Not real journalism! This shouldn't be on the front page-- it's full of unsubstantiated accusations and questionable interpretations of fact. The Trump administration's actions over the past few days are horrifying enough-- editorial catastrophization serves no purpose here.
It doesn't claim to be "journalism." This was published on Medium, which is pretty clearly for essays and opinions. I'll grant you that some of the speculation is pretty far out there (like the Rosneft sale being tied to Trump). But the author is trying to put together a cohesive theory that might explain the chaotic moves being taken by the new US executive branch. If you want to disagree with the theory, point out where it's faulty. But claiming it's "not real journalism" is a non sequitur -- it was never intended to be a reporting of the facts.
I read the article and don't know enough facts to know how accurate and truthful it might be. However, what if you saw a Hitler-like person taking power? Surely it would be much harder today given the level of communication we have today?
The formula is pretty simple. "All good patriots are with me. Show yourself to be a good patriot by reporting enemy talk. When I'm in power, I will punish my enemies."
Twitter might be the up-to-date equivalent. Trump uses it better (more effectively for his purposes) than any other politician. In particular, his opponents don't respond in tweets, and so they are stuck with the speed of the regular news cycle - hours, not minutes. So Trump is always ahead of them.
Every time prior to this it was hyperbole, which is why crying wolf is a bad thing.
While some of this article is a bit hyperbolic, the general idea here seems very plausible: that the Trump administration is "stress testing" the Federal government (and the public as well) to identify its fault lines and which sections of it would remain loyal in the event of extreme executive actions. That's alarming all by itself, but it's particularly so given the other ideological leanings and associations of Trump and his inner circle.
So is complaining about it in a context where that claim is not being made. As your comment is top-level, I understand it to be addressed to the submitted article. There's no claim like that in the text of the post, nor is it filled with hyperbolic claims. It's pretty calm and lays out its argument pretty rationally.
If you bring this up metaphorically, it's not adding the the discussion, as this really requires more nuanced debate rather than general remarks.
The idea that a democratically elected government is testing the waters and attempting to stage a coup d'état is a pretty obvious allusion to Hitler's rise to power. It's pretty plain to see, especially given a few of the links in the article, including another of the author's own...
Interesting interpretation, and one that I think you should have included rather than the comment you did. One of the complaints all around right now is that people aren't speaking clearly with one another. Yet, you've really done it again, by alluding to "a few of the links in the article, including another of the author's own..." when to be clear you could have quoted and linked to the source. I know that I personally would have benefitted from the contribution. We should be helping each other understand.
If your intent isn't to discuss these issues substantially, please don't add to the noise with allusions and implications. There's enough stuff to wade through as it is.
An article nitpicking about a failure to specifically include the word Jew when talking about the Holocaust, even though it was an event that everyone knows targeted the Jews. Included is a quote by Tim Kaine trying to equate it with Holocaust denial. Especially interesting given Bibi Netanyahu seems to be a Trump fan.
And here's a quote from the author, contained in this article: "I’m reading this as “1933 playbook continues on schedule"
Edit - should also add, my original comment was intentionally flippant given the submission isn't real journalism (it's not, it's a blog), and the topic has been beaten like a dead horse.
To point out the "failure to specifically include the word Jew when talking about the Holocaust" is not "nitpicking".
Especially when it is followed almost immediately by a series of Trump tweets justifying his immigration order with "large numbers" of Christians executed in the Middle East. (Which, while factually correct, depending on what you think constitutes a large number, is a bizarre misrepresentation of who are -- by far -- the majority of the victims of Islamist terror, namely: Muslims)
US executive power is vested in a single individual to begin with.
The issue is whether they are following the law or not.
(Advice and consent of the Senate for cabinet positions isn't meaningless, but they instruct the executive by statute not by directives given to cabinet members)
The Executive has already made the DHS disobey a court order. If that's not a Constitutional Crisis I don't know what it.
This is literally a textbook example of how autocrats take over. It has happened before and all the rules for that game are being played out right now.
It's interesting to note that Trump has placed a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office, as there are many parallels between Trump's rise to power and Jackson's.
> In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" This derives from Jackson's comments on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate".
A President wielding Presidential authority is not a coup, it's acting within the authority given to the office via the Constitution and Congress. If you believe the President has too much power then I would urge you to be doing all you can to limit the power of the office, not just change who is in it.
I don't mind sharing that I voted for Trump. I'm not a cheerleader for him, though, my reasons for doing so are limited in scope and he has yet to act to support my interests. That said, all signs seem to indicate that he will do so.
The absolute best thing that could come from a Trump presidency is if Congress and the courts were able to significantly restrain the authority of the Executive Branch in general and the President in particular. It has grown far beyond its Constitutional bounds.
So, uh, what if he is acting outside the scope of the powers given to him by the Constitution and Congress and the courts and Congress don't do enough to stop him?
There are a lot of "if"s in this discussion. Trump has only thus far fulfilled some of his campaign promises. We're discussing potential outcomes if he were to exceed his authority and refuse to yield to the rule of law. I don't believe that will happen.
Two other HN threads with a combined 128 net upvotes were declaried "dupes" and "merged" into this thread. This thread, having right now 8 net upvotes.
I agree that the OP post would seem like a conspiracy theory, except that he supports it all with cited reporting.
And his point is valid: If and as this does indeed appear to be a coup d'etat, it makes sense to sow deliberate confusion and misdirection (the recent executive orders and rapid retrenchments) while racing to outpace the possible organization and execution of an effective opposition.
What the author describes, is aligning with other reporting I'm encountering, although that reporting is not presenting this over-arching perspective on it.
It appears Trump is moving to make himself into the U.S.'s Putin.
