Trump wins bigly in 2020. What then?

theprestige said:
The only reason conservatives on this forum don't appear to have a problem with dictatorship in the US is that there isn't any risk of this happening.
Click to expand...


You think there's no risk of it happening and so evidently you're perfectly fine with simply paving the way to enabling a dictatorship by allowing this administration to run roughshod over Constitutional checks and balances because there's evidently some magical Constitutional fairy that will magically prevent a US dictatorship despite the fact that "Dictatorship Prevention" was in fact the fundamental purpose of those Constitutional checks and balances that you ignored in the first place.

Yeah. Makes perfect sense.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Seriously, there is ALWAYS a risk that a dictatorship could happen. That's why so many safeguards were put in place. Erode those safeguards and the risk increases.
 
And even then that's playing to the "It's not a problem until it's the ULTIMATE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT EVER EXISTED OF ALL TIME" thing the Trumpers won't get over.

He's using his power in unethical and unconstitutional ways. We're allowed to have standards higher then "Technically not setting up a dictatorship"

And that's if he's not setting up a dictatorship and that's a big if. If he's not setting one up by some amazing coincidence he's doing exactly what he would be doing if he was.
 
theprestige said:
The only reason conservatives on this forum don't appear to have a problem with dictatorship in the US is that there isn't any risk of this happening.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say no risk. But the risk isn't from the sources leftists think. And that's nothing new, they've been paranoid about the wrong things going back at least 80 years to when Sinclair Lewis wrote about Rotarians becoming dictators, if not earlier.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And even then that's playing to the "It's not a problem until it's the ULTIMATE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT EVER EXISTED OF ALL TIME" thing the Trumpers won't get over.

He's using his power in unethical and unconstitutional ways. We're allowed to have standards higher then "Technically not setting up a dictatorship"

And that's if he's not setting up a dictatorship and that's a big if. If he's not setting one up by some amazing coincidence he's doing exactly what he would be doing if he was.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Trump has avoided doing one of the most fundamental things that any aspiring dictator needs to do. In fact, he hasn't even tried to do it. Can you guess what that is? I've mentioned it before.

Trump hasn't tried to expand the power of the presidency.
 
Cabbage said:
You think there's no risk of it happening and so evidently you're perfectly fine with simply paving the way to enabling a dictatorship by allowing this administration to run roughshod over Constitutional checks and balances because there's evidently some magical Constitutional fairy that will magically prevent a US dictatorship despite the fact that "Dictatorship Prevention" was in fact the fundamental purpose of those Constitutional checks and balances that you ignored in the first place.

Yeah. Makes perfect sense.

: rolleyes :: rolleyes :: rolleyes :
Click to expand...

It's the hyperbole that gives it away. The rolleyes are just gilding the lily.
 
Ziggurat said:
I wouldn't say no risk. But the risk isn't from the sources leftists think. And that's nothing new, they've been paranoid about the wrong things going back at least 80 years to when Sinclair Lewis wrote about Rotarians becoming dictators, if not earlier.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, in an "anything can happen" kind of way. There's always some risk. But the risk of it happening in the US is pretty low, due to a combination of institutional and cultural factors. And even with the Trump presidency, I don't see any increase in that baseline risk.

So, "no risk" is a figure of speech. It's more like, "whatever risk you considered negligible during the Obama administration is the same risk there is now".
 
Ziggurat said:
Trump hasn't tried to expand the power of the presidency.
Click to expand...

I simply do not have a response to that level of reality denial and obtuseness.

I have absolutely no intention of arguing the "He's not expanding the power of the Presidency he's just putting people in positions of power who don't stop him" hair splitting.
 
theprestige said:
It's the hyperbole that gives it away. The rolleyes are just gilding the lily.
Click to expand...


I can only tell you the truth; unfortunately I can't force you to pay attention.

You know, any time you wanna answer that question in post 268 I'm right here waiting to read it.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
JoeMorgue said:
I simply do not have a response to that level of reality denial and obtuseness.

