I’ll read Tommy c. I don’t bother with cosmic
Trump can't be a dictator in 4 years
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
Really! You’re such a dumbass. Just look at the left and what they done in less than 4 years to this country. You Democrats are pisses of shit who only wants control over everything. That’s why you’re doing everything to try to prevent him from running. It’s just ****ing funny how dumb leftist assholes are that didn’t want any part of the Hunter Biden laptop and tried saying there’s nothing to it and all the kickbacks the senile old jackass Joe has received from China. You ****ing idiots need to get your head out of Joe’s ass and wake up. Democrats= LOSERS!!!!!!!
Um what’s your other name? You’re a real piece of work,
Can I offer a reframe/alternative?
Trump's policies from his first term as President didn't threaten democracy. His actions and attitudes that got him impeached the first time and his calling of the GA Sec of State are questionable, though. Proving his intent is difficult, but we don't want Presidents doing that. I'm not sure you could say that "threatened democracy," though.
His losing and throwing a tantrum about it were awful. His questioning of the election, calling poll workers, judges, FBI, DOJ, etc. corrupt, lying, and against him were the worst for our democratic culture. THOSE kinds of statements, when believed, corrode democracy. Dems should spend time and effort proving our electoral system is not corrupt and that it works pretty damn well. They should also strengthen protections to further prove they support election integrity and have zero interest in undermining it.
Politically, Dems: fight for your values. Try to pass the legislation you want to pass to make the nation better in the way you think. Those are your ends. But when you use or engage in questionable means, you, too, corrode our political culture. Demonizing opponents, "obstructionism," etc. even if legal are corrosive. Two wrongs do not make a right, here. It only further corrodes the system.
Both parties have done this: using Executive Orders (and maybe even some agency rule making under Chevron deference) to make law that should have been decided by the legislature; planning and executing legal cases to get the SCt. to create new constitutional rights or strike down age-old precedent; attacking SCt. nominees in a bid to garner votes or stop their appointment; slowing or not hearing fed ct appointments. This isn't an exhaustive list.
It's way past time the general public punishes politicians who engage in these tactics, even if those politicians hold their political views. If that doesn't happen (and at this point I don't think it will, based on posts like yours and the continued support of Trump among the majority of Republican voters and the lack of criticism of Biden by Dems for his actions), we can't effectively govern ourselves and our dysfunctional political culture is going to destroy us.
Or maybe I'm catastrophizing, and this is just a hot spot in political disagreement, like the 1850s, 1910s-20s, and 1960s and we will revert to a new normal at some point.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I think it could easily be argued that undermining people's trust in our elections is a threat to democracy. Putting Trump in office at the very least gives him a bigger stage to continue undermining that trust. And do you think he will surround himself with people that put country before Trump or do you think he will surround himself with people that don't care about safeguards and are just "Yes sir, Trump whatever you say sir"
I don't think dems are against valid safe guards to protect elections. They are against the targeted wiping out of voter registrations, requirements designed to create more hurdles without addressing an issue and having less polling locations per capita in big cities (using long lines as a deterrent).
are you saying any executive orders should be criticized by the general public? Nothing would get done without them at this point because congress politicizes everything and won't give the other party a "win". Exhibit 1: Look at what the GOP in the house are currently doing with the border and aid bill. Executive orders are increasing because congress dysfunction is increasing.
I'm not going to criticize anyone simply for using Executive Orders in the current environment. I will criticize if I think the Executive Order is wrong.
I've long argued that Executive Orders are out of control. I don't know what the Constitution allows, but I find it hard to believe It's allows such far-reaching EOs as are being made today.
Didn’t our president use a manufactured state of emergency to force vaccines on millions of people, wipe out student loan debt and not allow landlords to collect rent?Given he has a state of emergency that allows him to rule by decree totally bypassing the legislature, I'm not sure what else to call it. What is missing from being a dictatorship?
Hungary’s Orban Dials Dictatorship Up a Notch
Budapest’s faux state of emergency is meant to appease Putin and cement Orban’s hold on power.foreignpolicy.com
Did his campaign not collude with tech companies to suppress news?
Open your damn eyes Marv. This administration is far more authoritarian than Orban could ever hope to be. I think we agree that the checks and balances of the American government have for the most part prevented Biden from following through on his worst authoritarian impulses.
I am not sure, wasn't it Trump that blocked eviction for nonpayment of rent? Wasn't it Trump that halted student loan repayment?
True dat. To the extent Covid was a crisis requiring federal government power grabs (it definitely was not) I suppose you could argue that the crisis was more acute when Trump was in office and that such actions were more understandable. A rational person looks at Biden’s actions and has to admit that they were motivated solely by the desire to consolidate power.