TFA's cites do not reinforce the primary assertion, that this was a trial balloon for a coup.
I honestly see this as a case of a populist President using the levers of power to their full extent, when Presidents have traditionally done so very slowly and carefully.
Not 100% sure of this, but I suspect they don't take orders from the judiciary, rather their superiors, which are part of the executive branch. So it's possible that their superiors haven't changed the orders or are doubling-down.
Now, that is _illegal_ of course, and morally reprehensible, but they could still be construed to be "following orders".
Let me scare you a bit further, then - it is entirely within Trump's power to order Executive Branch employees to enforce whatever orders he enacts, then preemptively pardon them from any potentially criminal acts that arise from doing so.
I don't think this is correct - the pardon authority only applies to acts that have already been committed, as far as I can tell. He could maybe keep pardoning everyone every day for crimes they committed on the previous day. Would make an interesting paragraph in a dystopian novel.
Article 2, Section 2: [...] "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
It looks to me like he has the ability. As you said, even if he doesn't, he can still make it happen as long as he's in office.
Are you aware of the fact that those who carried out the most unspeakable crimes against humanity -- including those that Godwin's law forbids me to mention here -- could still be construed to have been "following orders", and that in fact, this was often the central argument in their defense?
Please reread my comment and the one it's replying to.
I'm not justifying their actions. I did call it illegal and morally reprehensible.
I'm saying that after the dust settles they will probably excuse their actions with 'following orders', exactly like the folks at Nuremberg did as the GP mentions. I do not think this is a reason to condone their actions, much like we do not condone the actions of the folks at the Nuremberg Trials. This is just a prediction of how this will be portrayed when the dust settles (and we should probably be wary of this and resist it being painted over with 'following orders')
Deliberate action contrary to valid and binding law by the executive is, itself, a coup (specifically, an instance of the form known as a self-coup or autocoup); so it's not a trial balloon.
OTOH, while actions which arguably (or even fairly clearly) cross that line have occurred in many recent US presidencies, the author here is right to raise the issue that the acts the article highlights suggest that the present violations are likely to be the leading edge of a self-coup of unprecedented magnitude in the US.
This reads like a conspiracy theory I'd find on Info Wars. I really dislike the term trump derangement syndrome, but every day its becoming a better descriptor.
We need to be better than this.
Trump's very election is a coup against the establishment, and so was Bernie Sanders impressive campaign in the primary. Trump's win, and Bernie's Rise make it clear, that Americans are done with business as usual politics.
We all need to be dealing with this new reality instead of running to conspiracy theories.
I agree, the whole process and reversal of the order for green card holders reads a lot more like the result of a disorganized administration that is rushing in, with a very small team acting like a bunch of teenagers who just got a hold of the ferrari's keys.
It most likely will get a lot worse, so conspiracy theories run the risk of crying wolf too often for nothing when the real danger is barreling down the road.
These are false equivalences. Alex Jones at InfoWars believes that Clinton and Obama are literally agents of satan, of literal supernatural evil. He's so over-the-top that his videos have become meme fodder. Obama joked about them on the stump (Jones claims that Obama left an odor of sulfur because of his demonic affiliations), and everyone in the audience knew what he meant.
Meanwhile, we're just a few days into this administration and it has already enacted a Muslim ban (complete with an escape hatch for Christians from Muslim countries) that operates in open defiance of federal courts --- Trump has precipitated a Constitutional crisis in how the US Marshal Service, which serves the courts but formally reports to the Executive Branch, will carry out its orders.
A convenient way to dismiss an argument is to attempt to tie it clownish morons like Alex Jones. But to accomplish that, you'll have to support your argument with evidence. What supernatural powers does this post suggest compel Trump to violate the federal courts?
Its absolutely not a false equivalence.
Infowars publishes tons of fear mongering articles with various shades of legitimacy, just like this article. EDIT: It's how they got so influential, they mix a lot of half truths and speculation into their articles.
A muslim ban that doesn't ban saudi arabia, india,pakistan indonesia,and somalia doesn't seem much of a muslim ban.
I'm going to quote elon musk here "Reading the source material is better than reading other people's opinions about the source material" on the muslim ban.
Its pretty clear the media is acting as an opposition party to Trump rather then objective researchers.
I highly suggest you read the actual executive orders, before you start fear mongering, because that doesn't actually help anybody.
Source material is important. It's also important to look at what people have said around the creation of that source material. Giuliani, in an interview on Fox News, yesterday:
"I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.
"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"
I find it very difficult to dismiss out of hand that it isn't intended as a Muslim ban in spirit when Giuliani explicitly says that this exactly what he was asked to do.
The submitted post also includes two articles which include a lot of additional source material.
"""
"The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."
Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."
"""
A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me.
As for the conspiracy theory medium article, its easy to do in a world of big data. It's called cherry picking, and its exactly what Info Wars does to create their fear mongering articles. Vague speculation and half truths on the main premises of the paper, and then even the conclusions.
Here's an example from the medium article:
"The aims of crushing various groups — Muslims, Latinos, the black and trans communities, academics, the press — are very much primary aims of the regime"
This is clear hysteria.
Here's what Trump actually said on black communities while campaigning, "We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever."
And so far President Trump as been doing pretty closely what he said.
I don't understand your argument. He is right there on video, from just a couple days ago, saying that he and his team were tasked with designing a Muslim ban. I'm sorry, I believe my lying eyes.
A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me.
I agree. Will you admit that sometimes people figure out ways to accomplish their goals under the cover of something else? That they know something won't be politically or legally feasible to do head on, but that they can accomplish another way if they don't express their actual intent explicitly? I think it's hard not to argue this happens. This type of accusation is thrown around all of the time from all sides.
