Joe Walsh: "I would rather have a socialist in the White House than a dictator" - Page 2

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

False dichotomy.

We would hope that the senate works with the president to further his agenda when his agenda is both legal and a benefit to the nation. On the other hand, if the president acts in ways that are illegal (e.g. engaging in extortion against a foreign country by withholding funds allocated by congress) then the senate should stop cooperating.

On the other hand, the Senate choosing to cooperate doesn't make the President a dictator. You know what would make the President a dictator? If he were able to carry out his agenda without the Senate's cooperation.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Last time I checked, AOC did not have the authority to launch baseless investigations into her opponents (through the DoJ).

I'll give you that. On the other hand: Yet. Isn't one of the lessons learned from Trump that it's better to block them before they get that kind of power?

Quote:

Last time I checked, AOC did not have the ability to silence critics within her own party through control of party funds.

Donald Trump also doesn't control party funds.

Quote:

Last time I checked, AOC did not have enough 'followers' to have any rivals 'primaried' by supporting an opponent

Check again.

ahhell · 11th February 2020, 01:28 PM

I'm reminded of a post of facebook after the State of Union address. Praising that guy for yelling at trump as what a brave citizen of a fascist state does. You know, because he's probably dead and dumped into a mass grave already, along with my associate who posted about it.

Donal · 11th February 2020, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

On the other hand, the Senate choosing to cooperate doesn't make the President a dictator. You know what would make the President a dictator? If he were able to carry out his agenda without the Senate's cooperation.

Caesar worked with a Senate too. Again the trappings and titles of a democratic republic do not mean it can't be a dictatorship.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'm reminded of a post of facebook after the State of Union address. Praising that guy for yelling at trump as what a brave citizen of a fascist state does. You know, because he's probably dead and dumped into a mass grave already, along with my associate who posted about it.

Kind of like posting Winnie the Pooh on social media. Or jaywalking, and having facial recognition software automatically update your Social Credit Score.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Donal

Caesar worked with a Senate too. Again the trappings and titles of a democratic republic do not mean it can't be a dictatorship.

Caesar dominated a Senate. He subverted a Roman army, invaded Roman soil, marched on the capital, abolished the Republican system, installed himself as dictator, and then worked with a cooperative Senate. He didn't get elevated from consul to emperor because the Senate one day decided to go along with his dreams of power.

smartcooky · 11th February 2020, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

On the other hand, the Senate choosing to cooperate doesn't make the President a dictator. You know what would make the President a dictator? If he were able to carry out his agenda without the Senate's cooperation.

But he can, and he has.

Trump signed 24 executive orders in his first 100 days, the most executive orders of any President since World War II.

He has also declared a national emergency on false pretenses so that he could illegally divert funds, lawfully allocated by Congress for specific purposes, so that he could build his vanity project on the southern border, a vanity project that he promised would be paid for by Mexico.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

But he can, and he has.

Trump signed 24 executive orders in his first 100 days, the most executive orders of any President since World War II.

He has also declared a national emergency on false pretenses so that he could illegally divert funds, lawfully allocated by Congress for specific purposes, so that he could build his vanity project on the southern border, a vanity project that he promised would be paid for by Mexico.

Exercising the constitutional authority of the presidency, even corruptly or incompetently, does not make the president a dictator. Because the presidency is not a dictatorship. It wasn't designed that way, it doesn't function that way, and Donald Trump is not using it that way.

It could be replaced by something that does work as a dictatorship, but it hasn't. And there's no indication that Trump is even trying to do so.

thaiboxerken · 11th February 2020, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

False dichotomy.

We would hope that the senate works with the president to further his agenda when his agenda is both legal and a benefit to the nation. On the other hand, if the president acts in ways that are illegal (e.g. engaging in extortion against a foreign country by withholding funds allocated by congress) then the senate should stop cooperating.

Let's imagine Trump was a Democrat and the entire Senate and House were Democrats. If Trump did half of what he has done since 2017, Trump would've been impeached and removed from office long ago.

thaiboxerken · 11th February 2020, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

On the other hand, the Senate choosing to cooperate doesn't make the President a dictator. You know what would make the President a dictator? If he were able to carry out his agenda without the Senate's cooperation.

