Autocratic Leaders love an Emergency: Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democracy. What happens is a security crisis typically produces a rally-round-the-f**g effect in...

rumitoid

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democracy.

What happens is a security crisis typically produces a rally-round-the-f**g effect in which p**********l approval soars. Citizens are more likely to tolerate — and even support — authoritarian power grabs when they fear for their safety. Second, security crises silence opponents, since criticism can be viewed as disloyal or unpatriotic. Finally, security crises loosen normal constitutional constraints. Fearful of putting national security at risk, judges and legislative leaders generally defer to the executive.

From Getúlio Vargas and other better-known dictators in the 1930s to Indira Gandhi and Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s and on to Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan more recently, autocratic-minded leaders have long used national emergencies — some real, some fabricated — to claim extraordinary powers. President Vargas of Brazil and President Marcos of the Philippines both did not want to relinquish power and invented a “c*******t plot” emergency to maintain their power.

Autocratic-minded leaders find democratic politics intolerably frustrating. Most lack the sk**ls or the temperament for the give-and-take of everyday politics. They are allergic to criticism and compromise. They have little patience for the intricacies of the legislative process. For would-be authoritarians, the checks and balances inherent in p**********l democracy feel like a straitjacket. The media criticism, legislative oversight and adverse court rulings leave them feeling besieged. Trump's usual demeanor and recent actions by the president raise concern.

Mr. Trump has refused to accept the failure of his border wall project. Unable to obtain the necessary v**es in Congress, the president recklessly forced a government shutdown. When that didn’t get him his wall, he moved to circumvent Congress altogether by inventing — if not yet declaring — a national emergency. In his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, he used the word “crisis” six times in eight minutes. That is how autocrats respond to legislative opposition.

Has Mr. Trump fabricated a security threat to make the case for bypassing Congress? Even if it is real, such emergencies in the hands of certain democratic leaders can be dangerous and destructive to that system of government. We can only pray that the president is not using this “border emergency” to garner extraordinary powers to rule as he likes and override the Constitution, courts, and Congress.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

rumitoid wrote:

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democracy.

What happens is a security crisis typically produces a rally-round-the-f**g effect in which p**********l approval soars. Citizens are more likely to tolerate — and even support — authoritarian power grabs when they fear for their safety. Second, security crises silence opponents, since criticism can be viewed as disloyal or unpatriotic. Finally, security crises loosen normal constitutional constraints. Fearful of putting national security at risk, judges and legislative leaders generally defer to the executive.

From Getúlio Vargas and other better-known dictators in the 1930s to Indira Gandhi and Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s and on to Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan more recently, autocratic-minded leaders have long used national emergencies — some real, some fabricated — to claim extraordinary powers. President Vargas of Brazil and President Marcos of the Philippines both did not want to relinquish power and invented a “c*******t plot” emergency to maintain their power.

Autocratic-minded leaders find democratic politics intolerably frustrating. Most lack the sk**ls or the temperament for the give-and-take of everyday politics. They are allergic to criticism and compromise. They have little patience for the intricacies of the legislative process. For would-be authoritarians, the checks and balances inherent in p**********l democracy feel like a straitjacket. The media criticism, legislative oversight and adverse court rulings leave them feeling besieged. Trump's usual demeanor and recent actions by the president raise concern.

Mr. Trump has refused to accept the failure of his border wall project. Unable to obtain the necessary v**es in Congress, the president recklessly forced a government shutdown. When that didn’t get him his wall, he moved to circumvent Congress altogether by inventing — if not yet declaring — a national emergency. In his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, he used the word “crisis” six times in eight minutes. That is how autocrats respond to legislative opposition.

Has Mr. Trump fabricated a security threat to make the case for bypassing Congress? Even if it is real, such emergencies in the hands of certain democratic leaders can be dangerous and destructive to that system of government. We can only pray that the president is not using this “border emergency” to garner extraordinary powers to rule as he likes and override the Constitution, courts, and Congress.