I have absolutely no intention of arguing the "He's not expanding the power of the Presidency he's just putting people in positions of power who don't stop him" hair splitting.
Click to expand...

It's not hair splitting. It's pretty god damn fundamental. Look at the actual history of dictatorships that arise from democracies, and you'll see they always need that step. They can't skip it. And it has to start early.
 
theprestige said:
Enabling Act when?
Click to expand...

Yes, because "everything is ok" and "omg Nazi Germany!" are the only two options.

Face it, autocracy can happen in the US. Of course it can. The founders wouldn't have made such an effort to protect it if it couldn't. I suspect you're just being contrarian on this issue.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, no. Trump has avoided doing one of the most fundamental things that any aspiring dictator needs to do. In fact, he hasn't even tried to do it. Can you guess what that is? I've mentioned it before.

Trump hasn't tried to expand the power of the presidency.
Click to expand...

Why would he? He thinks Article II allows him to do whatever he wants already.
 
Belz... said:
Why would he? He thinks Article II allows him to do whatever he wants already.
Click to expand...


And he said back in June that Congress should do "whatever he wants to do".

Mr. Trump told Fox News that such opposition from Congress -- including from his own party members -- was diminishing his bargaining power as his administration negotiates with the Mexican government to get it to crack down on the migrant flow.

The president said Congress, "should be saying, 'we are with the President, we will do whatever he wants to do,' and Mexico would fold like an umbrella."
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not hair splitting. It's pretty god damn fundamental. Look at the actual history of dictatorships that arise from democracies, and you'll see they always need that step. They can't skip it. And it has to start early.
Click to expand...

In addition to the comments others have made (Trump surrounding himself with yes men that refuse to check him, for example) I think it's worth pointing out both that:

1) You have not provided a citation for this. I would like to see a citation from a historian to the effect that every single dictatorship in history has that single condition you are claiming it does.

2) This is inductive reasoning, which is notoriously weak. If I see a bunch of white sheep...and every sheep I've ever seen is a white sheep....can I conclude all sheep are white?? Of course not. Similarly, no one understands human sociology anywhere near enough to determine necessary and sufficient conditions for dictatorship. Just because it's never happened before (assuming that is even the case--which I am skeptical of) does not logically imply it can not happen. You should know better than this.


Your logic, as usual, is lacking.

Not to mention, there are plenty of ways a presidency can be disastrous without "dictatorship" even being approached.

And let me ask you a question (or are you gonna refuse to answer questions, like theprestige??): Over the course of American history, has the power of the presidency been expanded? I ask because I would like you to consider the possibility that the GOP (or Democrats, if that helps you to digest the question) is on a slower trend towards dictatorship, with expanding powers for the presidency being slowly enabled. Maybe not with Trump. Maybe not with a half dozen presidents after Trump, either. But over time. Is that something that concerns you at all?
 
Last edited:
Cabbage said:
In addition to the comments others have made (Trump surrounding himself with yes men that refuse to check him, for example) I think it's worth pointing out both that:

1) You have not provided a citation for this. I would like to see a citation from a historian to the effect that every single dictatorship in history has that single condition you are claiming it does.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't apply to every dictatorship in history. It's specific to dictatorships that arise from within democracies, which is a subset of all dictatorships. Dictators who come to power by revolution or conquest get to skip that step.

2) This is inductive reasoning, which is notoriously weak.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Not even close. There's some pretty obvious mechanistic reasoning here too. A dictator needs to have considerable legal power. Democracies don't grant anyone that much power. To get it, the dictator must change the laws. And they can't do that in one fell swoop, they have to do it in steps, because Democracies have roadblocks to try to prevent exactly that. Those roadblocks have to be disassembled over time in order to achieve that transition.

Not to mention, there are plenty of ways a presidency can be disastrous without "dictatorship" even being approached.
Click to expand...