You do realize that a dictator has no power without the cooperation of the rest of his government, right?

ponderingturtle · 11th February 2020, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think the constitutional provisions that actually hedge against dictatorship are the ones that lay out the separation of powers and the checks and balances on those powers.

Yep just as crazy as believing Putin is some kind of dictator instead of a democratically elected official working within legitimate constitutional lines.

thaiboxerken · 11th February 2020, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Exercising the constitutional authority of the presidency, even corruptly or incompetently, does not make the president a dictator. Because the presidency is not a dictatorship. It wasn't designed that way, it doesn't function that way, and Donald Trump is not using it that way.

It could be replaced by something that does work as a dictatorship, but it hasn't. And there's no indication that Trump is even trying to do so.

Using this logic, Putin isn't a dictator either........

ponderingturtle · 11th February 2020, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Using this logic, Putin isn't a dictator either........

Russia is the model for the new american democracy with republicans as its leadership. They have finally caught on that Russia is the ideal republican state.

Masque · 11th February 2020, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

... as impeachment was a foregone conclusion after the Democrats took the house in the midterms.

Oh, I don't know...I really think Trump could have avoided being impeached by not violating the emoluments clause, or abusing his office for personal gain, or generally not doing anything impeachable. Of course, this is operating on the same theory that suggests that water could stop being wet, if it really wanted to.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

You do realize that a dictator has no power without the cooperation of the rest of his government, right?

By that logic, every head of state is a dictator.

thaiboxerken · 11th February 2020, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Russia is the model for the new american democracy with republicans as its leadership. They have finally caught on that Russia is the ideal republican state.

Sadly, it's true. They love the authoritarianism because with that comes the hierarchy that places white males towards the top of the pyramid with all others having less rights/power than they do. They love how homosexuals, women and minorities are 2nd class citizens in Russia. That's what they want for the USA.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Using this logic, Putin isn't a dictator either........

It depends how Putin's office is designed, and how it functions. Kim Jong Il exercises the constitutional authority of his office. His office, though, is a dictatorship.

thaiboxerken · 11th February 2020, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

By that logic, every head of state is a dictator.

Only if they allow that head of state to abuse power and ignore laws, like the Republicans are allowing Trump to do.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Only if they allow that head of state to abuse power and ignore laws, like the Republicans are allowing Trump to do.

Again, that's not what makes a dictatorship. Simply put, it's about the amount of power vested in the office, and the amount of power actually wielded by the officeholder. The office of the president isn't vested with dictatorial power. Donald Trump does not wield dictatorial power. The Senators don't put up with Trump because they're afraid of what he'll do to them, but because they're afraid of what their voters will do to them. That's pretty much the opposite of a dictatorship.

Donal · 11th February 2020, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Caesar dominated a Senate.

As the weakling does with these cretins.

Quote:

He subverted a Roman army,

US law enforcement and intelligence communities

Quote:

invaded Roman soil, marched on the capital,

Used foreign assistance as well as personal "fixers" to strong arm his wants through the government

Quote:

abolished the Republican system, installed himself as dictator, and then worked with a cooperative Senate. He didn't get elevated from consul to emperor because the Senate one day decided to go along with his dreams of power.

He never called himself emperor. So, since he didn't print business cards with the "Emperor" as his title, I guess he wasn't an emperor.

ahhell · 11th February 2020, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Again, that's not what makes a dictatorship. Simply put, it's about the amount of power vested in the office, and the amount of power actually wielded by the officeholder. The office of the president isn't vested with dictatorial power. Donald Trump does not wield dictatorial power. The Senators don't put up with Trump because they're afraid of what he'll do to them, but because they're afraid of what their voters will do to them. That's pretty much the opposite of a dictatorship.

Yep.

Assuming we are talking about Julius, no he never called himself emperor, he did however hold the title of Dictator for Life.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Donal

He never called himself emperor. So, since he didn't print business cards with the "Emperor" as his title, I guess he wasn't an emperor.

LOL

Ziggurat · 11th February 2020, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Trump signed 24 executive orders in his first 100 days, the most executive orders of any President since World War II.

Why is the number of executive orders a good metric for this? Many executive orders are quite mundane. Which of those 100 orders do you consider a problem? I'm not talking about orders you disagree with from a policy perspective, but which ones do you think overstepped the bounds of proper executive authority?

thaiboxerken · 11th February 2020, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Again, that's not what makes a dictatorship. Simply put, it's about the amount of power vested in the office, and the amount of power actually wielded by the officeholder. The office of the president isn't vested with dictatorial power. Donald Trump does not wield dictatorial power. The Senators don't put up with Trump because they're afraid of what he'll do to them, but because they're afraid of what their voters will do to them. That's pretty much the opposite of a dictatorship.

Dictators have no power without people. Trump is breaking laws and doing whatever he wants and the Senate is afraid to stop him. They have given the Senates power to Trump. They have given the Judiciary to Trump. That is a dictatorship. Just because Trump's base happen to be voters doesn't mean that it's any less of a dictatorship.

Venom · 11th February 2020, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Again, that's not what makes a dictatorship. Simply put, it's about the amount of power vested in the office, and the amount of power actually wielded by the officeholder. The office of the president isn't vested with dictatorial power. Donald Trump does not wield dictatorial power. The Senators don't put up with Trump because they're afraid of what he'll do to them, but because they're afraid of what their voters will do to them. That's pretty much the opposite of a dictatorship.

There's more to political power than just the authority vested in an elected official. That's why modern dictators, or wannabe dictators if you like, try to maintain high approval among the electorate.

Ziggurat · 11th February 2020, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Dictators have no power without people. Trump is breaking laws and doing whatever he wants

No he isn't. He's been stopped multiple times already by the courts. And he's certainly not doing whatever he wants with the budget, which is one of the greatest governmental powers of all.

ahhell · 11th February 2020, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

. Now, no more of this silliness about Trump being a dictator.

Good luck with that.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 03:37 PM

Well, two pages in and this thread seems to have covered everything it was going to cover. It'll be interesting to see if Page 3 contains anything new.

Donal · 11th February 2020, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

LOL

I graciously accept your concession.

So, now that we established that the trappings and titles are not what makes or prevents a dictatorship, we can discuss whether living under a dictatorship is preferable to a country where every can afford to go to the doctor.

Cabbage · 11th February 2020, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Still not a dictatorship.

But okay, let's look at that more closely. Say Bernie The Socialist* gets elected, but the GOP retains the Senate majority, and McConnnell stays on as Senate Majority leader. Do you think they'd be sniveling cowards groveling before President Sanders? If they were, would it make the Sanders Administration a dictatorship? If they don't grovel, would that be better? Is that the kind of outcome you're looking for? I remember the Senate did a pretty good job of not groveling before President Obama. Do you want more of that? Because I could totally vote for more of that.

Or what about if Bernie gets elected, and the Democrats gain a Senate majority. What would you prefer, dictatorship-wise? A Senate that cooperates with the President to further his agenda? Or a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power?

Futuristic Whataboutism

(For use only when you don't have a logical argument).

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Donal

I graciously accept your concession.

If believing I've conceded is that important to you, I support you in your expression of faith.

Quote:

So, now that we established that the trappings and titles are not what makes or prevents a dictatorship

That was never in dispute. You're rebutting arguments nobody ever made. What you're reading as "concession" is actually "pointing and laughing at non sequiturs".

PhantomWolf · 11th February 2020, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Or what about if Bernie gets elected, and the Democrats gain a Senate majority. What would you prefer, dictatorship-wise? A Senate that cooperates with the President to further his agenda? Or a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power?

On this one all you need to do is go back and look at Obama's first two years. In theory with both the house and senate the Dems should have been able to push anything they wanted through, but because the Republicans weren't even willing to deal at all, Obama had to juggle the progressives and the conservatives of the Democratic Party, and ended up making a number of compromises to get something most of his own Party would be happy with. A President Sanders would have the same issue, with some of the members of his own party not agreeing with his policies.

theprestige · 11th February 2020, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

On this one all you need to do is go back and look at Obama's first two years. In theory with both the house and senate the Dems should have been able to push anything they wanted through, but because the Republicans weren't even willing to deal at all, Obama had to juggle the progressives and the conservatives of the Democratic Party, and ended up making a number of compromises to get something most of his own Party would be happy with. A President Sanders would have the same issue, with some of the members of his own party not agreeing with his policies.

That answers neither of the questions you quoted.

Crazy Chainsaw · 11th February 2020, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

LOL. The trial wasn't rigged, Trump's party has a majority in the Senate, freely elected by Americans, as was Trump, and they voted to acquit, which was predictable because there was no crime in the indictments. Now, no more of this silliness about Trump being a dictator.

You mean the party that can't understand the concept of a two sided hole?

PhantomWolf · 13th February 2020, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

That answers neither of the questions you quoted.

It does actually. Just not the answer you like. Democrats have shown repeatedly that they will stand up to a President in their own Party if they disagree with him. As a result you get your answer, that with a Democratic Party President, you'll always see a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power, regardless of if that Senate is Democratic or Republican. The Democrats simply don't play the game the same way as the Republicans where everyone in the party has to be in lockstep or be vilified.

theprestige · 13th February 2020, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

It does actually. Just not the answer you like. Democrats have shown repeatedly that they will stand up to a President in their own Party if they disagree with him. As a result you get your answer, that with a Democratic Party President, you'll always see a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power, regardless of if that Senate is Democratic or Republican. The Democrats simply don't play the game the same way as the Republicans where everyone in the party has to be in lockstep or be vilified.

I asked you a question about your preferences. If you're not telling me what you prefer, you're not answering the question.

The Great Zaganza · 13th February 2020, 07:58 AM

If you start fighting for Democracy only after you have lost it to a Dictatorship, you obviously didn't care for democratic rule in the first place.

ahhell · 13th February 2020, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

It does actually. Just not the answer you like. Democrats have shown repeatedly that they will stand up to a President in their own Party if they disagree with him. As a result you get your answer, that with a Democratic Party President, you'll always see a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power, regardless of if that Senate is Democratic or Republican. The Democrats simply don't play the game the same way as the Republicans where everyone in the party has to be in lockstep or be vilified.

Can you provide examples?

PhantomWolf · 14th February 2020, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by ahhell

Can you provide examples?

If you have been paying any attention for the past 12 years you should be aware of plenty The ACA ended up being a compromise to get conservative Democrats on board and still had 39 House Democrats vote against it. Even the Impeachment of Trump had 2 and 3 Democrats vote against the Articles. And these are just some two of the biggest in that time. Go look at how the Dems reacted to accusation about Al Franken.

Trebuchet · 15th February 2020, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If you start fighting for Democracy only after you have lost it to a Dictatorship, you obviously didn't care for democratic rule in the first place.

It's not a Democracy, it's a Republic!

11th February 2020, 01:28 PM	#43
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,350	I'm reminded of a post of facebook after the State of Union address. Praising that guy for yelling at trump as what a brave citizen of a fascist state does. You know, because he's probably dead and dumped into a mass grave already, along with my associate who posted about it.
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,350

11th February 2020, 01:35 PM	#44
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by theprestige On the other hand, the Senate choosing to cooperate doesn't make the President a dictator. You know what would make the President a dictator? If he were able to carry out his agenda without the Senate's cooperation. Caesar worked with a Senate too. Again the trappings and titles of a democratic republic do not mean it can't be a dictatorship.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

11th February 2020, 02:09 PM	#47
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,386	Originally Posted by theprestige On the other hand, the Senate choosing to cooperate doesn't make the President a dictator. You know what would make the President a dictator? If he were able to carry out his agenda without the Senate's cooperation. But he can, and he has. Trump signed 24 executive orders in his first 100 days, the most executive orders of any President since World War II. He has also declared a national emergency on false pretenses so that he could illegally divert funds, lawfully allocated by Congress for specific purposes, so that he could build his vanity project on the southern border, a vanity project that he promised would be paid for by Mexico.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 11th February 2020 at 02:11 PM.

11th February 2020, 02:18 PM	#49
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,686	Originally Posted by Segnosaur False dichotomy. We would hope that the senate works with the president to further his agenda when his agenda is both legal and a benefit to the nation. On the other hand, if the president acts in ways that are illegal (e.g. engaging in extortion against a foreign country by withholding funds allocated by congress) then the senate should stop cooperating. Let's imagine Trump was a Democrat and the entire Senate and House were Democrats. If Trump did half of what he has done since 2017, Trump would've been impeached and removed from office long ago.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

11th February 2020, 02:19 PM	#50
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,686	Originally Posted by theprestige On the other hand, the Senate choosing to cooperate doesn't make the President a dictator. You know what would make the President a dictator? If he were able to carry out his agenda without the Senate's cooperation. You do realize that a dictator has no power without the cooperation of the rest of his government, right?
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

11th February 2020, 01:17 PM	#41
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by Segnosaur False dichotomy. We would hope that the senate works with the president to further his agenda when his agenda is both legal and a benefit to the nation. On the other hand, if the president acts in ways that are illegal (e.g. engaging in extortion against a foreign country by withholding funds allocated by congress) then the senate should stop cooperating. On the other hand, the Senate choosing to cooperate doesn't make the President a dictator. You know what would make the President a dictator? If he were able to carry out his agenda without the Senate's cooperation.

11th February 2020, 01:24 PM	#42
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Last time I checked, AOC did not have the authority to launch baseless investigations into her opponents (through the DoJ). I'll give you that. On the other hand: Yet. Isn't one of the lessons learned from Trump that it's better to block them before they get that kind of power? Quote: Last time I checked, AOC did not have the ability to silence critics within her own party through control of party funds. Donald Trump also doesn't control party funds. Quote: Last time I checked, AOC did not have enough 'followers' to have any rivals 'primaried' by supporting an opponent Check again.

11th February 2020, 01:45 PM	#45
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by ahhell I'm reminded of a post of facebook after the State of Union address. Praising that guy for yelling at trump as what a brave citizen of a fascist state does. You know, because he's probably dead and dumped into a mass grave already, along with my associate who posted about it. Kind of like posting Winnie the Pooh on social media. Or jaywalking, and having facial recognition software automatically update your Social Credit Score.

11th February 2020, 01:48 PM	#46
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by Donal Caesar worked with a Senate too. Again the trappings and titles of a democratic republic do not mean it can't be a dictatorship. Caesar dominated a Senate. He subverted a Roman army, invaded Roman soil, marched on the capital, abolished the Republican system, installed himself as dictator, and then worked with a cooperative Senate. He didn't get elevated from consul to emperor because the Senate one day decided to go along with his dreams of power.

11th February 2020, 02:17 PM	#48
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by smartcooky But he can, and he has. Trump signed 24 executive orders in his first 100 days, the most executive orders of any President since World War II. He has also declared a national emergency on false pretenses so that he could illegally divert funds, lawfully allocated by Congress for specific purposes, so that he could build his vanity project on the southern border, a vanity project that he promised would be paid for by Mexico. Exercising the constitutional authority of the presidency, even corruptly or incompetently, does not make the president a dictator. Because the presidency is not a dictatorship. It wasn't designed that way, it doesn't function that way, and Donald Trump is not using it that way. It could be replaced by something that does work as a dictatorship, but it hasn't. And there's no indication that Trump is even trying to do so.

11th February 2020, 02:19 PM	#51
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,121	Originally Posted by theprestige I think the constitutional provisions that actually hedge against dictatorship are the ones that lay out the separation of powers and the checks and balances on those powers. Yep just as crazy as believing Putin is some kind of dictator instead of a democratically elected official working within legitimate constitutional lines.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

11th February 2020, 02:20 PM	#52
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,686	Originally Posted by theprestige Exercising the constitutional authority of the presidency, even corruptly or incompetently, does not make the president a dictator. Because the presidency is not a dictatorship. It wasn't designed that way, it doesn't function that way, and Donald Trump is not using it that way. It could be replaced by something that does work as a dictatorship, but it hasn't. And there's no indication that Trump is even trying to do so. Using this logic, Putin isn't a dictator either........
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

11th February 2020, 02:23 PM	#53
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,121	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Using this logic, Putin isn't a dictator either........ Russia is the model for the new american democracy with republicans as its leadership. They have finally caught on that Russia is the ideal republican state.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

11th February 2020, 02:33 PM	#54
Masque Scholar Join Date: Jan 2020 Posts: 53	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 ... as impeachment was a foregone conclusion after the Democrats took the house in the midterms. Oh, I don't know...I really think Trump could have avoided being impeached by not violating the emoluments clause, or abusing his office for personal gain, or generally not doing anything impeachable. Of course, this is operating on the same theory that suggests that water could stop being wet, if it really wanted to.
Masque Scholar Join Date: Jan 2020 Posts: 53

11th February 2020, 02:45 PM	#55
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken You do realize that a dictator has no power without the cooperation of the rest of his government, right? By that logic, every head of state is a dictator.

11th February 2020, 02:46 PM	#56
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,686	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Russia is the model for the new american democracy with republicans as its leadership. They have finally caught on that Russia is the ideal republican state. Sadly, it's true. They love the authoritarianism because with that comes the hierarchy that places white males towards the top of the pyramid with all others having less rights/power than they do. They love how homosexuals, women and minorities are 2nd class citizens in Russia. That's what they want for the USA.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

11th February 2020, 02:47 PM	#58
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,686	Originally Posted by theprestige By that logic, every head of state is a dictator. Only if they allow that head of state to abuse power and ignore laws, like the Republicans are allowing Trump to do.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

11th February 2020, 02:58 PM	#59
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Only if they allow that head of state to abuse power and ignore laws, like the Republicans are allowing Trump to do. Again, that's not what makes a dictatorship. Simply put, it's about the amount of power vested in the office, and the amount of power actually wielded by the officeholder. The office of the president isn't vested with dictatorial power. Donald Trump does not wield dictatorial power. The Senators don't put up with Trump because they're afraid of what he'll do to them, but because they're afraid of what their voters will do to them. That's pretty much the opposite of a dictatorship.

11th February 2020, 03:03 PM	#60
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by theprestige Caesar dominated a Senate. As the weakling does with these cretins. Quote: He subverted a Roman army, US law enforcement and intelligence communities Quote: invaded Roman soil, marched on the capital, Used foreign assistance as well as personal "fixers" to strong arm his wants through the government Quote: abolished the Republican system, installed himself as dictator, and then worked with a cooperative Senate. He didn't get elevated from consul to emperor because the Senate one day decided to go along with his dreams of power. He never called himself emperor. So, since he didn't print business cards with the "Emperor" as his title, I guess he wasn't an emperor.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

11th February 2020, 03:05 PM	#61
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,350	Originally Posted by theprestige Again, that's not what makes a dictatorship. Simply put, it's about the amount of power vested in the office, and the amount of power actually wielded by the officeholder. The office of the president isn't vested with dictatorial power. Donald Trump does not wield dictatorial power. The Senators don't put up with Trump because they're afraid of what he'll do to them, but because they're afraid of what their voters will do to them. That's pretty much the opposite of a dictatorship. Yep. Assuming we are talking about Julius, no he never called himself emperor, he did however hold the title of Dictator for Life.
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,350	Last edited by ahhell; 11th February 2020 at 03:07 PM.

11th February 2020, 03:07 PM	#62
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by Donal He never called himself emperor. So, since he didn't print business cards with the "Emperor" as his title, I guess he wasn't an emperor. LOL

11th February 2020, 03:10 PM	#63
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 47,859	Originally Posted by smartcooky Trump signed 24 executive orders in his first 100 days, the most executive orders of any President since World War II. Why is the number of executive orders a good metric for this? Many executive orders are quite mundane. Which of those 100 orders do you consider a problem? I'm not talking about orders you disagree with from a policy perspective, but which ones do you think overstepped the bounds of proper executive authority?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

11th February 2020, 03:12 PM	#65
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,819	Originally Posted by theprestige Again, that's not what makes a dictatorship. Simply put, it's about the amount of power vested in the office, and the amount of power actually wielded by the officeholder. The office of the president isn't vested with dictatorial power. Donald Trump does not wield dictatorial power. The Senators don't put up with Trump because they're afraid of what he'll do to them, but because they're afraid of what their voters will do to them. That's pretty much the opposite of a dictatorship. There's more to political power than just the authority vested in an elected official. That's why modern dictators, or wannabe dictators if you like, try to maintain high approval among the electorate.

11th February 2020, 03:14 PM	#66
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 47,859	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Dictators have no power without people. Trump is breaking laws and doing whatever he wants No he isn't. He's been stopped multiple times already by the courts. And he's certainly not doing whatever he wants with the budget, which is one of the greatest governmental powers of all.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

11th February 2020, 03:25 PM	#67
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,350	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby . Now, no more of this silliness about Trump being a dictator. Good luck with that.
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,350

11th February 2020, 03:37 PM	#68
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Well, two pages in and this thread seems to have covered everything it was going to cover. It'll be interesting to see if Page 3 contains anything new.

11th February 2020, 04:03 PM	#69
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	Originally Posted by theprestige LOL I graciously accept your concession. So, now that we established that the trappings and titles are not what makes or prevents a dictatorship, we can discuss whether living under a dictatorship is preferable to a country where every can afford to go to the doctor.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,327	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

11th February 2020, 04:07 PM	#70
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by theprestige Still not a dictatorship. But okay, let's look at that more closely. Say Bernie The Socialist* gets elected, but the GOP retains the Senate majority, and McConnnell stays on as Senate Majority leader. Do you think they'd be sniveling cowards groveling before President Sanders? If they were, would it make the Sanders Administration a dictatorship? If they don't grovel, would that be better? Is that the kind of outcome you're looking for? I remember the Senate did a pretty good job of not groveling before President Obama. Do you want more of that? Because I could totally vote for more of that. Or what about if Bernie gets elected, and the Democrats gain a Senate majority. What would you prefer, dictatorship-wise? A Senate that cooperates with the President to further his agenda? Or a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power? Futuristic Whataboutism (For use only when you don't have a logical argument).
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

11th February 2020, 04:17 PM	#71
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by Donal I graciously accept your concession. If believing I've conceded is that important to you, I support you in your expression of faith. Quote: So, now that we established that the trappings and titles are not what makes or prevents a dictatorship That was never in dispute. You're rebutting arguments nobody ever made. What you're reading as "concession" is actually "pointing and laughing at non sequiturs".

11th February 2020, 04:29 PM	#72
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,082	Originally Posted by theprestige Or what about if Bernie gets elected, and the Democrats gain a Senate majority. What would you prefer, dictatorship-wise? A Senate that cooperates with the President to further his agenda? Or a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power? On this one all you need to do is go back and look at Obama's first two years. In theory with both the house and senate the Dems should have been able to push anything they wanted through, but because the Republicans weren't even willing to deal at all, Obama had to juggle the progressives and the conservatives of the Democratic Party, and ended up making a number of compromises to get something most of his own Party would be happy with. A President Sanders would have the same issue, with some of the members of his own party not agreeing with his policies.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

11th February 2020, 04:37 PM	#73
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf On this one all you need to do is go back and look at Obama's first two years. In theory with both the house and senate the Dems should have been able to push anything they wanted through, but because the Republicans weren't even willing to deal at all, Obama had to juggle the progressives and the conservatives of the Democratic Party, and ended up making a number of compromises to get something most of his own Party would be happy with. A President Sanders would have the same issue, with some of the members of his own party not agreeing with his policies. That answers neither of the questions you quoted.

11th February 2020, 08:21 PM	#74
Crazy Chainsaw Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,465	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby LOL. The trial wasn't rigged, Trump's party has a majority in the Senate, freely elected by Americans, as was Trump, and they voted to acquit, which was predictable because there was no crime in the indictments. Now, no more of this silliness about Trump being a dictator. You mean the party that can't understand the concept of a two sided hole?

13th February 2020, 07:25 AM	#75
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,082	Originally Posted by theprestige That answers neither of the questions you quoted. It does actually. Just not the answer you like. Democrats have shown repeatedly that they will stand up to a President in their own Party if they disagree with him. As a result you get your answer, that with a Democratic Party President, you'll always see a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power, regardless of if that Senate is Democratic or Republican. The Democrats simply don't play the game the same way as the Republicans where everyone in the party has to be in lockstep or be vilified.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

13th February 2020, 07:47 AM	#76
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,490	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf It does actually. Just not the answer you like. Democrats have shown repeatedly that they will stand up to a President in their own Party if they disagree with him. As a result you get your answer, that with a Democratic Party President, you'll always see a Senate that balks at the President and serves to check his power, regardless of if that Senate is Democratic or Republican. The Democrats simply don't play the game the same way as the Republicans where everyone in the party has to be in lockstep or be vilified. I asked you a question about your preferences. If you're not telling me what you prefer, you're not answering the question.

13th February 2020, 07:58 AM	#77
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,265	If you start fighting for Democracy only after you have lost it to a Dictatorship, you obviously didn't care for democratic rule in the first place.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.