(untitled)

Interesting article over at the Atlantic on the potential of Trump calling a National Emergency in order to lift the rules of the Constitution and consolidate his power. Leaving political preferences (somewhat) off to the side, can we discuss strategy and tactics regarding this idea? I remember when Trump got elected and I told a friend that there was no way the Republicans could think the gravy train would last forever. I figured a false flag attack would happen and that would provide the cover needed to call an emergency and use elevated powers to ensure a permanent political environment. I expected it all the way up to the midterms, but it never happened. When Trump convened the voting council on viter fraud I thought, "Ah, they're going to invent some reason to take control of the vote infrastructure and consolidate that way. Then the group disbanded. Now, and it seems only now, is it hitting the mainstream that Trump could invoke some kind of national emergency power grab. At the same time, however, it appears the most opportune time to do it was before the midterms when he had near total control over Congress. Again, this post isn't so much about favored political positions as it is about tactics and strategy. In an American democratic society (assuming proper functioning) there's no way a one party government lasts long. The Republicans must have known that they were on borrowed time. We're seeing a bit of what I'm discussing in Wisconsin now where the Republican government is stripping powers away from the new governor before he enters office, but that is mostly reactionary and not the result of forward-thinking. I don't know... I guess it's strange, but I'm surprised it ended up this way. Anyway, here's the link for anyone interested. A bit of a long read. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

>>11359 >I don't know... I guess it's strange, but I'm surprised it ended up this way. If you assume that Trump is just an inarticulate non-politician who beat the odds by becoming president and is just trying to do what he thinks is best for America and average Americans for the 4, possibly 8 years he is in power then the reason none of your conspiracy theories panned out explains itself.

>>11359 If I honestly had to take a guess, he has to do as much as he can before the democratic house comes in. Because, as a result, they will be acting aggressively as possible. But, setting up a national emergency is unlikely, american politics has become a "by any means necessary". Democrats can't get it through their heads. But, I what I am getting at here is this, Trump would need a big enough event to call for a state of emergency. (think 9/11 or pearl harbor) as similar tactics to go after large swaths of the American population or political groups. Assuming of course that actually happens and B people actually follow it.

Republicans are more concerned with profits than control. So they'll keep things as stable as they can for as long as they can, which means more or less talking big but doing nothing. Once profits go south, expect death squads.

>>11361 Pretty much this. A happy successful natural born American, raised in American schools, constantly exposed to American news, who spent decades running profitable American businesses probably isn't scheming to destroy the existing government and become benevolent dictator for life.

>>11361 it's gonna be 8 years. have you seen the corporate bullsoykaf the DNC peddled during the midterm elections? they are completely out of touch with the working class.

>emperorpalpatine.exe just kidding, Though it would be possible to use the presidential banhammer to basically overide the constitution, the probability is low, becasue it would be a blatant overstep of power. Furthermore, the country is not unified behind him, so people could essentially justify defiance by means of posse comitatus or other government policy. (in essence, the president mobilizing armed troops for deployment across the USA would amount to an invasion- unarmed and support missions have already been declared OK, so drone overflights and logistic support are authorized) There was also a recent memo that said IIRC that anybody talking about impeachment of the president amounted to treason or political campaigning (as it would imply an effort to work against him in any FUTURE election) which makes even discussion of it a crime, but all of these things in isolation are rather significant. bear in mind that people said hitler would never use his power to completely eliminate the rest of the government and he would be out of office within 2-4 months. also bear in mind that we are living in different times. It would be extremely difficult to completely stop the flow of information without going full arab spring mode and disconnecting internet nodes, and with the community of liberals and feminists and the like eager to screech at anything as it is pro trump already, the president has decreased ability to enact any sort of large scale overrule of power without pissing off somebody I was surprised that so many states have been readily defying the federal government on a number of subjects already, so there is no unified front of citizens approving of such measures as a nationwide emergency.

>>11371 The thing that drives me up the wall is that, in the "blue wave" midterm only 35% of people voted. If the DNC continues being brain dead, and deiced not have a left wing populist (bernie, cortez) they are gonna be screwed over. They would rather have Hillary wall-street democrat over an actual policy that would help working class such as the "green new deal"

OP, you might like this Alternative Hypothesis video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIoa_cQwQpc

>>11377 the funny thing is that Bernie and Cortez are supporting policies that the right would have been pushing in their campaigns 50 years. this country's been so demolished by Reaganism we are basically full cyberpunk without the cool neon lights at this point.

>>11378 >this level alt-right fear mongering >>11379 >tfw America has been pushed so far to the right the idea of sanity that healthcare is a crazed liberal idea, even though almost every western country has one. The think that scares me is, it truly is full blown megacorps owning everything, >everything you buy is owned by 10 companies >a few ISPs control almost all internet access in USA at least we have brewing soykaf, enjoy it before that too becomes monetized

>>11372 I could be misinterpreting your post, especially towards the end, but I don't think any President needs public support to declare a national emergency. As I understand it, the POTUS has extensive powers in this area and more or less just needs a compelling excuse. According to the OP article, there are a number of scenarios where any President can invoke some form of executive privilege and lift one or more parts of the Constitution for various purposes. If that's true then any President is a potential monarch who is only held in check by personal morals. That, probably, should not be the only roadblock there is for this sort of thing.