In this particular instance, we've got explicit evidence of exactly that from one of the people who was involved in doing it. It's really hard to ignore this, or even deny the possibility without being disingenuous.
And this is ignoring the submitted article all-together.
No I don't.
I think the executive limits worked pretty well here.
President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it.
So they tried to take Obama what did in 2011, a few steps further and are rightfully taking flak for it, just like I think Obama should have gotten in 2011.
Again though a muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical.
Edit: Is there subtext I'm missing. Are you implying this is a slippery slope to a full muslim ban ?
I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it.
(Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him?)
Great. So we're supposed to be happy with a President who stretches the law as far as he can to do what he wants. This smacks of the "well, it was legal, so what's the problem?" argument we hear all too often. Just because you can figure out a way to do something legally doesn't mean it's the right or moral thing to do.
Response to the edit: Yes, I think there's something you're missing, and it's not subtext at all. Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals.
Trump is very good at not clearly expressing what he means. I'm not satisfied yet whether this is intended or not. If the latter, it's sowing a lot of needless confusion domestically and abroad. If on purpose, it makes it very difficult to trust him and know what his intent is, domestically and abroad.
Evidence on HN: Trump supporters are divided as to whether this is a Muslim ban or not. You'll find comments expressing either opinion.
There was double quotes in your article about Giuliani talking about the "muslim ban", so yes I don't know what that may mean or may not mean and I didn't feel like speculating.
Also I said I don't think it was the right thing to do.
But again I have to say a muslim ban that isn't based on religion really doesn't make sense.
As for region based bans, those are not really new they've been done since Jimmy Carter.
I think the double quotes you're referring to are a quote for Giuliani quoting what Trump said to him. Compare with the "Put a commission together" quote-in-quote in the next line.
> Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him?
I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning. In same way that the media uses "Muslim ban" to refer to a moratorium on entry to citizens of certain majority-Muslim countries, given his sloppy approach to accurate speech, I can see that Trump might use these words in a way that isn't as sinister as some would take it.
Rather than speculating on his internal state of mind, I think the better debate is whether his actions are acceptable. That is, if we accept him at his word as to his intent, is it acceptable for the President to summarily close the American border to adherents of a certain religion if he believes that some small percentage of those who would come in intend to do us harm? I think there is sufficient disagreement about even this question that we don't need to consider dogwhistles.
Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals.
I haven't seen yet reason to believe that a full ban on Muslims is part of Trump's goal. Some of his supporters (possibly even some of this advisors) want to keep Muslims out of the US as a goal in itself, but I think Trump's actions so far are consistent with his stated intention to keep out those who wish to do intentional harm to the US. The question is how much damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal. If he thought there was a reliable way to distinguish between "good Allah-fearing Muslims" and "fundamentalist Islamic terrorists", I think he'd pursue it:
"The job of the president is to keep America safe. And that will always be my highest priority. We will do everything in our power to keep this scourge of terrorism out of our country. We're going to keep it out of our country. Just so you understand, people are pouring in from regions of the Middle East. We have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they are thinking, and we're going stop that dead, cold, flat."
> I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning.
This is not a very convincing line of argument. The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers. You can just watch the interview and find out that the quote is accurate and that Giuliani meant what he said, including "Muslim ban". There's quite some danger of hearing people say things that they mean to say, and just assuming that they couldn't possibly have said them because they sound odd to you. After all, what evidence would you find persuasive?
The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers.
I haven't watched the interview. What you say would imply that I'm wrong to think that it might be due to the reporter. Despite my clumsy phrasing, though, I was mostly thinking that Giuliani might have failed to mention Trump's implied "until we figure out a way that we can identify who's dangerous and who's not". For me, that clause makes a difference. Does it matter for you?
After all, what evidence would you find persuasive?
I'm not sure. Short of Trump explicitly saying "I don't think we should allow Muslims to live here", I'm not sure what single thing would convince me. A pile of lower quality evidence eventually would, but I don't think we are there yet. I tend to agree with what Scott Alexander writes here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo.... I don't think Trump is a subtle guy, and if he truly was personally prejudiced against Muslims (as opposed to concerned about terrorism) he would just say so explicitly.
Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning
It's from a televised interview. You're free to watch it yourself. There's no need to speculate on anyone's internal state of mind.
As for the possibility that Giuliani misspoke, everyone is aware that Muslim immigration is a highly contentious issue. This requires careful, considered speech. It was either intentional (and purposefully misleading if disingenuous) or sloppy. During the interview, the interviewer even prefaced the question asking if it was about religion, giving Giuliani an opportunity to state upfront that it wasn't about religion. The first thing he said was the quote above, that he was asked to implement a Muslim ban.
Looking back, the Trump campaign was all over the map with respect to the Muslim ban, which started out as
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion. He's also been known to flat-out lie without feeling a need to correct himself later. He's also been shown to be very good at saying what he thinks his supporters want to hear more brazenly than few other politicians I can remember.
At this point, I no longer think it's wise to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that we should also watch very closely the actual actions being taken.
Here are some past actions that I keep in mind when judging whether to give him the benefit of the doubt in doing the right and ethical thing:
- Trump University and its affiliated lawsuits
- Refusing to release his tax returns, a practice in transparency followed by presidential candidates for years
- Promising to "Drain the Swamp", yet his cabinet and other staff include a number of insiders, both government and corporate
- Refusing to adequately and cleanly distance himself from his investments upon attaining office
I commend your reasoned and considered approach, and encourage you to continue to do so. You've brought up concerns such as "The question is how hunch damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal", and are careful to avoid expressing your own opinion. I understand that as well, and appreciate that this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence. For my part, I'll continue to strive for reasoned consideration, but I'm no longer willing to err exclusively on the charitable side. I've seen enough that I no longer feel it's prudent to withhold judgement or grant him the benefit of the doubt.
