So what form does the resistance take?

dann said:
Sometimes soldiers do more than that. Does anybody else remember this?
Assassination of Anwar Sadat (Wikipedia)
Click to expand...
Sadat’s assassination is not the best analogy, because although the soldiers rid Egypt of a dictator, they also did it to establish a religious state. This did not happen, but they did get a new dictatorship.
dann said:
ETA: Somebody should tell Trump the story about Sadat. It might make him wet his pants (again?) instead of enjoying his birthday parade.
Click to expand...
That is very right. Trump should know that about of the soldiers did not vote for him, and a lot will positively hate him because of the toxic policies that he has created.

But then, Trump probably believes many of his own lies, and really thinks that he is extremely popular with 100% of the soldiers.
 
All analogies only work to some extent. There are always details that distinguish them from what they are analogous to. Otherwise, they wouldn't be analogies.
I don't think Trump believes most of his own lies. He knows who came up with them. If he had actually believed that all Greenlanders love him, he wouldn't have had Vance shift his visit from Nuuk to the Pituffik Space Base. In fact, he would have gone to Nuuk himself, expecting to bathe in the adulation of the Inuits waiting impatiently for him to turn them red, white and blue.
 
arthwollipot said:
It is the sworn duty of every soldier to disobey an illegal order.
Click to expand...
And yet, all soldiers are well aware that disobeying any order is the easiest way to make life difficult for themselves. It's drilled into them.
It is not as if the U.S. Army Basic Combat Training is a 10-week program designed to turn civilians into well-trained anti-authoritarian whistleblowers.
In fact, Google's AI doesn't mention it at all.
 
PS.
steenkh said:
Sadat’s assassination is not the best analogy, because although the soldiers rid Egypt of a dictator, they also did it to establish a religious state. This did not happen, but they did get a new dictatorship.
That is very right. Trump should know that about of the soldiers did not vote for him, and a lot will positively hate him because of the toxic policies that he has created.
But then, Trump probably believes many of his own lies, and really thinks that he is extremely popular with 100% of the soldiers.
Click to expand...
You left out this part of my post, which refers to a another interesting parallel:
dann said:
When Sadat came into power, he did a lot of stuff that resembled what Trump is attempting to do to 'make Egypt great again'.
Corrective revolution (Egypt) (Wikipedia)
Click to expand...
A shorter version:
On 15 May 1971, Sadat announced his Corrective Revolution, purging the government, political and security establishments of the most ardent Nasserists. (Wiki)
Click to expand...
Trump and RFK Jr.'s corrective revolution is still ongoing, and they are still purging.

In the case of Sadat, there is this twist to the story:
Sadat encouraged the emergence of an Islamist movement, which had been suppressed by Nasser. Believing Islamists to be socially conservative he gave them "considerable cultural and ideological autonomy" in exchange for political support.
Click to expand...
I.e. he empowered the people who went on to assassinate him.
Remember that the guy who got close to shooting Trump was a member of the Republican Party. Possibly disgruntled, but I think that his motive remains unknown. There are more actually disgruntled Republicans now than in the summer of '24, and Republicans tend to own more guns.
 
The Don said:
SCOTUS has ruled that anything President Trump does while presidenting is legal so any order, direct or indirect, is a legal order
Click to expand...
That is 100% false. SCOTUS ruled that most of his actions fall under the category of Official Acts, and he cannot be held criminally liable for Official Acts.

That doesn't mean that he can order the FBI to assassinate me cuz I like chocolate.
 
Hercules56 said:
That is 100% false. SCOTUS ruled that most of his actions fall under the category of Official Acts, and he cannot be held criminally liable for Official Acts.

That doesn't mean that he can order the FBI to assassinate me cuz I like chocolate.
Click to expand...
So you hope. The definition of official acts is not, I think, well established. It might differ, for example, if he decides for some official reason (which need not, it seems, be true or reasonable) that chocolate, its cultivation, importation and consumption, threatens the pure blood of proper white Americans; it might turn out to be legal to arrest all chocolate eaters, and qualified immunity might protect the occasionally overzealous shooting by an FBI agent who swears he thought he saw a Mars bar bulge in your back pocket as you fled...