Sure. But the claim wasn't simply that Trump will be a disastrous president. The claim was that he was doing what an incipient dictator would do. And he isn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
To get it, the dictator must change the laws. And they can't do that in one fell swoop, they have to do it in steps, because Democracies have roadblocks to try to prevent exactly that. Those roadblocks have to be disassembled over time in order to achieve that transition.
Click to expand...
Which, I would argue, Trump is trying to do.

He’s probably too squeamish to kill his enemies in cold blood. Plus, any dictatorship he managed to assemble would be incompetent. So I don’t think he’s going to succeed. However, in hundreds of different ways he is trying to erode laws or argue that the law does not apply to him. What are these, if not steps being taken to disassemble democracy?

There’s also the question of who is manipulating his strings. They may be more ruthless than he is.
 
Cabbage said:
And let me ask you a question (or are you gonna refuse to answer questions, like theprestige??): Over the course of American history, has the power of the presidency been expanded? I ask because I would like you to consider the possibility that the GOP (or Democrats, if that helps you to digest the question) is on a slower trend towards dictatorship, with expanding powers for the presidency being slowly enabled. Maybe not with Trump. Maybe not with a half dozen presidents after Trump, either. But over time. Is that something that concerns you at all?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Maybe this question will be answered in a separate post.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, no. Not even close. There's some pretty obvious mechanistic reasoning here too. A dictator needs to have considerable legal power. Democracies don't grant anyone that much power. To get it, the dictator must change the laws. And they can't do that in one fell swoop, they have to do it in steps, because Democracies have roadblocks to try to prevent exactly that. Those roadblocks have to be disassembled over time in order to achieve that transition.
Click to expand...


What aspect of "The President is above the law" (which this administration argues) prohibits it from being considered a step in an expansion of presidential powers?

Your declaration that he is not attempting to expand presidential powers is not reflected in reality.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, no. Not even close. There's some pretty obvious mechanistic reasoning here too. A dictator needs to have considerable legal power. Democracies don't grant anyone that much power. To get it, the dictator must change the laws. And they can't do that in one fell swoop, they have to do it in steps, because Democracies have roadblocks to try to prevent exactly that. Those roadblocks have to be disassembled over time in order to achieve that transition.
Click to expand...

The highlighted portion is simply not accurate. Consider the following scenario:

A president breaks laws--This does not change the law, the law still exists, it was simply broken. The president's party has a majority in either the House or the Senate and chooses to turn a blind eye to the president breaking laws; this results in a failure to bring impeachment charges against the president, or a failure to convict on impeachment charges brought by the house.

No law was changed yet the president broke a law without consequence. Lather, rinse, repeat. More laws broken, no consequence, and no laws changed.

QED.

As I said before: Your logic is seriously lacking.
 
Cabbage said:
What aspect of "The President is above the law" (which this administration argues) prohibits it from being considered a step in an expansion of presidential powers?

Your declaration that he is not attempting to expand presidential powers is not reflected in reality.
Click to expand...

It has been DOJ policy for a long time that sitting presidents could not be indicted. Trump didn't come up with that. And not being indictable and being above the law are different things. To give an obvious example related to the question of dictatorship, the Trump administration must abide by court rulings that go against them. And he has.
 
Cabbage said:
And let me ask you a question (or are you gonna refuse to answer questions, like theprestige??): Over the course of American history, has the power of the presidency been expanded?
Click to expand...

Of course, many times.

I ask because I would like you to consider the possibility that the GOP (or Democrats, if that helps you to digest the question) is on a slower trend towards dictatorship, with expanding powers for the presidency being slowly enabled. Maybe not with Trump. Maybe not with a half dozen presidents after Trump, either. But over time. Is that something that concerns you at all?
Click to expand...

I said before Trump was even elected that the presidency had too much power. I also said that I hoped Trump's election would make liberals realize this. But they haven't. They think Trump is the only problem, that the presidency wouldn't have too much power if it were someone other than Trump (or at least a Democrat) holding office.
 
Ziggurat said:
Of course, many times.



