A total of 11 journalists have been arrested during the protests in Ferguson
Most were only held briefly, not charged
German reporter says he's never been treated so badly by police
https://www-m.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-journalists-arr...
I saw something once that credibly argued that the treatment of Chelsea Manning in prison amounted to torture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
The current president of the US has called for his political opponent to be jailed. Not readily finding actual instances of actually jailing political opponents in the US, but I'm not trying that hard either.
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/2/1729104/-Donald-Trum...
We also generally treat Blacks and Natives terribly and generally have crazy high rates of incarceration.
Ferguson protests were dangerous and riotous at times. Sure, some people were arrested that shouldn't have been, but they were released. This isn't even comparable to the kinds of journalist arrests and murders we are talking about.
Journalists entrenched in violent protests will inevitably get arrested, that's not a break down of rule of law, nor of democracy; are they getting imprisoned for being journalists who are critical of the president? Not AFAICT. In Turkey journalists are imprisoned for not supporting Erdogan.
Has Trump called for his opponents to be imprisoned for not supporting him? Or, did he claim they had committed crimes for which objectively they should be punished? Erdogan has his political opponents actually imprisoned; and 10s of thousands of their supporters.
Trump is a whacked out crazy misogynist, displays the worst traits of capitalist greed, and of self-obsession, he's a power hungry ignoramus. But Erdogan is an evil genocidal fascist.
However it's still a long way away from countries like Turkey or Uzbekistan or Russia.
Compare the US to Brazil or South Africa sure, point out how it's no longer in the same bracket as Canada or Denmark or NZ, but comparing to Turkey or Thailand does a disservice.
Like, yeah, Turkey is worse. I think. I'm not even sure, given that Turkey has less power. So no, it's not at that level. Yet.
Trump's inclination to reduce everything to ass kissing ("has said nice things about me") and personal vendettas would be an absolute disaster in many countries. But the US is healthy enough to survive him - I think.
Does it. A first-past-the-post system which reduces everything to two parties. Low voter turnouts. High gerrymandering. Terrible voter accessibility laws. Three branches of government end-to-end owned by only one party. And a ton of money in politics thanks to Citizens United.
I'm sorry, but "robust democratic institutions" and "checks and balances" at this point are things americans tell themselves to sleep better at night. If you step back, you start seeing just how far gone the country is.
(I'm not American)
The constitution also defines the process of changing the constitution itself (article V), and it does not include a way for Mr Trump or his party to do that as they do not have the required two thirds majority in both houses or in state legislatures.
Importantly, there isn't even a way for him to whip up emotions in a referendum in order to change the constitution.
The judiciary is not controlled by any party at all. Supreme court judges are appointed for life to prevent arbitrary interventions by other branches of government.
And in practical terms, did you really get the impression that Trump has unwavering support even just among the legislators of his own party? Did you get the impression that the FBI acts on Trump's say so? How about the courts?
No, what I'm seeing is a wannabe autocrat who is kept in check by an extremely robust set of institutions, constitutional arrangements and by a lot of principled individuals inside those institutions.
I don't see Xi, Erdogan or Putin getting investigated by their own police or courts, having to fear impeachment or face the sort of (well deserved) journalistic onslaught that Trump has had to face.
You realize that if they get this bad, it's too late to take action, right?
Here's the same logic, applied to a different field: "Oh, yes, you keep talking about climate change but I only see mild temperature increases and I'm not even sure they're man-made. I don't see the sea level rise and catastrophic outcomes you're talking about. If we start seeing those, we'll take action."
It'll be too late.
That's exactly why so many autocrats and parties with an authoritarian bent try to change the constitutions of their countries in order to give themselves greater powers.
Trump hasn't done that because he can't. And I think this deserves far more attention than it is getting. It is something other countries can learn from.
https://apnews.com/0a029f0bf678452aa89facb6dfba5f25 - AP - WH restricts AP, Reuters, Bloomberg for KJU summit
http://time.com/5270968/donald-trump-reporters-credentials-m... - TIME, Donald Trump threatens taking away reporter credentials
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/09/donald-trump... - The Guardian - White House won't rule out banning press for 'negative' coverage
Just a couple of examples of what white house press feels like under the Trump era. Talk to me more about "his predecessor".
Edit: Today's bonus article on freedom of speech, press, and assembly: https://outline.com/3TKY5M - CNN - DOJ demands Facebook information from 'anti-administration activists'.
There's like one of these every day at least. So, you know, I don't believe you.
Of course, other checks are being removed left and right, so I don't think it evens out in the case of the Trump admin.
The scale may be different, but the situation in the US is not to good either on these topics, and has been deteriorating lately.