As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. If the attorney general claims that something may be illegal and unenforceable, people should listen. This comes off as purely political and makes it seem as though Trump will just fire anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to do so.

Obama produced EO that were unenforceable and deemed overreaching (i.e. not legal to enforce). Yet, he was seen as acting in good faith during the DAPA[1] dispute, and no one in their right mind would propose that then President Obama should have been called out by his AG, and imprisioned for attempting tyrannical action.

I think mostly its because Obama's acts were considered "compassionate" and right by some. Others with a more cynical view would say that issuing an EO that is entirely to the benefit of foreign nationals who are guilty of illegal acts against the United States is bordering on treason.

[1]

What was DAPA? It ensured that federal funding could be used to provide benefits such as healthcare and schooling to migrants who did not comply with immigration law.

>As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling.

On the contrary, I find it thrilling, and am eager for more in this vein.

You can't argue this way on HN, and since your side of this argument is so utterly in command of the high ground, I'm kind of baffled by why you'd think name calling was a good idea.

You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already.

> You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already.

I agree it would have been educational for many here to include a few of the definitions of fascism[0] as a political/idealogical term, just to drive home the point of how closely Trump is skirting the edge already after only a week or so.

[0] there's not a single generally agreed-upon definition, but you don't get extra points if you "only" hit a couple of them.

However, to address your point that the term was used for name calling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Fascist...

Now of course the word "bully" is a purposeful understatement (and of course saying "fascist" when you mean "bully" is no proper way of arguing on HN). And that would be that, if this were some other frivolous topic. But it's quite fair to argue that the situation is a lot closer to the various serious definitions of fascism than it is to the mere vague pejorative. The world is looking in horror, and we're all thinking it. Maybe another week of these "crazy antics" before we can say it without being downvoted? Don't wait too long though, or you might not be allowed to say it at all.

If you can't do better than name-calling with a flat-earther, I don't know what to tell you.

My point is that facts do nothing to those that are committed to fiction. Presenting facts or debating gives their position legitimacy. Better to just dismiss lunacy with a pejorative term and move along.

No, as you can see, that's just a way to get your own comments flagged. If someone writes something so bad you can't respond to it, that's what the "flag" button is for.

We've asked you not to do this already, please stop!

Why can't I speak out against these people? Why does HN protect people like this?