Rose42

Because it speaks to how some of you people take things and just run with them with no thought. I don’t want trump to run either but I don’t take anything said about him at face value and I remember to take into consideration he has often said things to push people’s buttons. That is something he’s good at

NotMAGA Loc: Upstate NY - in a very red county

👍👍👍Agreed
Randy doesn't care for logical arguments, from someone conveying them straightup. 😊

TJKMO Loc: Bicycle Heaven

I claim we do not know what the future holds.

But the word DICTATOR should NEVER be uttered by anyone seeking the Presidency.

Trump’s Purge of the RNC should be a foreboding sign to all.

NotMAGA Loc: Upstate NY - in a very red county

He absolutely does say things to push buttons - what's red meat to the MAGA side is usually anathema to the rest of us - including most of the rest of the civilized world governments.

NotMAGA Loc: Upstate NY - in a very red county

👍
Yes, yes and yes.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Of course he does. He only ignores Democrat 'traditions' and Democrat hurt feelings. It is Biden who continues to defy the SCOTUS and ignore the Constitution.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Yes, she did. And yes they should. it is all political, is it not?

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I am just making an example of taking things out of context, which is exactly what TJ has been doing during this entire thread. I admit my efforts are not working. TJ seems to have a low thresh hold when it comes to understanding the truth.
The answer is that what Trump said does not equate to proclaiming, promising, or declaring that he will ever become a dictator.
You and TJ and others are simply trying to distort what Trump ACTUALLY said into such a false declaration, and telling it to people too stupid to read and understand his words. Just another lie and hoax.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Looks like my point went over your head, too, NotMaga. Not much of a surprise. Refer to my answer to Straightup, and do your best to conceal your embarrassment. when the light dawns.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Actually, it is a sign of hope to conservatives and others who love our country.
Shall we count up the number of times Biden has used the word "dictator" in his speeches and other comments?
I do not base my vote on words. I base it on policies and how they work for or against American citizens.
Weigh your choice on words and speculation if you want to. I will base mine on actual results.
Anyone else who does that will certainly vote for Trump.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Oh, that is complete horse poop, NotMaga. Pushing buttons and terrifying their voters is the Democrat's bread and butter, and has been for over a century. "Anathema to the rest of us". Good grief. What a complete and utter lie.

TJKMO Loc: Bicycle Heaven

No.
It is all about a Democratic Republic and the future of America as such.

straightUp Loc: California

So, if I'm reading you correctly, you are actually saying that dictatorship is OK for some things. Well, it doesn't work that way, Sparky. Like it or not, the US *IS* a representative democracy, where the border and climate change are hotly contested issues.

The majority of Americans ARE concerned about immigrants entering illegally but also oppose the idea that we should close the border entirely. The majority of Americans are also concerned about climate change and are very aware that carbon-based energy companies are among the biggest contributors to that problem.

So, saying that you're going to be a dictator only on these issues is STILL a direct dismissal of the American majority in both cases. And saying that you can't call someone a dictator if he's only a dictator about two issues, is like saying you can't call someone a rapist for only raping two women.


I'm sure everyone here knows this, but the problem is that it hits too close to reality because in his four years in office, Trump has proven to be unwilling to consider the views of anyone but himself and those that he agrees with. This is why he relied so much on executive orders to make things happen because with executive orders there is no due process... there is no debate and no need for consensus. The president simply dictates an order. The only reason why our system allows it is because executive orders are not actually laws. They are policies that only apply to the executive branch.


Since when has there EVER been legal context for dictatorship? Did the Weimar Republic have a legal provision for a chancellor to become a dictator? No? Did it happen anyway? Yes?


I agree that he would be stopped by Congress according to the Constitution. Unless conservative Americans gain a two thirds majority in which case, he would be confronted with millions of liberals with tens of millions of firearms.

Funny how you think because liberals want gun control, you automatically assume they don't own guns. There's a long history of wars between left and right starting with the French Revolution and as far as I can tell, the left always wins. The last time it was WW2 when right-wing fascists lost the battle against left-wing democracies.


There's no actual way of proving what leaders dream about, but I'm sure you're right. But I don't remember any other president actually verbalizing it in public. Trump is the only president to "joke" about it and he's probably the first president in over a generation to give people reason to think he might be serious.


It's speculation based on past behaviors.


You keep saying that but I never see you pointing out any evidence or even being specific enough to mention what part of the Constitution or what opinions of the SCOTUS he is actually violating.

Also, just in case you forgot... you folks said the same thing about Obama, Clinton and even Carter.


It does. I recently posted a response to Parky who challenged someone to bring up specifics on how Trump can be described as "authoritarian" and I went into detail about his inclination to avoid opposition in matters in which due process demands consensus.

I have also recently brought up his dismissal of the Palestinian interest in his so-called "peace deal" and his dismissal of the provisional Afghani government in his surrender to the Taliban.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Trump is trying to be a dictator. I am convinced that these dismissals are a sign of weakness. Trump is a really bad negotiator which is why he always had to lie about things like property value to compensate when making real-estate deals.

As a businessman, he is used to having more control over decisions because in the private sector, people generally don't argue with the boss. But democratic governments are different. This is why I insist that the notion that a government should be run like a business is a really stupid idea that exposes the ignorance of the person making that claim.

Trump never passed a significant bi-partisan bill into law because he simply doesn't have the strength or the ability to negotiate an open field of conflict. In contrast, Biden passed the bi-partisan infrastructure bill in his second year.

It's the same in foreign policy... As much as you folks want to believe the Iran deal was "bad" Obama actually got the entire European Union, Russia, China AND Iran to sign on. That's because Obama was really good at negotiating an open field of conflict. Trump was never able to replace it like he initially said he was going to because unless he can make the decision by himself he is useless. Not to mention the fact that none of the leaders in those other countries had any respect for him.

He hated the multilateral conferences, because when he was only one of many participants it became really obvious how underqualified he is. I still remember when all the leaders at the EU laughed at him. I mean they actually laughed at him, I saw the video. Trump always tried to push for bilateral agreements because in a one on one situation it would be more common for the other side to be polite and ignore his stupidity.

Trump's record on multilateral agreements and bi-partisan legislation is abysmal and his tendency to avoid them was very noticeable. If he were to return to office we can certainly expect more of the same.

So what I am saying here is that it's not through his ambitions that we are concerned that he will be a dictator but through his weakness and his inability to function as a truly democratic leader.

Rose42

If he really wanted to be a dictator and there was this huge cult behind him as many of you claim, then why did he not do far more to get there? He could have but didn’t.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

During his first term he was restrained by adults in the room.

During his first temp he needed to win a second election.

During his second term he will only hire those loyal to him and he will have no concerns about getting re-elected.

Need an example? The RNC today.