That doesn't surprise me at all. I'm just saying I doubt there was any serious attempt to install Trump as Dictator which would require getting rid of the Legislative and Judicial branches of government so Trump can control everything
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fascism - Why...
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
That's pretty much what he's promising if he's reelected.
Donald Trump and his allies are pledging to remake the presidency if he is elected again, giving him and the office more authority than it has ever had and certainly far more than the framers of the US Constitution envisioned. . . .
Among the steps outlined in a New York Times story detailing what Trump is pledging are gutting the top layer of the executive branch bureaucracy and replacing it with political appointees. The president could refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress for programs he doesn’t like (a practice, “impoundment,” that was probably always unconstitutional and was specifically banned by law after Richard Nixon repeatedly attempted it). The president would also claim full control of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission and, perhaps, the Federal Reserve.
To be sure, it’s not clear how much of this would actually happen,(1)but it’s what Trump is campaigning on so it’s worth taking seriously.
If Trump or some other president were able to carry out all of what he’s promising and truly implement a “unitary executive,” the entire executive branch, every single department and agency would be directly responsible only to the president. For the thousands of people who set and implement policy, loyalty to the president would be the main criteria for having and keeping their jobs.
It’s not just that agency independence would end. Congress’s influence would be hollowed out. Congress’s tools for influencing policy — passing spending bills, setting the basic mission and specific tasks for agencies in authorizing legislation, and Senate confirmation of presidential nominees — would all be rendered weaker or useless. For example, if top staffers who currently have civil service protections were instead personally loyal to the president, Senate confirmation of their bosses would be largely irrelevant because the agency would respond to the president regardless of whether he bothered to nominate anyone. . . .
An OPINION page??? You provide an opinion page to support your claim that Trump said he is gonna get rid of the other 2 branches of Government if elected? Look; if Trump actually said anything close to that, there would be video and news stories of him actually saying it; not just some opinion page accusing him of saying he's gonna do this or that. So you will have to excuse my skepticism.
Read your history. These things are never done all at once, in one fell swoop! And getting rid of legislators and judiciary aren't really necessary -- all that's needed is to subtly shift their relative powers vis-a-vis one another. What do you think Netanyahu is trying to do with Israel's Supreme Court?
And after you've shifted powers a little, then it's a simple matter to further jiggle elections themselves, basically taking the people's power (in a democracy) away from them altogether.
Are you contending that opinion pages are somehow incapable of actual quotes?
For example, what I'm writing here is just my opinion, but Trump did post on his "Truth Social" page: "“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”
Now, that is a real quote -- and not that it includes the claim of "Massive Fraud," which he argues in what he wrote is good enough reason to allow "for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution." But he and his cronies went to court 61 TIMES, and were thrown out ingnominously every single time, so what he has done is use a LIE to argue for exactly what some of us are claiming he intends to do. And we claim it for the very simple reason that he says it!
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
It's not hard to follow the trail.
Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025
The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies.
Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.
Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.
Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.
Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.
He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.
He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”
“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” said John McEntee, a former White House personnel chief who began Mr. Trump’s systematic attempt to sweep out officials deemed to be disloyal in 2020 and who is now involved in mapping out the new approach.
“Our current executive branch,” Mr. McEntee added, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”
Mr. Trump and his advisers are making no secret of their intentions — proclaiming them in rallies and on his campaign website, describing them in white papers and openly discussing them.
So you agree those storming the Capital did not do it with the intention of installing Trump as dictator?
No; I’m contending opinion pages are not a good source for supporting your claims.
Trump has been known for saying all sorts of stupid stuff. My point is, those people that stormed the capital did not behave as if they were intending on installing Trump as dictator.
No. Are you contending that "intentions" never consist of more than a single step? Even the dumbest among us can come up with plans that contain at least a few stages.
Which demonstrates to me that your analytical faculties are quite limited.
So what did they do that gave you the impression their intent was to install Trump as Dictator?
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
By default? Not if what you said earlier is true about socialism celebrating individual freedom, human rights and individual choice is anything more than fancy talk. Or perhaps I misunderstand what you mean when you say "celebrates." Ultimately, the question hinges on whether or not participation is compulsory or voluntary.
Violence, suppression of dissent, and coercion are the hallmarks of hierarchical, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, not égalitarian, democratic societies.
There are/were several, high profile countries claiming to be socialist or communist: The USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, China, Cuba, &c. These were authoritarian, hierarchical, coercive, and questionably democratic. They were hardly "worker's paradises' or "Peoples Republics." They were everything Socialist philosophy opposed.
But the right-wing in the US capitalized on the name, with Red Scares, removal of socialist curricula and professors from universities, and a massive, well funded, anti-communist publicity campaign.
To this day, the average Joe knows little or nothing about socialism or socialist history, or any political theory, for that matter.
Let's not exaggerate...let's be honest with history.
when Teddy Bear Roosevelt was president, Mussolini was in prison for defending the farm workers' rights in Predappio. For striking with them.
So...there's an unfathomable difference between élites and Freemasons and dictatorial leaders fighting for the proletariat's rights.
Last edited:
This is becoming tiresome. You continue to stick to this line because it's the only one left that still got a tiny hint of whitewash in it. I don't want to play. Suffice to say, if you want to make somebody President who lost the election, then you do not want an elected government. Once you've achieved that, you'll never have another one again, because unelected bosses don't permit any more (fair) elections. Observe the world's present dictators -- as of 2023, there are 52 nations with a dictator or authoritarian regime ruling the country: Three in Latin America and South America, 27 in Asia and the Middle East, and 22 in Africa.
Unless they believed their guy actually won, but was cheated by the other guy to trick everybody into believing he lost.
No, that doesn't even matter. You believe that you do recounts, audits, court cases. They did all that and nothing changed. The minute you respond with violence you have given up on the democratic process.
But giving up on a particular democratic process does not mean you default to fascism, it could just mean you want what you consider to be a fair democratic process.
It doesn't mean that they default to fascism, but it absolutely does mean they are rejecting democracy. When they resort to violence it means they are rejecting any democratic process and imposing their own will.
I disagree! Rejecting one democratic process does not mean you reject all democratic processes. In theory, resorting to violence and imposing your own will could be imposing your own democratic process.