IN any case, your rather absurd example does not cover the legality of orders to the military, of whom Trump is, regrettably, commander in chief, meaning that commands uttered in that capacity might well be judged official no matter how odious they are. The obligation, both moral and legal, to disobey such orders might well be confirmed, but unfortunately more likely posthumously.

If you live long enough, we can hope your viewpoint will be vindicated by history, but in the meantime, we'd better tighten our safety belts, cuz it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
 
The Don said:
SCOTUS has ruled that anything President Trump does while presidenting is legal so any order, direct or indirect, is a legal order
Click to expand...
No, SCOTUS has ruled that President Trump cannot be prosecuted for anything he does while presidenting, regardless of whether what he does (as an official action of the presidency) is legal.

Another way to put it: SCOTUS has ruled that US presidents have a legal right to commit official actions that break the law.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
No, SCOTUS has ruled that President Trump cannot be prosecuted for anything he does while presidenting, regardless of whether what he does (as an official action of the presidency) is legal.

Another way to put it: SCOTUS has ruled that US presidents have a legal right to commit official actions that break the law.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

He can still be held liable in civil court AND be impeached.

Can he be then criminally prosecuted for official acts that he was impeached for? I believe yes.
 
Hercules56 said:
Wrong.

He can still be held liable in civil court AND be impeached.

Can he be then criminally prosecuted for official acts that he was impeached for? I believe yes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I forgot to mention an important caveat. The Supreme Court's decision may indeed allow prosecution of a US president who has been impeached and has also been convicted following that impeachment. It is unclear to me whether the SCOTUS decision would allow any actual investigation of the illegal official acts for which the US president was both impeached and convicted.

As a non-lawyer, I tend to think of prosecution as something to do with criminal acts. But you are right, civil prosecution is an actual thing, and Donald Trump has often been prosecuted for the illegality of his civil acts. In particular, Swalwell v. Trump is a civil prosecution that was filed in the DC District Court. Trump filed to dismiss on grounds of absolute presidential immunity, but the court has already rejected that claim.
 
Arthwollipot's link appears to be broken. Could someone say what it was about?

e.t.a. if you copy the URL that still appears in Arth's post, it will take you to the original video, which is of a US soldier explaining why what Trump is doing is a bunch of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Gutsy, considering she's just the sort of person Fearless Leader and his minions want out of the army already. But maybe she's already on the hit list and figures to say her piece first. In any case, worth the link.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
They were Just Following Orders, right?
Click to expand...
They'd also been told that the people they were using "enhanced interrogation techniques" on were terrorists who presented an immediate threat to American safety and the information they had threatened thousands upon thousands of American lives.

Under those circumstances, perhaps they could be convinced to follow orders
 
I was wondering what Danish anti-Trumpers would do with the slogan No Kings, but they have come up with a solution that won't offend King Frederik or Danish royalists: No Tyrants Protest in Copenhagen (Democrats Abroad)

NO TYRANTS: Copenhagen, Denmark​

Time: Saturday, June 14
1:45 – 3:30pm EDT

Location: Kongens Nytorv (in the square across from Magasin)
23 Kongens Nytorv
13:45-15:30 CEST, local time in Copenhagen!

Join us on Saturday, June 14th, 2025 for a No Tyrants - Stand Up for American Democracy march in Copenhagen from Kongens Nytorv to the U.S. Embassy.
Click to expand...

It was probably a good idea to change the slogan since the march will pass the Amalienborg Castle on the way from Kongens Nytorv to the U.S. embassy.

ETA:
I can see that the Brits and the Canadians also go with No Tyrants, unlike the Germans, the French, the Swiss and the Italians.
Some European cities, e.g. Vienna, Austria, combine pride parades with anti-Trump protests:
Vienna Pride Parade: No Kings, Only Queens! Pride is Power!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom