Except that according to your lot, there are NO actions legally available to us, because Trump cannot be stopped from doing anything he wants, by anyone, by any means. What good is protesting and communicating if you’ve already decided it won’t make any difference?
Either he dies or becomes incapacitated, he is impeached, or the military removes him from office.
No one here has said that.
You’re still clinging to your beloved strawman.
So he CAN’T do whatever he wants, and people CAN stop him?
If you agree with me, then why are you arguing with me?
This is how reputations self-destruct on forums like this one.
Way too much of his shit is sticking to the wall, so when you proudly point at little bits of shit and call it a success, you just can’t be taken seriously.
You still haven’t explained how you’re actively fighting the Supreme Court.
Except you are the one who is being played here. You are doing nothing but understating and providing cover for Trump’s actions, helping him achieve his goals.
Court orders mean nothing when he continues to ignore them, and does what he wants regardless. It doesn’t matter how many judges rule against him if he doesn’t adhere to those decisions. It is all performative feel-good bullshit meant to placate us, just like you continue to do on this board.
Read the OP. This was never an argument that Trump wouldn’t be able to get away with a whole lot, or even everything. Just that the blanket assertion as a statement of fact without any possibility of nuance applied to every thread about the future Trump administration left no room for actual interesting discussion.
Why wouldn’t he be?
Except that this “strawman” is precisely what this thread is about. When this thread was made there were certain dopers who were responding to every thread about the future of the Trump administration including discussions about how far he would go, what road blocks might be put in front of him, and how he would get around them with the blanket claim that he was unstoppable end of story no possibility of nuance, resistance or further discussion.
That was a boring argument. If it had allowed for the possibility that financial markets would have caused Trump to change his mind regarding tariffs for example, it wouldn’t have been boring.
Just add that to your little list of “Things I just can’t change the subject to as a diversion.”
I’m providing cover for Trump by saying that he’s not invincible and we can stop him if we fight?
And in order to oppose him, I need to acknowledge that fighting him is an exercise in futility and will accomplish nothing?
And yet he HAS adhered to court decisions. DOZENS of them. You are downplaying important victories and belitting the people actually sticking their necks out to defend our democracy. Even the Garcia ruling you’re having conniptions about is still one he’s technically in adherence with, because there’s no specific action they’ve ordered the admin to take that hasn’t been taken, and that’s why the lower court is still litigating the matter. You’re telling them to not even bother.
I think I’ll add it to the big list of “Questions Czarcasm is too much of a feeble chickenshit to answer”, actually.
It’s not a strawman. Here is an example of a discussion where a poster was trying to insist that Trump can literally just ignore the law. He’s unstoppable.
Obviously this is fantasy and the poster was called out in that thread but that’s just one example of this sort of thing coming up. A strawman implies that nobody has ever advanced that argument, but that’s false.
Hence the scare quotes. It certainly wasn’t a strawman when I wrote the OP.
Sorry I wasn’t clear; I was backing up what you were saying, and the purpose of this thread. I was agreeing with you and showing examples.
And I should also mention, that while the poster claiming that Trump could just do whatever and nobody can stop him was called out, there was also support for the argument as well.
Except he is ignoring the law right now as we speak. It isn’t a matter of “if” anymore, it is a matter of how much and how often will he ignore the law. The law means nothing if all three branches of the government are stacked in his favor and he can do what he wants without any consequences, which is what is happening.
So … projection coupled with the power of an epic Strawman Argument, then.
Got it. Thanks.
“Trump will do whatever he wants and no one can stop him”. True, or false?
If he’s not ignoring the law “always” and “as much as he wants”, then the law is still a factor in what he can or can’t do. Which contradicts the assertion that this thread was intended to push back against.
Any POTUS can ignore the law, and they all have done so to some degree, because that is the nature of the balance of powers and the way the government was meant to function. The executive branch is tasked with enforcing the law, and gets a lot of leeway in how it does so. The other branches are tasked with reeling it back in (especially the judicial branch).
The only question is whether it can do it with impunity, and without consequence. The answer is a resounding “no”. Trump proves this nearly every day it seems like, as it seems like you can’t turn around without seeing a judge block one order or another. This whole system is what is ignored by people who insist that the law never applies to Trump, with fatal pessimism.
That IS the straw man argument of which you pathologically cannot let go, yes.
Recognizing it is half the battle. Good luck with the other half.