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democ... (show quote)

It doesn't take a genius to comprehend there is a huge emergency crisis at our border. It only takes the Progressive ideology to deny it but they've denied many other things that are obvious to most of us who know right from wrong.

Liberty Tree

rumitoid wrote:

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democracy.

What happens is a security crisis typically produces a rally-round-the-f**g effect in which p**********l approval soars. Citizens are more likely to tolerate — and even support — authoritarian power grabs when they fear for their safety. Second, security crises silence opponents, since criticism can be viewed as disloyal or unpatriotic. Finally, security crises loosen normal constitutional constraints. Fearful of putting national security at risk, judges and legislative leaders generally defer to the executive.

From Getúlio Vargas and other better-known dictators in the 1930s to Indira Gandhi and Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s and on to Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan more recently, autocratic-minded leaders have long used national emergencies — some real, some fabricated — to claim extraordinary powers. President Vargas of Brazil and President Marcos of the Philippines both did not want to relinquish power and invented a “c*******t plot” emergency to maintain their power.

Autocratic-minded leaders find democratic politics intolerably frustrating. Most lack the sk**ls or the temperament for the give-and-take of everyday politics. They are allergic to criticism and compromise. They have little patience for the intricacies of the legislative process. For would-be authoritarians, the checks and balances inherent in p**********l democracy feel like a straitjacket. The media criticism, legislative oversight and adverse court rulings leave them feeling besieged. Trump's usual demeanor and recent actions by the president raise concern.

Mr. Trump has refused to accept the failure of his border wall project. Unable to obtain the necessary v**es in Congress, the president recklessly forced a government shutdown. When that didn’t get him his wall, he moved to circumvent Congress altogether by inventing — if not yet declaring — a national emergency. In his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, he used the word “crisis” six times in eight minutes. That is how autocrats respond to legislative opposition.

Has Mr. Trump fabricated a security threat to make the case for bypassing Congress? Even if it is real, such emergencies in the hands of certain democratic leaders can be dangerous and destructive to that system of government. We can only pray that the president is not using this “border emergency” to garner extraordinary powers to rule as he likes and override the Constitution, courts, and Congress.

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democ... (show quote)

It was Obama and his henchmen who said never let a crisis go to waste as they shoved through their agenda.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

rumitoid wrote:

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democracy.

What happens is a security crisis typically produces a rally-round-the-f**g effect in which p**********l approval soars. Citizens are more likely to tolerate — and even support — authoritarian power grabs when they fear for their safety. Second, security crises silence opponents, since criticism can be viewed as disloyal or unpatriotic. Finally, security crises loosen normal constitutional constraints. Fearful of putting national security at risk, judges and legislative leaders generally defer to the executive.

From Getúlio Vargas and other better-known dictators in the 1930s to Indira Gandhi and Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s and on to Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan more recently, autocratic-minded leaders have long used national emergencies — some real, some fabricated — to claim extraordinary powers. President Vargas of Brazil and President Marcos of the Philippines both did not want to relinquish power and invented a “c*******t plot” emergency to maintain their power.

Autocratic-minded leaders find democratic politics intolerably frustrating. Most lack the sk**ls or the temperament for the give-and-take of everyday politics. They are allergic to criticism and compromise. They have little patience for the intricacies of the legislative process. For would-be authoritarians, the checks and balances inherent in p**********l democracy feel like a straitjacket. The media criticism, legislative oversight and adverse court rulings leave them feeling besieged. Trump's usual demeanor and recent actions by the president raise concern.

Mr. Trump has refused to accept the failure of his border wall project. Unable to obtain the necessary v**es in Congress, the president recklessly forced a government shutdown. When that didn’t get him his wall, he moved to circumvent Congress altogether by inventing — if not yet declaring — a national emergency. In his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, he used the word “crisis” six times in eight minutes. That is how autocrats respond to legislative opposition.