I said before Trump was even elected that the presidency had too much power. I also said that I hoped Trump's election would make liberals realize this. But they haven't. They think Trump is the only problem, that the presidency wouldn't have too much power if it were someone other than Trump (or at least a Democrat) holding office.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you think the expansion of the powers of the presidency is already a problem, huh? Great, we've found something to agree on!

Now please respond to post 306.
 
Cabbage said:
Oh, so you think the expansion of the powers of the presidency is already a problem, huh?
Click to expand...

Yes. But that doesn't mean that Trump is trying to become a dictator. Do you understand the distinction?
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes. But that doesn't mean that Trump is trying to become a dictator. Do you understand the distinction?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that nothing you have said so far implies that he isn't?

To me, that's a far more interesting question.
 
Cainkane1 said:
We might have a war of sorts with Iran. Very limited conflict or with North Korea. Again very limited conflict. The Economy would continue to be good to mediocre at worst. No mass job losses. America first attitude would still be in place.

There would be problems caused by America's Socialists and violence and vandalism and assaults and looting from groups like Antifa but they would be the only ones causing trouble.

There might be stricter enforcement of America's gun laws. For instance, gun shows might not be allowed to just sell a gun without a background check.
Click to expand...

To the colonial Royalists, the Founding Fathers were the "socialists" of their day.

I predict (but do not endorse, for the record) that the American left will finally wake up and realize that playing by the "rules" is useless.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's got nothing to do with it assassination porn. And it's not just Trump either. The left fantasized about assassinating Bush in ways that the right never did about Obama.
Click to expand...

Did you even bother reading your own link?

Gabriel Range said:
The purpose of the film was not to imagine how the world stage would reset with the assassination of George Bush. The intent of the film is really to use the assassination of President Bush as a dramatic device—using the future as an allegory to comment on the past. [....] If people go to the cinema expecting to have some great moment of catharsis watching the president being shot, I suspect they’re in for a pretty big surprise. I think that anyone who’s expecting this to be a liberal wet dream is in for quite a shock ... It was very important that the film was not a political rant. It was not just a condemnation or polemic because I think that polemics are easy to dismiss.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton said:
I think it's despicable. I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick.
Click to expand...

James Hoberman said:
[it] skews more theoretical than sensationalist ... Bush is presented as a martyr.
Click to expand...

James Berardinelli said:
If this was a serious examination of the possible long-term ramifications of George Bush's current foreign policy, or if it had anything interesting to say about Bush's legacy, it might be justifiable. But that's not the case. The decision to use Bush rather than a fictional representation of him is for no reason other than self-promotion.
Click to expand...

Rex Reed said:
Clever, thoughtful, and totally believable. This is a film without a political agenda that everyone should see.
Click to expand...

Frank Lovece said:
[the film's condemnation] by politicians and pundits from James Pinkerton to Hillary Clinton is understandable and completely predictable: They can't not comment, so when they do, they have to play to their audiences. None of them seriously believes that this work of fiction will really make someone take a potshot at the president, and anyway, the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life came out of a crazy guy's fascination with Jodie Foster, so you may as well decry movies starring blonde former child actresses.
Click to expand...

In fact nothing in the link indicated a "fantasized about assassinating Bush" from the Left, in fact it was denounced by Politicians on the left, and critics called it apolitical. Seems that this is a fail on your side.
 
Ziggurat said:
Wrong. Again, he isn't even trying to expand presidential power.
Click to expand...

I already addressed that in post 306, bro. I'm just waiting for you to catch up.

Been waiting for three hours now. What's the matter, the dog ate your BS? LOL!

I'll be right here if you ever come up with a response.
 
Debating is so much easier when you simply ignore your opponent's argument.

Don't you think so, Zig?
 
Trump's lawyers are stretching the range of the DOJ memo beyond anything any previous President claimed it did: they claim it provides total immunity, even from investigation, while the President is in office.
This is an enormous power grab.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom