidate in the next election cycle. Fearmongering isn't going to fix anything, and if you haven't guessed by now, I would like to actually see it dealt with, rather than just getting another bandaid. My interpretation of what's going on is an attempt to push the issue by way of malicious compliance.
Using the military for political purposes (see the entirely useless bombing of the Syrian airport or trumps desire to have a military parade).
So we've been sliding into Nazism since the 60s, at a minimum. Got it.
Needlessly separating families in the name of security.
The most left court we have decided that it should be done that way, given the laws we have, and it was being done under Obama, with Obama's knowledge, too. It's also not something I can get too upset about, when the issue is border jumpers being detained, either. When they are in fact families, they made the decision to risk that when they crossed (or tried to).
Implementing policies in the name of security despite there not being a security threat (see the travel ban).
They were considered risky already, but I indeed do not get why that ban was so important, or how a blanket ban helps. Just vet people coming and going from risky nations, with more care than normal. Malicious travelers will come in from another country, or go to a nearby one, first. Meanwhile, legitimate ones are more likely not to be able to do that.
Indefinite detention with no exercise of legal rights (see Guantanamo and trumps latest zero tolerance immigration policies).
The former is which is nothing new, either, and should have been abolished ages ago. That's one thing I was really disappointed in Obama about. He so wanted to not rock the boat that he didn't follow through on that fully, and now we have a Neocon-friendly President. Yay.
We have a Congress that's abdicated its duty to put checks on the other branches of governments (have you heard a single call from Republican legislators to start investigating Pruitt).
No more than in the past. It's just that now the people not being investigated are different, so you see it differently.
A Congress that uses its power to investigate its political enemies for the expressed purpose of hurting them politically.
How many of those have their been? Political damage is always part of such investigations, but shady actions provided legit reasons, thus far, TMK.
Ignoring congressional norms to stack the courts (stealing a SC nomination from Obama).
Nothing there was stolen. That kind of partisan pandering and delaying for appointees is the norm, but the timing of the surrounding circumstances was off, for Obama to successfully get another one in, while he had Congressional support. IMO, that's just crying over not having the successful majority they wanted, and RBG not dying soon enough for them.
Rigging elections so that a minority of people elect representatives who control a majority of government.
Citation needed, if you're not talking about our Constitution, which predates the Nazis by 150 years. Every President wins because they campaigned to win the electoral college, this goes back to the beginning, and that's not rigging at all. It is a mechanism to allow a simple majority to not get all the power, and it is one of those checks that works.
Rigging elections to disenfranchise particular groups of voters because of their typical party affiliation.
Do you mean the ID stuff, or something else? There was one, or two, maybe, states that set the deadline way too short, such that only people with existing IDs and ready documentation would be on the rolls (and got sued over it, rightfully so). Most were just fine, including mine. I had to get new copies of documents for my ID, which delayed the process, and they had to look me up in their binder when I voted, because of that and the DMV having a SNAFU moment with their machines. For the states that allowed 6 months or more, they got lumped in there, but with that much time, it's laziness, and laziness is not an excuse to be called disenfranchised, IMO. I haven't heard of anything else being called that.
We have a supreme court that ignores precedent to pursue an agenda (see the federalist society and things like the Heller ruling).
Don't forget the ACA mandate ruling (taxation as compelled private commerce? WTF?). I'm with you 100% on this one.
A supreme court that has members on it that refuse to recuse themselves when previous justices would have in the past (see Clarence Thomas and his tea partier wife and the hobby lobby ruling).
The SCOTUS not having sufficient checks and balances against them was an omission that is practically impossible to fix, and has been an issue for a long time (since 1942 at a minimum, with that abhorrent interstate commerce decision). Definitely a problem, and not one going away any time soon, sadly.
The others I'm either ambivalent about, don't have a strong view on, or am not sure about the truth of info I have heard and read.
Facebook
Twitter