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
So far as I can tell, this is still his view: our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens. I'm personally uncomfortable with this degree of nationalism, but I know that lots of Americans agree with this sentiment, and I don't know that it's unconstitutional for him to act in accordance with this belief.
It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion.
I agree, and this is why I'm dubious about media coverage that declares his position to be clear and unambiguous.
Here are some past actions that I keep in mind when judging whether to give him the benefit of the doubt in doing the right and ethical thing:
Those are all big warning flags to me as well. I particularly don't know what to make of the tax returns, since I presume (hope) they will be leaked and published at some point.
this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence.
For greater clarity, I strongly supported Sanders, and was distressed by the way he was treated by the press and the Democratic Party. I voted for Jill Stein, mostly in hope that greater support for 3rd parties will eventually help change America's two party landscape. I (still) generally prefer Trump to Clinton, but some of his recent actions make me scared that he might be too narcissistic to be an effective leader, although I can't tell how much is real and how much is media exaggeration. I still have hope that he's less likely to engage in wars of aggression than previous administrations.
For my part, I'll continue to strive for reasoned consideration, but I'm no longer willing to err exclusively on the charitable side. I've seen enough that I no longer feel it's prudent to withhold judgement or grant him the benefit of the doubt.
Which is in direct contradiction to the claims that it's not a Muslim ban or has a religious component. Whether or not this is the right thing to do, denial of the intent on the part of supporters or the administration bothers me.
our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens.
While I can sympathize, I'm also concerned with the personal liberty issues and apparent disregard for the rule of law, which seems threatened by the blocking of permanent residents and the firing of the AG when she questioned the constitutionality of the EO.
Sam Harris, who's been outspoken on what he considers the proper role of profiling and discussing honestly the threat of jihadist terrorism addressed the Executive Order in a blog post you may find interesting. Here's a quote:
I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named.
His take on the situation is one that results in him attracting flak many sides. In the post, he's pretty damning of what's been described as the "regressive left" as well.
Sam Harris, who's been outspoken on what he considers the proper role of profiling and discussing honestly the threat of jihadist terrorism addressed the Executive Order in a blog post you may find interesting.
Yes, thank you. For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list? I found myself wondering if it was consciously omitted with the intention of creating public support for adding it later.
And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry"? I'd like to see more of this, but I'm doubtful that the current political climate allows for it.
As counterpart, you might like this piece, in which a Russian-American tries to explain how his immigrant community ended up anti-Clinton rather than pro-Trump:
It is thus unsurprising that Trump’s insistent anti-war calls in his rallies and his defense of irredeemable but relatively stable regimes like Saddam Hussein’s resonated so much with my Philadelphia community. In my conversations with contractors, barbers, cooks and other hardworking immigrants, legitimate concerns over America’s actions overseas quickly polarized into a distrust of a “one-sided U.S. press.” Instead of a community backlash against Democrats, leftists or a potential female president, I saw an assault against a hawkish and “corrupt” bipartisan establishment, for which Hillary Clinton was its indomitable flag bearer. And though I noticed this often did not translate to passionate affection for Trump himself, his representation as a force against this status quo was enough to sway many Russian Americans toward the Republican’s cause.
For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list?
Not really, no. I think the way the EO has been handled overall has made it much more difficult than necessary. I'm sure that under the best circumstances there would have been some resistance, but as it's happened, it looks like it's been executed for maximum controversial effect, and likely intentionally.
And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism … without lapsing into bigotry"?
I agree with you that this is difficult. For one, it requires quite a bit of nuance, which is difficult to do in public messaging, but I think a form of it can. In particular, making a clear distinction between Muslim and Islamism/jihadism I think is one that can be conveyed. There are some parallels that can be drawn with respect to Christianity in the US. It's still tough, though, given how sensitive issues surrounding religion are. That said, I think it might be important to try, because we're at a stalemate politically around this issue. I'm not convinced Trump is one who's able or willing to convey this message. The Executive Order hasn't been handled with much nuance or care.
The reform within Islam portion is especially hard to discuss for those outside the religion, just as it would be for any outsider to approach a group and say "hey, you gotta fix this problem your group has". Even supporting those within the group can result in those insiders being viewed with suspicion. Groups like the Quilliam Foundation are trying to do that.
Thanks for the link to the Kareenmov piece. How Trump got framed as an anti-war candidate has been fascinating. Certainly Clinton has been a hawk for a long time. But some of the things Trump said during the campaign with respect to ISIS can't be interpreted as anti-war.
"I will also quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one — and I mean, no one — will mess with us"
“We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS,” Trump said. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000 [troops].”
I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this false equivalence too. Obama is responsible for (I think twice) temporarily halting refugees from Iraq and a list of other countries.
What Trump did included:
* Refusing to honor green cards from nationals of those countries, deliberately, apparently at the behest of Steve Bannon.
* Refusing temporary visitor visas to nationals of those countries.
* Refusing to honor visas already provided, in multiple cases resulting in the detention and threatened deportation of children under the age of 6.
* Cutting in half the number of refugees we accept from any country.
* Indefinitely ending the refugee program for Syrian nationals, the place in the world in the most dire need of refugee assistance.
* Shutting down significant parts of the entire refugee program for several months.
It is a right-wing talking point that Trump did something Obama did and is taking flak over it for partisan reasons. That is not what is happening.