My point being that this bitchy progressive schtick of referring to every international right wing leader (Bolsonaro, Duda, Orban, Milei) as somehow dictatorial is ignorant progressive tripe. You should be above it. The progressive left today wipes their ass with liberalism. To suggest otherwise is completely asinine.
Last edited:
Brad: thoughts on this because this isn't the first time he's said presidents should have total immunity
Former President Trump: Presidents Should Be Granted "Total Immunity"
Amid his several indictments, 2024 Republican presidential candidate former President Trump says presidents should be entitled to "total immunity," saying that presidents would be impotent without this legal privilege. He also says that he hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court has the courage to...
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Brad: thoughts on this because this isn't the first time he's said presidents should have total immunity
Former President Trump: Presidents Should Be Granted "Total Immunity"
Amid his several indictments, 2024 Republican presidential candidate former President Trump says presidents should be entitled to "total immunity," saying that presidents would be impotent without this legal privilege. He also says that he hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court has the courage to...www.c-span.org
Sounds like a great idea. Biden should just fly to Mar-a-lago and finish this once and for all.....Total immunity after all. lol
(kidding of course)
Brad always appreciate your discourse. Thank you for reading my post.
I'm trying to make a ton of points, and horribly at that.
Main one was just to reply to Marv getting angry at an obstructionist mindset. Reminding him it is a key strategy spearheaded by Newt in the 90's. That's were it all changed. You see it in the numbers... filibustering is way up which leads to insane amounts of executive orders because everyone is blocking everyone, government shutdowns, debt limit standoffs, every SCOTUS being an apocalyptical event (to the point that not only were pubs going to block Garland for a year, Cruz said if Hillary won they'll block for four more)....that comes from the intentional lack of democratic governing. An obstructionist strategy.
Which works beautifully if one side is mainly doing it. Like having a gun. It works well if you're the only one with a gun....when both have one it likely leads to the worst escalation.
The other point is an internal party one. Dem extremes are getting louder and our numbers are getting larger but we seem to be more concerned with compromise than fighting for our base first, than compromising. That makes sense for a 'democratic government' as it means you're negotiating in decent faith and respect the negotiation and the rival. We have tended to tell the far left 'hey, you're way too extreme so you've gotta give up your positions in the name of compromise. You're going to freak out the undecideds and those on the right who want to compromise so you have to give way.
I'm pondering that instead of almost always siding right, does it make more sense to embrace the left and fight harder for them (IGW is tilting right now) because that probably stands a much better chance to strengthen our position and leverage while invigorating the party.
Something simple like fighting like hell to ensure voting rights are protected...and coming down hard when anyone challenges it. Fight that battle along with the rampant gerrymandering and overturn citizens united and that will do 1000 times more for Dems than trying to get a swath of people who have been convinced that Dems are a bunch of evil, anti American, baby blood drinking pedophiles to 'compromise'.
Poor Sen Langford (or is it Langston?), doing the work and getting a bi partisan border deal done only to be censured by his party for working with Dems on a bi partisan deal.
Which leads me to my one rebuttal of your post. I strongly disagree that Dems need to put energy into trying to convince the pubs that elections are secure when given an opportunity to prove it have come up with nothing, basically laughed out of courts.
I just keep reminding them that voting isn't like the 1985 all star game where you can get a stack of blank ballots to stuff it with votes for Jody Davis (like I did)....you have to register and be a citizen to vote. It's really hard to create a registered person out of thin air.
That's the minimum I'll ever do. It's not my responsibility to chase every dumb rabbit down the hole they throw out there.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
And even if you did, this board has shown that they wouldn't believe it anyway. You could have the rabbit's head on a pike and 2 lucky rabbits feet and they would say you didn't catch the rabbit.
Look at Jan 6 committee for example. The committee (which had a couple conservatives with a spine) had conservative witness after conservative witness come forth to testify and MAGA and most conservatives were like "that's just liberal theatre overexaggerating the actions of a few tourists."
Voting rights? Gerrymandering? Are you a complete moron? You sounds like a complete god damn moron. Idiot.
What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State
An updating tracker of proposed congressional maps — and whether they might benefit Democrats or Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections and beyond
Democrats picked up a net of six house seats with 2022 gerrymandering. How are they going to be the ones to push progress on that issue? You are completely ****ing clueless.
Voting rights? Gerrymandering? Are you a complete moron? You sounds like a complete god damn moron. Idiot.
What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State
An updating tracker of proposed congressional maps — and whether they might benefit Democrats or Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections and beyondprojects.fivethirtyeight.com
Democrats picked up a net of six house seats with 2022 gerrymandering. How are they going to be the ones to push progress on that issue? You are completely ****ing clueless.
