Trump, be a leader, not a blamer.

Having an attorney general is hardly an act of fascism.

Barr Threatens to Sic Justice Department on States That Don’t Open on Trump’s Schedule
By Jonathan Chait

President Trump has intermittently gone to war with public-health experts, including those in his own administration, in an attempt to restart the economy fast enough to help him win reelection. His biggest obstacle — next to his administration’s inability to produce enough testing to allow local officials to safely reopen — is that he lacks the legal authority to force states and cities to open up. After first claiming total authority over the governors, Trump is looking for ways to gain leverage to bring them to heel. He can whip up protests, and he can withhold aid from the states and cities.

And now he is pulling out a new weapon: Attorney General William Barr.

In his last interview two weeks ago, Barr expressed several Trumpy views about the coronavirus, complaining that the news media had launched a “jihad” against the “promising” drug hydroxychloroquine, and that “after the 30-day period, we have to find a way of allowing businesses to adapt to the situation and figure out best how they can get started.”

In a new interview with right-wing talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, Barr threatens to throw the DOJ’s weight behind businesses to sue states and cities that fail to open up quickly enough. Barr’s premise is that Trump, as always, has taken a wise and measured course: “I think the president’s plan for getting the country back to work is really a very commonsensical approach that is based on really assessing the status of the virus in each state and each locality, and then gradually pulling back on restrictions.” (Trump’s “commonsensical” plan has included all-cap demands to LIBERATE various states that his own administration’s guidelines have deemed not yet ready to reopen.)

Barr proceeded to explain that any governors who fail to define “common sense” the same way as Trump may feel the wrath of Barr’s Department of Justice:

I think the President’s guidance has been, as I say, superb and very commonsensical, and I think a lot of the governors are following that. And you know, to the extent that governors don’t and impinge on either civil rights or on the national commerce, our common market that we have here, then we’ll have to address that.

And if we think it’s, you know, justified, we would take a position. That’s what we’re doing now. We, you know, we’re looking carefully at a number of these rules that are being put into place. And if we think one goes too far, we initially try to jawbone the governors into rolling them back or adjusting them. And if they’re not and people bring lawsuits, we file a statement of interest and side with the plaintiffs. And at this stage, and we’re at sort of a sensitive stage where we’re really transitioning to starting a process of trying to get the nation back up and running, you know, I think that’s the best approach. As lawsuits develop, as specific cases emerge in the states, we’ll take a look at them.

Now, normally, Republicans tend to favor state and local authority over the heavy hand of the federal government. But the difference in this case is that Republicans control the federal government some legal principle Barr hasn’t explained yet.

This threat might sound a little heavy-handed and partisan, but don’t worry. Barr is a stickler for the Constitution and the rule of law, and would never work for a president who didn’t share his passion for these timeless principles, as evidenced by this exchange:

Hewitt: Has the President done anything, anything at all to give rise in you to a concern that he does not respect the Constitution or intend to abide by its separation of powers?

Barr: Never. Never at all.


Reassuring!

Huh, once again you totally miss the point.

That is no answer. Is the Constitution a fascist document? The wise crack in your hands is folly. I would give it a rest or you will be thoroughly embarrassed again.

You do not have a point. Appointing an AG is not a fascist act, period. You are doubling down on stupid.

Not necessarily, but having a fascist like Barr is. He thinks he can bring the Fed in on Governors for maintaining public safety and health. That's fascism, pal. And as a Republican it stinks, don't you believe in state's rights? Do you believe in anything at all, only disbelieving everything.

I don't know where you got that quote, but I did not write that. That makes you a liar.

A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. I see no lies in his post.

You are correct Hightor said that. I do not know how I did that, but I did.

Now, that does not make me liar. It makes me someone willing to admit a mistake.

Now, you can admit Trump did nothing fascist because you cannot answer the question.

Barr is hardly a fascist.



Fascism is a leftist ideology that opposes individual liberty.



I am unsure who is correct on this issue, but it will be decided in the courts. Both sides will have an opportunity to present their arguments to the judges. I'm sure the courts will apply the law fairly.



I believe in the Constitutional right of people to carry a loaded gun when they go about in public.

I have never said that Plump made any fascist moves. My comments were about Oralloy and his ilk who want to outlaw the Democratic Party. That is the classic first move of fascists.

It's a straw man fallacy to suggest that someone has to justify something one has not said. Of course, I expect no less from you than fallacious accusations.

Man, you jokers shovel **** faster than a crew of stable hands.

(emphasis added)

Source at Wikipedia

I fully expect a bunch of whiny bullshit about Wikipedia not being a reliable source--because that kind of **** is all you jokers have.

Good, make sure you don't, because this post is forever.

Piss off, I don't take orders from creeps. There's an implication there, have one of the grandkids explain it to you.

"Now go and sin no more."

Hope springs eternal.

That was not an order, it was a warning.

Authoritarianism can be difficult to spot when its done subtly by people who want to appear non-authoritarian, but the giveaway clue is how people respond/react to dissent.

E.g. when someone says, "make love not war," and you question them or dissent from their POV in some way and instead of engaging you in peaceful discussion they get angry/hostile/aggressive toward you, call you a nazi, or whatever; that is authoritarian behavior.

The person/people you're talking with might be left wing and/or liberal, but they can take an authoritarian attitude against dissenters who question or otherwise don't fall in line with their political interests. It takes a special person to buck authoritarian emotionalism and listen to different points of view.

Please, you don't get to threaten anyone.

It was not a threat. I simply meant when, or if, he calls Trump a fascist he will see that post. How about we call it a promise?

I do not see why I should suffer because of your comprehension problem.

How about we don't. You expect everyone else to put up with your egregious proclamations and demented fears of 'sharia law' in Europe. Your nonsense on every topic wore thin a long time ago. If you ever had a valid point of view or a piece of useful information to share how would anybody know? Who? Who wants to dig thru all that junior varsity sarcasm and what I suppose you think is biting wit? I don't believe you wish to discuss anything with anybody's you are just a garden variety underachieving grump, an embittered scold anxious to share your misery and spread it around like a malignancy. It has to be miserable to be you, and that is a terrible way to go thru life.