I knew Yonatan at Google - he was one of the key Search people when I started there - and I would consider him an eminently reasonable person. He is not at all prone to knee-jerk responses without having good cause.
While I agree that a lot of the media headlines (in particular, calling it a blanket Muslim ban) have been hyperbolic, the facts of the case should provide plenty of concern on their own. You have an executive order that has prevented legal permanent residents of the U.S. from returning home to their families, specifically applied to them over the advice of DHS lawyers by un-elected members of the Presiden's NRC, and police forces that have refused to honor a court order from the judicial branch of the government. You don't need to draw any grand conspiracy theories to be concerned about this.
An executive order on immigration, while arbitrary, follows established precedent.
The inclusion of existing visa and permanent residency holders was designed to stoke the fires of the media and of the left. Trump has a whole stack of things he wants to accomplish, and he's tiring out his primary opposition while simultaneously virtue-signaling to his base.
If he were wanting to instigate a coup he'd be quietly placing people beholden to him into positions of power, driving wedges between the internal divisions of his opposition, and solidifying the ground he's already taken.
Trump is nimble. He understands what's going to incite those who speak out against him, and he uses that knowledge to set them up for failure. He did this throughout the campaign and he's doing it now. You're supposed to be upset about the immigration EO. You're supposed to be upset about his SCOTUS nominee that he's promised tomorrow. You're supposed to be upset about the next thing he does.
Trump is ridiculing his opposition, and so many people live in their own personal echo chambers that they aren't even noticing.
He understands what's going to incite those who speak out against him, and he uses that knowledge to set them up for failure. He did this throughout the campaign and he's doing it now. You're supposed to be upset about the immigration EO.
That the disruptiveness of the immigration EO was intentional is not exactly hard to suss out. I don't understand what failure it sets anyone up for though. I mean, it's the administration that is walking back the order (Kelly's statement about lawful permanent resident status being dispositive). The protests made a powerful statement to people in other countries.
> If he were wanting to instigate a coup he'd be quietly placing people beholden to him into positions of power
The fact that Bannon has been installed on the National Security Council, and that attendance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and DNI is allowed only upon request of the Council is the bigger story here.
[EDIT] And it is not so much that he is the instigator of the coup. Trump may only be the puppet here.
Genuine question: How does one recognize a coup before it's too late to stop it?
He's running it like a business, this looks like just about every merger I've ever been stuck in the middle of. Not entirely surprising given his background, surely?
74 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadIt wasn't particularly sneaky.
While some of this article is a bit hyperbolic, the general idea here seems very plausible: that the Trump administration is "stress testing" the Federal government (and the public as well) to identify its fault lines and which sections of it would remain loyal in the event of extreme executive actions. That's alarming all by itself, but it's particularly so given the other ideological leanings and associations of Trump and his inner circle.
If you bring this up metaphorically, it's not adding the the discussion, as this really requires more nuanced debate rather than general remarks.
If your intent isn't to discuss these issues substantially, please don't add to the noise with allusions and implications. There's enough stuff to wade through as it is.
First link, from near the top:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/reince-pre...
An article nitpicking about a failure to specifically include the word Jew when talking about the Holocaust, even though it was an event that everyone knows targeted the Jews. Included is a quote by Tim Kaine trying to equate it with Holocaust denial. Especially interesting given Bibi Netanyahu seems to be a Trump fan.
Link from the end of the article, what I was alluding to: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/what-things-going-wrong-ca...
And here's a quote from the author, contained in this article: "I’m reading this as “1933 playbook continues on schedule"
Edit - should also add, my original comment was intentionally flippant given the submission isn't real journalism (it's not, it's a blog), and the topic has been beaten like a dead horse.
Especially when it is followed almost immediately by a series of Trump tweets justifying his immigration order with "large numbers" of Christians executed in the Middle East. (Which, while factually correct, depending on what you think constitutes a large number, is a bizarre misrepresentation of who are -- by far -- the majority of the victims of Islamist terror, namely: Muslims)
The US Executive's power is being taken over y a small cabal of extremists and kleptocrats. There is extensive history on this type of takeover.
The issue is whether they are following the law or not.
(Advice and consent of the Senate for cabinet positions isn't meaningless, but they instruct the executive by statute not by directives given to cabinet members)
This is literally a textbook example of how autocrats take over. It has happened before and all the rules for that game are being played out right now.
It's interesting to note that Trump has placed a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office, as there are many parallels between Trump's rise to power and Jackson's.
> In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" This derives from Jackson's comments on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate".
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia#Effects
A President wielding Presidential authority is not a coup, it's acting within the authority given to the office via the Constitution and Congress. If you believe the President has too much power then I would urge you to be doing all you can to limit the power of the office, not just change who is in it.
There's a bunch of stays issued by federal courts that are based on questioning whether the administration is doing that.
I don't mind sharing that I voted for Trump. I'm not a cheerleader for him, though, my reasons for doing so are limited in scope and he has yet to act to support my interests. That said, all signs seem to indicate that he will do so.
The absolute best thing that could come from a Trump presidency is if Congress and the courts were able to significantly restrain the authority of the Executive Branch in general and the President in particular. It has grown far beyond its Constitutional bounds.
(You know, the premise of the link)
Do you think we'd have a better chance to save it in four years? or forty?
We've clearly been trending toward increased executive power since our founding. If it's too late now it'll be too late later.
There are a lot of "if"s in this discussion. Trump has only thus far fulfilled some of his campaign promises. We're discussing potential outcomes if he were to exceed his authority and refuse to yield to the rule of law. I don't believe that will happen.
I agree that the OP post would seem like a conspiracy theory, except that he supports it all with cited reporting.