Has Mr. Trump fabricated a security threat to make the case for bypassing Congress? Even if it is real, such emergencies in the hands of certain democratic leaders can be dangerous and destructive to that system of government. We can only pray that the president is not using this “border emergency” to garner extraordinary powers to rule as he likes and override the Constitution, courts, and Congress.

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democ... (show quote)

What would you label the border situation?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

“Don’t waste a crisis”? Did that phrase/quote have usage prior to Rahm Emanuel?”

Charles Doyle of the University of Georgia, coauthor on the forthcoming Yale Book of Modern Proverbs, has found that this expression is now commonly applied to economic or diplomatic crises that can be exploited to advance political agendas, but he traced it back at least as far as 1976, when M. F. Weiner wrote an article in the journal Medical Economics entitled “Don’t Waste a Crisis — Your Patient’s or Your Own.” Weiner meant by this that a medical crisis can be used to improve aspects of personality, mental health, or lifestyle.

Eventually, the phrase worked its way into political usage, to later & famously by Mr. Emanuel.

Kevyn

rumitoid wrote:

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democracy.

What happens is a security crisis typically produces a rally-round-the-f**g effect in which p**********l approval soars. Citizens are more likely to tolerate — and even support — authoritarian power grabs when they fear for their safety. Second, security crises silence opponents, since criticism can be viewed as disloyal or unpatriotic. Finally, security crises loosen normal constitutional constraints. Fearful of putting national security at risk, judges and legislative leaders generally defer to the executive.

From Getúlio Vargas and other better-known dictators in the 1930s to Indira Gandhi and Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s and on to Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan more recently, autocratic-minded leaders have long used national emergencies — some real, some fabricated — to claim extraordinary powers. President Vargas of Brazil and President Marcos of the Philippines both did not want to relinquish power and invented a “c*******t plot” emergency to maintain their power.

Autocratic-minded leaders find democratic politics intolerably frustrating. Most lack the sk**ls or the temperament for the give-and-take of everyday politics. They are allergic to criticism and compromise. They have little patience for the intricacies of the legislative process. For would-be authoritarians, the checks and balances inherent in p**********l democracy feel like a straitjacket. The media criticism, legislative oversight and adverse court rulings leave them feeling besieged. Trump's usual demeanor and recent actions by the president raise concern.

Mr. Trump has refused to accept the failure of his border wall project. Unable to obtain the necessary v**es in Congress, the president recklessly forced a government shutdown. When that didn’t get him his wall, he moved to circumvent Congress altogether by inventing — if not yet declaring — a national emergency. In his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, he used the word “crisis” six times in eight minutes. That is how autocrats respond to legislative opposition.

Has Mr. Trump fabricated a security threat to make the case for bypassing Congress? Even if it is real, such emergencies in the hands of certain democratic leaders can be dangerous and destructive to that system of government. We can only pray that the president is not using this “border emergency” to garner extraordinary powers to rule as he likes and override the Constitution, courts, and Congress.

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democ... (show quote)

We have had real emergencies that the I***t Pumpkinfuhrer has failed the American people miserably. His response to the terrible fires that burned entire city of Paradise California to the ground was pathetic. The compassion and leadership from Trump consisted of blaming residents for not raking the forests like they do in Finland, of course no one rakes the forests in Finland but that was the best lie the moron could pull out of his ass. Even more embarrassing is the wonton neglect of the American citizens in Puerto Rico who’s island was decimated by horrible storms. The Pumpkinfuhrer and his trophy bride throwing polls of paper towels to suffering people like clowns throwing candy off a parade float was stupid beyond words. There is an emergency at our border, but not one that threatens the US it is a serious humanitarian emergency of desperate family’s fleeing unspeakable violence in nations with governments who will not and can not protect them. The solution to the emergency is generosity and compassion not gulags cages and walls.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

What would you label the border situation?

A few neighbors stopping by for a cup of coffee, and a visit?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

archie bunker wrote:

A few neighbors stopping by for a cup of coffee, and a visit?

Wonder if they would enjoy a game of tennis while they're in the neighborhood

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Wonder if they would enjoy a game of tennis while they're in the neighborhood

I would certainly indulge them!

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Kevyn wrote:

We have had real emergencies that the I***t Pumpki... (show quote)

My understanding of Trump's criticism was in the removal of deadfall and underbrush which always causes extreme fire hazards. California was not practicing good forest management; probably still isn't. I suspect it was because of the cost. But why should you not take an opportunity to "blame Trump" at any opportunity that presents itself?

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

rumitoid wrote:

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democracy.

What happens is a security crisis typically produces a rally-round-the-f**g effect in which p**********l approval soars. Citizens are more likely to tolerate — and even support — authoritarian power grabs when they fear for their safety. Second, security crises silence opponents, since criticism can be viewed as disloyal or unpatriotic. Finally, security crises loosen normal constitutional constraints. Fearful of putting national security at risk, judges and legislative leaders generally defer to the executive.

From Getúlio Vargas and other better-known dictators in the 1930s to Indira Gandhi and Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s and on to Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan more recently, autocratic-minded leaders have long used national emergencies — some real, some fabricated — to claim extraordinary powers. President Vargas of Brazil and President Marcos of the Philippines both did not want to relinquish power and invented a “c*******t plot” emergency to maintain their power.

Autocratic-minded leaders find democratic politics intolerably frustrating. Most lack the sk**ls or the temperament for the give-and-take of everyday politics. They are allergic to criticism and compromise. They have little patience for the intricacies of the legislative process. For would-be authoritarians, the checks and balances inherent in p**********l democracy feel like a straitjacket. The media criticism, legislative oversight and adverse court rulings leave them feeling besieged. Trump's usual demeanor and recent actions by the president raise concern.

Mr. Trump has refused to accept the failure of his border wall project. Unable to obtain the necessary v**es in Congress, the president recklessly forced a government shutdown. When that didn’t get him his wall, he moved to circumvent Congress altogether by inventing — if not yet declaring — a national emergency. In his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, he used the word “crisis” six times in eight minutes. That is how autocrats respond to legislative opposition.

Has Mr. Trump fabricated a security threat to make the case for bypassing Congress? Even if it is real, such emergencies in the hands of certain democratic leaders can be dangerous and destructive to that system of government. We can only pray that the president is not using this “border emergency” to garner extraordinary powers to rule as he likes and override the Constitution, courts, and Congress.

Crises are a time-tested means of subverting democ... (show quote)

Why dont you listen what Border Patrol Agents been saying before accusing President Trump as you usually do!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsB7iHIpESU

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Kevyn wrote:

We have had real emergencies that the I***t Pumpki... (show quote)

President Trump gave financial help to California during these fires,but being a Rat that you are you refused to see it!!!

rumitoid

proud republican wrote:

Why dont you listen what Border Patrol Agents been saying before accusing President Trump as you usually do!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsB7iHIpESU

I didn't accuse Trump. Please reread what I said.

Kevyn

padremike wrote:

My understanding of Trump's criticism was in the removal of deadfall and underbrush which always causes extreme fire hazards. California was not practicing good forest management; probably still isn't. I suspect it was because of the cost. But why should you not take an opportunity to "blame Trump" at any opportunity that presents itself?

No, Trump very specifically said that Finland did not have wildfires because they rake the forest. It was just another of his lies not any understanding of forest management; which by the way is primarily the role of the Federal government not the state of California.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Kevyn wrote:

No, Trump very specifically said that Finland did not have wildfires because they rake the forest. It was just another of his lies not any understanding of forest management; which by the way is primarily the role of the Federal government not the state of California.

He knew enough to know the deadfall and scrub has to be managed in the forest so our New York City raised President called it "rake" and Obama didn't know how to pronounce "corps" when he was Commander-In-Chief and there were 57 states when he was running for president. Sometimes the most literate even make malaprops.