>>11380 I have a feeling this will change. The problem with being a megacorp is that not only do megacorps make billions of dollars, they have to spend billions of dollars just to function properly. If a recession is coming as people say, this will turn into a liability very quickly. Downsizing will occur and companies may split themselves into smaller companies to deal with the new economic reality. After all, smaller companies may make less, but they need less to function as well.

>>11382 Why hasnt this happened before?

>>11383 The circumstances didn't require it. 2008-2018 was one of the longest periods of sustained economic growth in US history. Maybe not the single longest, but high in the ranks. When times are good, or seem to be good, there is money to spend. A lot of corporations spend it by acquiring and merging companies to be more productive. This period also saw the true explosive growth of Silicon Valley the companies of which grew to enormous heights. Apple had been around for a while, as had Google, but this time period was when tech and social media really took off. These companies, like Facebook and Amazon, ballooned in size as a result. When people have less money to spend, companies will have less income generated, thus will have to downsize to compensate. This will mean less services offered by a given company and thus when times improve, other companies will fill in the gaps. It's like the dinosaurs. They got really big, but when times changed the big ones fell and other animals came in to take their place.

>>11382 Downsizing doesn't mean the owner has no money. Competition on the surface is often just one group owning multiple companies to make it look like you have a choice and that they ain't running a monopoly. In the end it's still a megacorp merely split into multiple labels to exploit regulations and people better. Consolidation is a universal process.

>>11386 I think we're talking past each other a bit. I didn't post that companies would have no money, but that they would have reduced income in the event of a recession. This would be inevitable. If people have less money to spend, companies will take in less income. Publically-traded companies are leashed to their stockholders. When economics go south for a company, stockholders typically demand cost-cutting. Usually this takes place in the form of downsizing (shutting down departments, firings, selling off assets, etc.) The first things to go are usually employees. With fewer workers in a company, fewer services or products can be delivered. When times improve, this will leave gaps in the marketplace that other companies will fill in. Then, as the economy further improves, consolidation will begin again. That's all I'm saying.

>>11382 There have been several times that this hasn't happens though (08 crash) or if it did, the corp would be bought out by bigger ones, continuing the monopolization.

>>11384 it's sustained economic growth but people don't actually have much more money to spend. One reason why people are calling it a "bubble" rather than real growth.

>>11389 better chart, I realized that one only went to 2010.

>>11387 What i tried to illustrate and apparently failed is the replacement of company names doesn't signify a real shift in who owns the market. Meaning the new companies that sprout are still owned by the same megacorp. It's much easier to win as a sister corporations for a megacorp than to compete as a fresh startup. You get various benefits due to ip&tax laws, consolidated trade deals, sharing of advertisement material, Goverment Influence and whatever else i forgot.

>>11389 This is true in that growth occurred without a significant increase in wages. I think the blame for this could laid at the feet of Quantitative Easing. It was used to bring back the economy by buying back financial assets (as I understand it) but had the effect of financially empowering those who dealt with such assets while leaving behind those that did not. In other words, the government boosted the businesses which then used the funds to consolidate, build themselves, etc, while not doing a lot to trickle any profits down to the consumer level (relatively speaking). At the same time, people not connected to the system directly, such as more rural communities, began to feel left behind as more urban communities began to feel the effects of the stimulus. What makes our current environment a bubble is that the Federal Reserve has been keeping interest rates low for a while, which makes it easy to borrow. A lot of debt has been building up and the bill will be due at some point. In addition, the tax stimulus has caused companies to get used to the idea of "easy" money. They're not preparing for the comedown after a spending high. That's when the bubble will burst and businesses will start laying people off to save themselves.

>>11391 But if SmallCorp was a subsidiary or offspring/sibling company to MegaCorp, wouldn't that still count as a form of collusion or, in some cases, monopoly? For example, Google may have a separation from Alphabet for tax and certain legal purposes, but if the DOJ wanted to hammer Alphabet through Google for some reason, they would only need to show that Google was basically a sub-company of Alphabet.

>>11390 >>11389 >multinational and tech companies have expanded their markets in last 20 years >this grows the GDP of USA in particular because that nation had a head start in globalism Why do people think that GDP == median household income or that it should represent some kind of income "inequality" more like "inequity" lol

>>11394 >inequity >inequality replace them, sozz

>>11393 I'm not a law expert so details are over my head but from i've read the general solution is simply lobby money in the right places (they were reporting about proudly some years ago) and prepping up another company you don't own as the official competition to claim you are in fierce competition. They can buy significant stock in the very same company which gives somewhat control but they keep below 50% so they don't own it on the record. Secondary you have of course internationally different regulations. Google/facebook/microsoft got all fined in the EU for being a monopoly and practicing anticompetitive behaviour while getting away in other places. In some instances they made concessions but in others they just paid the fine cause the benefits were larger.

>>11377 >They would rather have Hillary wall-street democrat over an actual policy that would help working class such as the "green new deal" The political left is not about helping poor people, it's about dragging successful people down into the mud.