You may have heard of Aaron Swartz, "Lock Her Up", Barrett Brown, and https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/doj-seeking-info-on-6000-peopl..., Mumia Abu-Jamal, etc., but presumably you have forgotten. The situation in the US is not as bad as in Turkey, but it is bad and getting worse.
The current president of the US has called for his political opponent to be jailed. Not readily finding actual instances of actually jailing political opponents in the US, but I'm not trying that hard either.
I didn't claim it was. But the comment I replied to unequivocally suggests this happens at a rate of Zero in the US, which is not accurate. Yet most folks are happy to act like it is accurate while my very mild and data backed comment gets push back of various sorts.
Yes, people have been arrested, who happen to be journalists. But no one in the US has been arrested for being a journalist or reporting things that are uncomfortable for leaders. You are making a false equivalency.
Ferguson protests were dangerous and riotous at times. Sure, some people were arrested that shouldn't have been, but they were released. This isn't even comparable to the kinds of journalist arrests and murders we are talking about.
You're really stretching things to force a weak comparison.
Journalists entrenched in violent protests will inevitably get arrested, that's not a break down of rule of law, nor of democracy; are they getting imprisoned for being journalists who are critical of the president? Not AFAICT. In Turkey journalists are imprisoned for not supporting Erdogan.
Has Trump called for his opponents to be imprisoned for not supporting him? Or, did he claim they had committed crimes for which objectively they should be punished? Erdogan has his political opponents actually imprisoned; and 10s of thousands of their supporters.
Trump is a whacked out crazy misogynist, displays the worst traits of capitalist greed, and of self-obsession, he's a power hungry ignoramus. But Erdogan is an evil genocidal fascist.
I'm not stretching anything, nor am I forcing any kind of comparison whatsoever. I'm merely posting readily available data that the comment I replied to dismissed as not existing at all. It had zero qualifiers and made a sweeping statement that is readily falsiable.
The US is going downhill quickly, and I wouldn't advise anyone to move there.
However it's still a long way away from countries like Turkey or Uzbekistan or Russia.
Compare the US to Brazil or South Africa sure, point out how it's no longer in the same bracket as Canada or Denmark or NZ, but comparing to Turkey or Thailand does a disservice.
It's really not far from Turkey. I agree it's not "as bad", but the US isn't done rotting. Populism, attacking and discrediting the press, running state media (FOX), control over all branches of government, a blind, rabid and xenophobic fanbase...
Like, yeah, Turkey is worse. I think. I'm not even sure, given that Turkey has less power. So no, it's not at that level. Yet.
What's important though is to compare the whole system and not just individuals. The US has very robust democratic institutions, checks and balances and rule of law.
Trump's inclination to reduce everything to ass kissing ("has said nice things about me") and personal vendettas would be an absolute disaster in many countries. But the US is healthy enough to survive him - I think.
> The US has very robust democratic institutions, checks and balances and rule of law.
Does it. A first-past-the-post system which reduces everything to two parties. Low voter turnouts. High gerrymandering. Terrible voter accessibility laws. Three branches of government end-to-end owned by only one party. And a ton of money in politics thanks to Citizens United.
I'm sorry, but "robust democratic institutions" and "checks and balances" at this point are things americans tell themselves to sleep better at night. If you step back, you start seeing just how far gone the country is.
In terms of keeping one person in check, even if that person is the president, the US constitution does a great job. And this is very much borne out by what has happened since Trump was elected (by a minority of voters).
The constitution is a document, not a branch of the government. Who amends the constitution? Who enforces the constitution? The answer to both of those is: Branches of government controlled by the same single party as the one in power right now.
These are very baffling claims that lack any relation to reality. The US constitution defines the branches of government according to the principles of seperation of powers.
The constitution also defines the process of changing the constitution itself (article V), and it does not include a way for Mr Trump or his party to do that as they do not have the required two thirds majority in both houses or in state legislatures.
Importantly, there isn't even a way for him to whip up emotions in a referendum in order to change the constitution.
The judiciary is not controlled by any party at all. Supreme court judges are appointed for life to prevent arbitrary interventions by other branches of government.
And in practical terms, did you really get the impression that Trump has unwavering support even just among the legislators of his own party? Did you get the impression that the FBI acts on Trump's say so? How about the courts?
No, what I'm seeing is a wannabe autocrat who is kept in check by an extremely robust set of institutions, constitutional arrangements and by a lot of principled individuals inside those institutions.
I don't see Xi, Erdogan or Putin getting investigated by their own police or courts, having to fear impeachment or face the sort of (well deserved) journalistic onslaught that Trump has had to face.
This reply goes back to the general sentiment I have a problem with: That things have to be as bad as in Russia, China or Turkey for people to take action.
You realize that if they get this bad, it's too late to take action, right?
Here's the same logic, applied to a different field: "Oh, yes, you keep talking about climate change but I only see mild temperature increases and I'm not even sure they're man-made. I don't see the sea level rise and catastrophic outcomes you're talking about. If we start seeing those, we'll take action."
I don't find Trump harmless. I'm just saying that the constitution and the institutions matter a great deal when it comes to limiting the damage a single powerful individual can do.
That's exactly why so many autocrats and parties with an authoritarian bent try to change the constitutions of their countries in order to give themselves greater powers.
Trump hasn't done that because he can't. And I think this deserves far more attention than it is getting. It is something other countries can learn from.
Just a couple of examples of what white house press feels like under the Trump era. Talk to me more about "his predecessor".
Edit: Today's bonus article on freedom of speech, press, and assembly: https://outline.com/3TKY5M - CNN - DOJ demands Facebook information from 'anti-administration activists'.
There's like one of these every day at least. So, you know, I don't believe you.
For what it's worth, I think that is one of the very, very, very few good things that will come out of that presidency. We'll see what future presidents make of it, but I have hope that in the long run it leads to increased transparency.
Of course, other checks are being removed left and right, so I don't think it evens out in the case of the Trump admin.
I don’t think this kind of “transparency” is a good thing for any president. It is far better for the head of government to make considered, careful, well-timed statements with the benefit of staff research. You know, like normal governments have always worked...
Please don't do that. If you have a point to make or something to add, please do so. Having actually read the wikipedia page you linked to I'm still not entirely sure exactly which point you're trying to make.