And his point is valid: If and as this does indeed appear to be a coup d'etat, it makes sense to sow deliberate confusion and misdirection (the recent executive orders and rapid retrenchments) while racing to outpace the possible organization and execution of an effective opposition.
What the author describes, is aligning with other reporting I'm encountering, although that reporting is not presenting this over-arching perspective on it.
It appears Trump is moving to make himself into the U.S.'s Putin.
I honestly see this as a case of a populist President using the levers of power to their full extent, when Presidents have traditionally done so very slowly and carefully.
For as long as people agree to go along with it, that is.
CBP officials, meanwhile, are ignoring the law and the independent judiciary itself.
How is this not treason?
Now, that is _illegal_ of course, and morally reprehensible, but they could still be construed to be "following orders".
It looks to me like he has the ability. As you said, even if he doesn't, he can still make it happen as long as he's in office.
I'm not justifying their actions. I did call it illegal and morally reprehensible.
I'm saying that after the dust settles they will probably excuse their actions with 'following orders', exactly like the folks at Nuremberg did as the GP mentions. I do not think this is a reason to condone their actions, much like we do not condone the actions of the folks at the Nuremberg Trials. This is just a prediction of how this will be portrayed when the dust settles (and we should probably be wary of this and resist it being painted over with 'following orders')
I liked Gorbachev's theory, too: http://time.com/4645442/gorbachev-putin-trump/
OTOH, while actions which arguably (or even fairly clearly) cross that line have occurred in many recent US presidencies, the author here is right to raise the issue that the acts the article highlights suggest that the present violations are likely to be the leading edge of a self-coup of unprecedented magnitude in the US.
The type of fearmongering and conspiracy theory generation in this article reminds me of conservatives during Obama's presidency.
We need to be better than this.
Trump's very election is a coup against the establishment, and so was Bernie Sanders impressive campaign in the primary. Trump's win, and Bernie's Rise make it clear, that Americans are done with business as usual politics.
We all need to be dealing with this new reality instead of running to conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, we're just a few days into this administration and it has already enacted a Muslim ban (complete with an escape hatch for Christians from Muslim countries) that operates in open defiance of federal courts --- Trump has precipitated a Constitutional crisis in how the US Marshal Service, which serves the courts but formally reports to the Executive Branch, will carry out its orders.
A convenient way to dismiss an argument is to attempt to tie it clownish morons like Alex Jones. But to accomplish that, you'll have to support your argument with evidence. What supernatural powers does this post suggest compel Trump to violate the federal courts?
A muslim ban that doesn't ban saudi arabia, india,pakistan indonesia,and somalia doesn't seem much of a muslim ban.
I'm going to quote elon musk here "Reading the source material is better than reading other people's opinions about the source material" on the muslim ban. Its pretty clear the media is acting as an opposition party to Trump rather then objective researchers.
I highly suggest you read the actual executive orders, before you start fear mongering, because that doesn't actually help anybody.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...
"I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.
"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"
I find it very difficult to dismiss out of hand that it isn't intended as a Muslim ban in spirit when Giuliani explicitly says that this exactly what he was asked to do.
The submitted post also includes two articles which include a lot of additional source material.
""" "The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."
Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion." """
A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me.
As for the conspiracy theory medium article, its easy to do in a world of big data. It's called cherry picking, and its exactly what Info Wars does to create their fear mongering articles. Vague speculation and half truths on the main premises of the paper, and then even the conclusions.
Here's an example from the medium article: "The aims of crushing various groups — Muslims, Latinos, the black and trans communities, academics, the press — are very much primary aims of the regime"
This is clear hysteria. Here's what Trump actually said on black communities while campaigning, "We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever."
And so far President Trump as been doing pretty closely what he said.
I agree. Will you admit that sometimes people figure out ways to accomplish their goals under the cover of something else? That they know something won't be politically or legally feasible to do head on, but that they can accomplish another way if they don't express their actual intent explicitly? I think it's hard not to argue this happens. This type of accusation is thrown around all of the time from all sides.
In this particular instance, we've got explicit evidence of exactly that from one of the people who was involved in doing it. It's really hard to ignore this, or even deny the possibility without being disingenuous.
And this is ignoring the submitted article all-together.
So they tried to take Obama what did in 2011, a few steps further and are rightfully taking flak for it, just like I think Obama should have gotten in 2011.
Again though a muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical.
Edit: Is there subtext I'm missing. Are you implying this is a slippery slope to a full muslim ban ?
(Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him?)
Great. So we're supposed to be happy with a President who stretches the law as far as he can to do what he wants. This smacks of the "well, it was legal, so what's the problem?" argument we hear all too often. Just because you can figure out a way to do something legally doesn't mean it's the right or moral thing to do.
Response to the edit: Yes, I think there's something you're missing, and it's not subtext at all. Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals.
Trump is very good at not clearly expressing what he means. I'm not satisfied yet whether this is intended or not. If the latter, it's sowing a lot of needless confusion domestically and abroad. If on purpose, it makes it very difficult to trust him and know what his intent is, domestically and abroad.
Evidence on HN: Trump supporters are divided as to whether this is a Muslim ban or not. You'll find comments expressing either opinion.
Also I said I don't think it was the right thing to do.
But again I have to say a muslim ban that isn't based on religion really doesn't make sense. As for region based bans, those are not really new they've been done since Jimmy Carter.
I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning. In same way that the media uses "Muslim ban" to refer to a moratorium on entry to citizens of certain majority-Muslim countries, given his sloppy approach to accurate speech, I can see that Trump might use these words in a way that isn't as sinister as some would take it.
