Isn't Trump, the evidence that America can become Tyrannical at any moment?

[waiguoren]

@Jack V Savage

You liked the OP? This demands an explanation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage

You liked the OP? This demands an explanation.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe the request for an explanation can be explained?

 

[waiguoren]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe the request for an explanation can be explained?

The OP mentioned that liberals should own AR-15s. Didn't think you were in that camp.

Also the OP is way loonier than most of the stuff I usually see you "like".

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Read It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis.

Read It.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The OP mentioned that liberals should own AR-15s. Didn't think you were in that camp.

Also the OP is way loonier than most of the stuff I usually see you "like".

I didn't really care about the throw-away line at the end. Liberals probably should own more guns anyway.

What did you think was loony?

 

[Quequeg]

Read It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis.

Read It.

Something about Fascism coming wearing a cross and wrapped in the flag, seems pretty accurate.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Goddamn, I don't know that I agree with their message (because...is there really one?). But it really is impressive that kids are getting involved at that age now.
...

I see it as the opposite. Kids need to be kids and not get involved with stuff like that because invariably they are not doing it based on critical thought and typically they are just following what they think is popular or are being manipulated (most by the left) with appeals to emotion devoid of content and context.

 

[sub_thug]

If this is what it takes for people to finally start respecting a Constitutionally-protected freedom, giving it the same treatment as any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights, then sure. Why not?

 

[waiguoren]

I didn't really care about the throw-away line at the end. Liberals probably should own more guns anyway.

What did you think was loony?

Why should liberals own more guns? Surprised to see you say that.

The entire premise is loony. I think the anti-Trump crowd is dramatically overestimating the percentage of Trump supporters who are thinking as cult members.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No, he isn't. Your "proof" is prejudicial notion s about the half of the country that you disagree with.

I think it is fair to say that Trump's rule has shown that voters will put aside the historical and typical rule of law concerns in favour of partisan support for their leader.

In the past any serious transgression by a leader would see the base support collapse and, at a minimum removal from office. I do not think there is any amount of evidence or proof that could be put forth against Trump or even any conviction that he could not dismiss as fake news and that his base would not accept thusly.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why should liberals own more guns? Surprised to see you say that.

I think it would change the nature of the gun-violence discussion in the country in a positive way (on both sides).

The entire premise is loony. I think the anti-Trump crowd is dramatically overestimating the percentage of Trump supporters who are thinking as cult members.

Could be, as they're probably wildly disproportionate here. But Trump is still disturbingly popular among self-identified Republicans, and few in Congress have shown a willingness to put the country before their short-term career interests. I think three years ago, a lot of what we've seen would be pretty hard to imagine, and most liberals would have expected more honor in the face of it than we've actually seen (it's still kind of shocking to see people overlook massive corruption). Rather than reversing, the disconnection from reality on the right is accelerating.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

" shut up redneck , the government is a benevolent force for good and always will be.......oh, and the guy running it along with roughly half of the people that compose it are clinically diagnosable psychopaths with double digit iq's"

An interesting take no doubt.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I think it is fair to say that Trump's rule has shown that voters will put aside the historical and typical rule of law concerns in favour of partisan support for their leader.

I don't think that is fair at all to say. Trump has not been much of a threat to rule of law at all. He's been willing to be bounded by Congress and the courts to a much greater extent than his most recent predecessors.

He has used executive orders to undo many of Obama's executive orders, but he hasn't used them to undermine Congress or to enter into international agreements without Congressional consent. And we've seen some of his national policies thwarted by low level judges in remote jurisdictions. Perhaps if Democrats gain control of one or both Houses this fall we will see how Trump acts when facing a more powerful opposition, but as of now, there is scant reason to call Trump a threat to rule of law.

 

[waiguoren]

Trump is still disturbingly popular among self-identified Republicans, and few in Congress have shown a willingness to put the country before their short-term career interests.

For the voters, why wouldn't they? Trump is delivering what they want on almost every issue.

As for Congress, the main ideological disagreements are over immigration and trade. Some of them have been primaried. Others are probably more interested in re-election than in ideology. Either way, to say their behavior reflects a cult mentality is a big stretch.

I think three years ago, a lot of what we've seen would be pretty hard to imagine, and most liberals would have expected more honor in the face of it than we've actually seen (it's still kind of shocking to see people overlook massive corruption). Rather than reversing, the disconnection from reality on the right is accelerating.

I disagree. Also, what massive corruption?

 

[MikeMcMann]

I don't think that is fair at all to say. Trump has not been much of a threat to rule of law at all. He's been willing to be bounded by Congress and the courts to a much greater extent than his most recent predecessors.

He has used executive orders to undo many of Obama's executive orders, but he hasn't used them to undermine Congress or to enter into international agreements without Congressional consent. And we've seen some of his national policies thwarted by low level judges in remote jurisdictions. Perhaps if Democrats gain control of one or both Houses this fall we will see how Trump acts when facing a more powerful opposition, but as of now, there is scant reason to call Trump a threat to rule of law.

I am not so much speaking of Trump but rather what we see in the partisan support base.

I have very little doubt that regardless of outcome of the Russia investigation that if Trump declares is fake news (and maybe he won't even have to be the one to say it) his base will line up in partisan support and be ready to justify any defiance.

I think we have crossed that rubicon and truly the base does not care one iota about the accusations or whatever merit may behind it. They have taken a side and that is all that matters.

That type of following may not be dangerous with Trump but it certainly could be in the future with the wrong leader.

 

[Jack V Savage]

For the voters, why wouldn't they? Trump is delivering what they want on almost every issue.

I disagree. Also, what massive corruption?

. OK, I think I'm talking to one of the people who are willing to put aside values in the name of partisanship.

Pruitt and Ross alone would have sunk any previous president.

 

[Fawlty]

Liberals probably should own more guns anyway.

I only agree on game theoretical terms.

But oh how tunes would change if "the left" started their own NRA to arm themselves to the teeth against the threat of "right wing extremists."

 

[Andy Capp]

No. Trump is evidence that Americans will eat up empty rhetoric and is far more divided than they were willing to admit previously. But nothing about Trump is tyrannical.

Nothing?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I am not so much speaking of Trump but rather what we see in the partisan support base.

I have very little doubt that regardless of outcome of the Russia investigation that if Trump declares is fake news (and maybe he won't even have to be the one to say it) his base will line up in partisan support and be ready to justify any defiance.

I think we have crossed that rubicon and truly the base does not care one iota about the accusations or whatever merit may behind it. They have taken a side and that is all that matters.

That type of following may not be dangerous with Trump but it certainly could be in the future with the wrong leader.

I think the amount of support he gets from his partisan base is overblown, and is mainly a result of dismay at the waning of partisan media influence over mainstream views. It's not particularly stronger than Obama's for example, who was seen as nearly messianic in some quarters. Also, the existence of passionate resistance and criticism of Trump from the right had no strong analogue on the left during Obama's tenure. Which major left wing periodicals were consistently opposed to Obama's policies? Today we see a fractured right wing, in much of which support for the president is tepid at best. Trump's electoral victory also relied heavily on traditional Democrat voters in Midwestern states, and I don't think they are giving Trump a very long leash at all, as he may discover if he decides to run again in 2020.

 

[Ortegoat]

Nerd tears are the best. #nerdbash2018