Would Americans ever elect a dictator as president

celery wrote:

I don't understand why leftist want activist judges. How do they not realize that giving judges the power to reinterpret laws according to their own preferences, ends up taking power away from the people? They balk at the appointment of conservative judges, when these are the judges that leave legislative power in the hands of the legislature. And they say we're the stupid ones. It would be comical if our freedom wasn't at stake.

Mark Steyn summed it up on judges:

Can't Stump the Trump wrote:

celery wrote:

I don't understand why leftist want activist judges. How do they not realize that giving judges the power to reinterpret laws according to their own preferences, ends up taking power away from the people? They balk at the appointment of conservative judges, when these are the judges that leave legislative power in the hands of the legislature. And they say we're the stupid ones. It would be comical if our freedom wasn't at stake.

Mark Steyn summed it up on judges:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lN5uvmEN3I

Agreed

For you dumb Democrats, Mark says its evil that Judges are 1 man Legislatures.

But if you are a Democrat, you probably dont know what Legislature means.

Trump_fan wrote:

Can't Stump the Trump wrote:

Mark Steyn summed it up on judges:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lN5uvmEN3I

Agreed

For you dumb Democrats, Mark says its evil that Judges are 1 man Legislatures.

But if you are a Democrat, you probably dont know what Legislature means.

When Obamer was Prez

In Arizona they said

Governor cant protect border

Now they say

President of the United States cant protect border.

No Logic

No reasoning

No rationale

So to dumb Democrat communists no one can or should protect the Borders

All other countries in the World protect their borders

Every background source on the state and competency of President Trump has claimed that he is unfit for office, showing signs of deep mental instability, and has no clue what's going on half of the time. You are absolutely delusion and have no idea what makes a great president or a great country.

Can't Stump the Trump wrote:

Mark Steyn summed it up on judges:

Bzzzzt. Go back to your high school poli-sci class. The judiciary is one of three branches of government.

Pretending that Gorsuch isn't an "activist" is more dishonest, fascist, rhetoric.

celery wrote:

Yes the conservatives interpret the constitution better. They understand that language is rooted in a historical context.

Last time I looked, we aren't trapped in a fixed point in time. Do you have a blog? Maybe a podcast? I want to know more.

EarthGuardian wrote:

Bernie Sanders might be a good dictator. He seems like he wants to help people. He doesn't seem like he's just in it for the power like the other Democrat favorites for 2020 listed in this article. Plus, he got cheated by Hillary, so to be fair Bernie should get another chance.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/361607-how-dem-insiders-rank-the-2020-contenders

Bernie would fail miserably as a dictator. A man with his principles would never be able control the masses the way successful dictators need to.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Bernie would fail miserably as a dictator. A man with his principles would never be able control the masses the way successful dictators need to.

Crazy Bernie praised dictator Fidel Castro among others!

Not really.

Taters wrote:

Lincoln and FDR have been the closest the U.S. has come to having a dictator but I still wouldn't really consider either to be a dictator. With hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms, the U.S. isn't ever likely to have a dictator for long even if one managed to get elected.

I find it astounding that any adult sees privately owned firearms as any sort of prevention against a dictatorship. You think those weapons would amount to much against the US military if it was ever to get behind an authoritarian leader? And setting aside an outright conflict of that nature for a moment; consider what is being done now by the cooperation between the sitting president and a very small cabal of corporate leaders to wrest control of our commerce and communications system from the American people. What effect are all your guns having on that form of coup d'etat?

The U.S.A. does not require a traditional dictator to achieve plutocracy. The 1% already have effective control. The concentration of wealth and the influence of corporations on Congress is sufficient to keep both parties flush with cash even as they spar for the upper hand in each branch of the Federal Government. It is less like a "democracy" than a medieval contest between different family systems, such as the Plantagenets and the Capetains in pre-Modern England. The trick for each faction in a struggle of this kind is maintaining just enough trickle down to those who have a stake but no real power--in other words preventing a rebellion while securing the upper hand in the dynastic struggle. This is done by sharing a tiny bit of wealth with those thought to be your supporters, and maintaining just enough plausibility in the system that mass of folks who could potentially rebel feel "buy in". The Democratic and Republican parties are both controlled by elites and they have different governing strategies--but both wish to maintain a system where the 1% of the super wealthy are in control. The topsy turvy aspect of the present is that the Democrats and Republicans different approaches to this status quo are causing more friction than used to be the case. It's a bit like what used to be sparring with gloves is now a bare-fisted fight, one which risks serious injury to both parties. Personally, as a life-long but former Democrat, I have just given up. Neither party even pretends to be offering a vision for all Americans. It's all about stoking up your base with no pretense of common ground. The common space is a combat zone, figuratively and literally.

Fentrekker wrote:

I find it astounding that any adult sees privately owned firearms as any sort of prevention against a dictatorship. You think those weapons would amount to much against the US military

Or, even a medium-sized city police department.

The motivation for this gun fantasy is to combat (see what I did there?) the sense of powerlessness. I would argue the gun lobby is uniquely qualified to exploit this fear, and others.

Fentrekker wrote: It's all about stoking up your base with no pretense of common ground. The common space is a combat zone, figuratively and literally.

I would argue the common space has been weaponized.

In theory, voters could legislate for industrial and labor policy that is much more friendly to the average person. It's been done several times in American history. It's how we got the 40-hour work week. The capitalists threatened that it would be "The end of America." because "No work would get done."

I'm not sure why so many are so committed to freely giving so much to the already powerful, and making their own lives more difficult. It's certainly has been the case for decades. They are polluting this thread with utterly false claims that only make their lives harder.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Fentrekker wrote: It's all about stoking up your base with no pretense of common ground. The common space is a combat zone, figuratively and literally.

I would argue the common space has been weaponized.

In theory, voters could legislate for industrial and labor policy that is much more friendly to the average person. It's been done several times in American history. It's how we got the 40-hour work week. The capitalists threatened that it would be "The end of America." because "No work would get done."

I'm not sure why so many are so committed to freely giving so much to the already powerful, and making their own lives more difficult. It's certainly has been the case for decades. They are polluting this thread with utterly false claims that only make their lives harder.

Good point about the 40-hour work week. It was indeed understood by both the wealthy and many conservatives of modest means to be a sign of the end of the nation. Alas for them, the country prospered, for a time. Similar claims were made about women voting and the end of slavery.

The U.S. military would stand no chance whatsoever against a full-scale insurgency. An American guerilla war involving tens of millions of armed citizens is not a war the military in the U.S. is designed to fight. People who have been in the U.S. military and have fought that type of war abroad agree with me. Military experts whose job it is to think about such things agree with me. You're very foolish if you think otherwise.

You're spouting nonsense.

There are a few people in Congress that have too much power. They keep getting reelected.

My reply was referencing his post just prior to the one you appear to think I was replying to. I don't have much disagreement with his second post or with yours.

Taters wrote:

The U.S. military would stand no chance whatsoever against a full-scale insurgency. An American guerilla war involving tens of millions of armed citizens is not a war the military in the U.S. is designed to fight. People who have been in the U.S. military and have fought that type of war abroad agree with me. Military experts whose job it is to think about such things agree with me. You're very foolish if you think otherwise.

Keep drinking your Koolaide.