Rather than speculating on his internal state of mind, I think the better debate is whether his actions are acceptable. That is, if we accept him at his word as to his intent, is it acceptable for the President to summarily close the American border to adherents of a certain religion if he believes that some small percentage of those who would come in intend to do us harm? I think there is sufficient disagreement about even this question that we don't need to consider dogwhistles.
Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals.
I haven't seen yet reason to believe that a full ban on Muslims is part of Trump's goal. Some of his supporters (possibly even some of this advisors) want to keep Muslims out of the US as a goal in itself, but I think Trump's actions so far are consistent with his stated intention to keep out those who wish to do intentional harm to the US. The question is how much damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal. If he thought there was a reliable way to distinguish between "good Allah-fearing Muslims" and "fundamentalist Islamic terrorists", I think he'd pursue it:
"The job of the president is to keep America safe. And that will always be my highest priority. We will do everything in our power to keep this scourge of terrorism out of our country. We're going to keep it out of our country. Just so you understand, people are pouring in from regions of the Middle East. We have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they are thinking, and we're going stop that dead, cold, flat."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1612/01/acd.01.html
This is not a very convincing line of argument. The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers. You can just watch the interview and find out that the quote is accurate and that Giuliani meant what he said, including "Muslim ban". There's quite some danger of hearing people say things that they mean to say, and just assuming that they couldn't possibly have said them because they sound odd to you. After all, what evidence would you find persuasive?
I haven't watched the interview. What you say would imply that I'm wrong to think that it might be due to the reporter. Despite my clumsy phrasing, though, I was mostly thinking that Giuliani might have failed to mention Trump's implied "until we figure out a way that we can identify who's dangerous and who's not". For me, that clause makes a difference. Does it matter for you?
After all, what evidence would you find persuasive?
I'm not sure. Short of Trump explicitly saying "I don't think we should allow Muslims to live here", I'm not sure what single thing would convince me. A pile of lower quality evidence eventually would, but I don't think we are there yet. I tend to agree with what Scott Alexander writes here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo.... I don't think Trump is a subtle guy, and if he truly was personally prejudiced against Muslims (as opposed to concerned about terrorism) he would just say so explicitly.
It's from a televised interview. You're free to watch it yourself. There's no need to speculate on anyone's internal state of mind.
As for the possibility that Giuliani misspoke, everyone is aware that Muslim immigration is a highly contentious issue. This requires careful, considered speech. It was either intentional (and purposefully misleading if disingenuous) or sloppy. During the interview, the interviewer even prefaced the question asking if it was about religion, giving Giuliani an opportunity to state upfront that it wasn't about religion. The first thing he said was the quote above, that he was asked to implement a Muslim ban.
Looking back, the Trump campaign was all over the map with respect to the Muslim ban, which started out as
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...
This NBC piece has a collection of different positions (unfortunately without links to sources) that the Trump campaign has taken on the Muslim ban.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-dona...
It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion. He's also been known to flat-out lie without feeling a need to correct himself later. He's also been shown to be very good at saying what he thinks his supporters want to hear more brazenly than few other politicians I can remember.
At this point, I no longer think it's wise to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that we should also watch very closely the actual actions being taken.
Here are some past actions that I keep in mind when judging whether to give him the benefit of the doubt in doing the right and ethical thing:
- Trump University and its affiliated lawsuits
- Refusing to release his tax returns, a practice in transparency followed by presidential candidates for years
- Promising to "Drain the Swamp", yet his cabinet and other staff include a number of insiders, both government and corporate
- Refusing to adequately and cleanly distance himself from his investments upon attaining office
I commend your reasoned and considered approach, and encourage you to continue to do so. You've brought up concerns such as "The question is how hunch damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal", and are careful to avoid expressing your own opinion. I understand that as well, and appreciate that this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence. For my part, I'll continue to strive for reasoned consideration, but I'm no longer willing to err exclusively on the charitable side. I've seen enough that I no longer feel it's prudent to withhold judgement or grant him the benefit of the doubt.
So far as I can tell, this is still his view: our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens. I'm personally uncomfortable with this degree of nationalism, but I know that lots of Americans agree with this sentiment, and I don't know that it's unconstitutional for him to act in accordance with this belief.
It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion.
I agree, and this is why I'm dubious about media coverage that declares his position to be clear and unambiguous.
Here are some past actions that I keep in mind when judging whether to give him the benefit of the doubt in doing the right and ethical thing:
Those are all big warning flags to me as well. I particularly don't know what to make of the tax returns, since I presume (hope) they will be leaked and published at some point.
this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence.
For greater clarity, I strongly supported Sanders, and was distressed by the way he was treated by the press and the Democratic Party. I voted for Jill Stein, mostly in hope that greater support for 3rd parties will eventually help change America's two party landscape. I (still) generally prefer Trump to Clinton, but some of his recent actions make me scared that he might be too narcissistic to be an effective leader, although I can't tell how much is real and how much is media exaggeration. I still have hope that he's less likely to engage in wars of aggression than previous administrations.
For my part, I'll continue to strive for reasoned consideration, but I'm no longer willing to err exclusively on the charitable side. I've seen enough that I no longer feel it's prudent to withhold judgement or grant him the benefit of the doubt.
That makes sense, both for Trump and with regard to the mainstream media. Also, I think it might be a good idea to focus more attention on Steve Bannon, and less on Trump: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-to-make-o...
Which is in direct contradiction to the claims that it's not a Muslim ban or has a religious component. Whether or not this is the right thing to do, denial of the intent on the part of supporters or the administration bothers me.
our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens.
While I can sympathize, I'm also concerned with the personal liberty issues and apparent disregard for the rule of law, which seems threatened by the blocking of permanent residents and the firing of the AG when she questioned the constitutionality of the EO.