And you picked up six from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Louisiana and Utah clownass.
Gerrymandering overwhelmingly has been used to give distorted and inaccurate representation. That's not even debatable.
That's the game until it's not. I would gladly take the drawing of electoral maps away from secretaries of states and give to an arbitrary or bi partisan committee and come out miles ahead of where we are now.....and you know that ya f#$kin cheater.
That is not a response. On net, Democrats gerrymandered worse that Republicans last cycle. That much is undeniable. Yet you think fixing it should be a Democratic Party position?
You are completely clueless. You literally know nothing. Yet you post shit anyway.
That kind of hubris is abominable.
And no I don’t want want the ministry of truth drawing the maps. Leave it to the state legislatures as they should be given first and highest priority of how they’re represented in Washington.
You just admitted you don't want accurate representation, you want loaded representation in your favor because we both know most people hate your f#$ked up, mean spirited views and that's the only way you can win.
We both know if we draw accurate maps that I'll win overwhelmingly so yeah, that's a fight Dems need to strongly go after.
I don’t believe elected representation being needs to be perfectly proportional to the popular vote, no I don’t. Neither did the founders. Neither does anyone with an ounce of common sense and an understanding of a Republic.
I live in Illinois. The 45% of this state that are Republicans are completely neutered. No representation. It’s not a problem with Illinois elections laws, it’s a problem with me not leaving.
You need to get the **** out of this country if you’re to going to advocate for as much. You’re an anti-American piece of shit that doesn’t understand our governmental structure.
And you're a rapist...a rapist of democracy. A rapist of other's rights. You attempt to steal representation from others. That's as anti American and low life as a person can get.
What you said is just f#$king stupid. Representative government is the attempt to properly represent the populous. It's an organizing method. It's not supposed to be weighted in favor of one group because they are 'more special' than the other.
That's sub dumb, which is lower than dumb.
I put very little stock, faith or value in the American Federal government. The fact that you attribute and acquiesce so much power to it is exactly the problem. Your are what is wrong with America.
Presidents already have a ton of immunity (along with Congress, judges, prosecutors and a lot of government workers). Trump's immunity only covers his presidential actions, though, and he wants to do anything he wants, like be a dictator if he returns to office.Brad: thoughts on this because this isn't the first time he's said presidents should have total immunity
Former President Trump: Presidents Should Be Granted "Total Immunity"
Amid his several indictments, 2024 Republican presidential candidate former President Trump says presidents should be entitled to "total immunity," saying that presidents would be impotent without this legal privilege. He also says that he hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court has the courage to...
Trump's immunity comments look bad for him because, if he got the immunity he's really asking for, nothing would restrain him. He's already told us what he intends to do.
If he doesn't mean to be a dictator, how do those words come out of his mouth?
You are talking about someone else and hubris? Literally the funniest thing I’ve seen on here. From the guy who thinks he’s the absolute expert on everything for some reason and dismisses anyone’s opinion as idiotic that disagrees with him. That’s rich. Really rich. Your self awareness is a bit lacking. And your hyperbole. Abominable? Seriously? . You’ll grow up one of these days.
JFC. This isn't breaking news. It's just clerical work. What is wrong with you people.
You’d think an “attorney” might understand that.
45%?
I don't think a Republican has done better than 40% in a POTUS election in Illinois for decades.
Both parties gerrymander aggressively as they can get away with. Doesn't mean it is a good thing for the country to have only like 40 competitive House races out of 435. And of course the state legislatures are just as bad, if not worse.
I wonder what the House would look like if we got rid of single-member districts. Elect an entire slate state-wide. Do you think the majority party would sweep most states, or would independents be powerful enough to muck things up?
Thank God the two of us can put our faith in the much more reasonable, intelligent, and wise Illinois state government.
At the rate this country is going, Trump will certainly need a third term to fix Biden's turd of a term!!
lmao Thomas later said he had no idea what Biden was talking about. Joe was no more intelligible then than he is now.
Oh for sure. This low gas, record breaking stock market, record low unemployment is just awful!
Ah, so it wasn't his fault when the stock market was sinking and gas was over $4, but now you credit him for it.
The only reason gas is low is because Iran is supplying China with oil. If we take out Iran's oil production and China has to buy on the open market, oil will go up, along with gas prices.
Probably the reason Joe won't hurt Iran in any significant way.
If that were proven to be true, I'd vote for Tr...Tru...Trump.
Shit, now my fingers ache.
I heard that posited as an explanation and it makes all kinds of sense why the Administration is acting the way it is. That, and they don't want Trump's prediction of WWIII if Biden was elected to come true.
