History tells us what will happen next with Brexit and Trump
medium.com
medium.com
The problem is that the elites always tend to go too far. Eventually the downtrodden will use whatever weapon they have at their disposal to punish the counterparty; even if it comes with a great cost to themselves. What's their alternative? Rolling over again and watching elites benefit? That's is never going to improve your situation. If we don't want Trump then we can't ignore his voters just because they don't share our values and beliefs. There is no free lunch here. If we ignore these people then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The compromise may not be the ideal outcome, but this is a prisoners dilemma scenario and the pursuit of the ideal scenario usually leads to the worst scenario for all parties.
In what world does this author live?
The delusion of this author is high.
People like this author does not understand the checks and balance built into our government to prevent such a situation from happening.
The many arms forces that check each other: The federal government's arm forces (the military), the states' arm forces (National Guards), the cities' arm forces (cops), the people's arm forces (well regulated militia like the the Minute Men), and the armed people themselves.
All these different arms forces will never join together under a tyranny President. They are a check a tyrant President, and they are a check on each other.
Not only that, the majority of the military will never go against the American citizens and the Constitution, no matter what a tyrant President says. In fact, the military will instead arrest the tyrant President, and put him to trail with Congress to impeach him.
Peoples like this author are delusional.
The Supreme Court has 9 seats, one is currently vacant and the majority leadership in the Senate has indicated that they intend to keep it that way until, at least, the next President is in office.
The remaining 8 Justices were appointed by:
Ronald Reagan (1), George H. W. Bush (1), Bill Clinton (2), George W. Bush (2), and Barack Obama (2).
Assuming Trump is able to fill the vacant seat, any of his actions that were challenged could be upheld by an outright majority of the Court without any Justice appointed by a Democrat (much less any specifically appointed by Barack Obama) siding with it.
Even without Trump appointing a justice, his challenged policies could survive Supreme Court review without any Democrat-appointed Justices siding with them, so long as they were upheld by the Circuit Court through which they passed on the way to the Supreme Court, since a 4-4 Supreme Court split leaves the lower court decision as the end of the issue.
(Some of the rest of your objections might have some merit, but this one has none.)
And that's assuming that the Circuit Court will somehow support Trump's tyranny. Which is never gonna happen (even Republicans judges don't like Trump).
So again, the author is delusional.
I thought this was a great line. I wish people could bring this into general thinking and journalism. Showing some understanding, and then likely empathy, to other views is likely one of the best things we can introduce to being a more peaceful and generally better world.
If we wanted to stop the current trend, we would have had to do so several decades ago.