Sam Harris, who's been outspoken on what he considers the proper role of profiling and discussing honestly the threat of jihadist terrorism addressed the Executive Order in a blog post you may find interesting. Here's a quote:
I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-mu...
His take on the situation is one that results in him attracting flak many sides. In the post, he's pretty damning of what's been described as the "regressive left" as well.
Yes, thank you. For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list? I found myself wondering if it was consciously omitted with the intention of creating public support for adding it later.
And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry"? I'd like to see more of this, but I'm doubtful that the current political climate allows for it.
As counterpart, you might like this piece, in which a Russian-American tries to explain how his immigrant community ended up anti-Clinton rather than pro-Trump:
It is thus unsurprising that Trump’s insistent anti-war calls in his rallies and his defense of irredeemable but relatively stable regimes like Saddam Hussein’s resonated so much with my Philadelphia community. In my conversations with contractors, barbers, cooks and other hardworking immigrants, legitimate concerns over America’s actions overseas quickly polarized into a distrust of a “one-sided U.S. press.” Instead of a community backlash against Democrats, leftists or a potential female president, I saw an assault against a hawkish and “corrupt” bipartisan establishment, for which Hillary Clinton was its indomitable flag bearer. And though I noticed this often did not translate to passionate affection for Trump himself, his representation as a force against this status quo was enough to sway many Russian Americans toward the Republican’s cause.
https://medium.com/@Kareenmov/how-american-journalists-helpe...
Not really, no. I think the way the EO has been handled overall has made it much more difficult than necessary. I'm sure that under the best circumstances there would have been some resistance, but as it's happened, it looks like it's been executed for maximum controversial effect, and likely intentionally.
And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism … without lapsing into bigotry"?
I agree with you that this is difficult. For one, it requires quite a bit of nuance, which is difficult to do in public messaging, but I think a form of it can. In particular, making a clear distinction between Muslim and Islamism/jihadism I think is one that can be conveyed. There are some parallels that can be drawn with respect to Christianity in the US. It's still tough, though, given how sensitive issues surrounding religion are. That said, I think it might be important to try, because we're at a stalemate politically around this issue. I'm not convinced Trump is one who's able or willing to convey this message. The Executive Order hasn't been handled with much nuance or care.
The reform within Islam portion is especially hard to discuss for those outside the religion, just as it would be for any outsider to approach a group and say "hey, you gotta fix this problem your group has". Even supporting those within the group can result in those insiders being viewed with suspicion. Groups like the Quilliam Foundation are trying to do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank)
Thanks for the link to the Kareenmov piece. How Trump got framed as an anti-war candidate has been fascinating. Certainly Clinton has been a hawk for a long time. But some of the things Trump said during the campaign with respect to ISIS can't be interpreted as anti-war.
———
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11...
"I will also quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one — and I mean, no one — will mess with us"
———
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-o...
“I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields. I wouldn’t send many troops because you won’t need them by the time I’m finished.”
———
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-...
“We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS,” Trump said. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000 [troops].”
———
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/donald-trump-mike-pen...
"We're going to declare war against ISIS. We have to wipe out ISIS"
———
https://www.donald...
What Trump did included:
* Refusing to honor green cards from nationals of those countries, deliberately, apparently at the behest of Steve Bannon.
* Refusing temporary visitor visas to nationals of those countries.
* Refusing to honor visas already provided, in multiple cases resulting in the detention and threatened deportation of children under the age of 6.
* Cutting in half the number of refugees we accept from any country.
* Indefinitely ending the refugee program for Syrian nationals, the place in the world in the most dire need of refugee assistance.
* Shutting down significant parts of the entire refugee program for several months.
It is a right-wing talking point that Trump did something Obama did and is taking flak over it for partisan reasons. That is not what is happening.
While I agree that a lot of the media headlines (in particular, calling it a blanket Muslim ban) have been hyperbolic, the facts of the case should provide plenty of concern on their own. You have an executive order that has prevented legal permanent residents of the U.S. from returning home to their families, specifically applied to them over the advice of DHS lawyers by un-elected members of the Presiden's NRC, and police forces that have refused to honor a court order from the judicial branch of the government. You don't need to draw any grand conspiracy theories to be concerned about this.
If Trump wanted to take over the US government, this is not at all the way he'd go about it.
The inclusion of existing visa and permanent residency holders was designed to stoke the fires of the media and of the left. Trump has a whole stack of things he wants to accomplish, and he's tiring out his primary opposition while simultaneously virtue-signaling to his base.
If he were wanting to instigate a coup he'd be quietly placing people beholden to him into positions of power, driving wedges between the internal divisions of his opposition, and solidifying the ground he's already taken.
Trump is nimble. He understands what's going to incite those who speak out against him, and he uses that knowledge to set them up for failure. He did this throughout the campaign and he's doing it now. You're supposed to be upset about the immigration EO. You're supposed to be upset about his SCOTUS nominee that he's promised tomorrow. You're supposed to be upset about the next thing he does.
Trump is ridiculing his opposition, and so many people live in their own personal echo chambers that they aren't even noticing.
That the disruptiveness of the immigration EO was intentional is not exactly hard to suss out. I don't understand what failure it sets anyone up for though. I mean, it's the administration that is walking back the order (Kelly's statement about lawful permanent resident status being dispositive). The protests made a powerful statement to people in other countries.
The fact that Bannon has been installed on the National Security Council, and that attendance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and DNI is allowed only upon request of the Council is the bigger story here.
[EDIT] And it is not so much that he is the instigator of the coup. Trump may only be the puppet here.
Genuine question: How does one recognize a coup before it's too late to stop it?