Zow
Footballguy
I saw a guy actually hop in court once to mimick a “kangaroo court”. Surprisingly or not, he still went to jail.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Are we already living in a dictatorship? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Skoo
- Start date
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Many years ago, I lived in Budapest, Hungary, so I've been following the rise of Viktor Orban over the past decade with a mix of disgust and foreboding. I don't know if Orban can officially be considered a dictator yet, though he increasingly wields unchecked power. But for the most part he has won "clean" elections, in the sense that he hasn't sent tanks into the streets, stuffed ballot boxes or jailed his opponents.
But what he has done is use the organs of the state to gradually consolidate his party's power. He won (legit) large majorities back in 2010, and then used the Hungarian equivalent of gerrymandering to lock in that majority while also making constitutional changes that have mostly neutered any other independent power centers like the judiciary. Media organs critical of the government don't get overtly censored. Instead, it works more like this: Your independent newspaper suddenly finds that no one wants to advertise with you. As you teeter on the brink of insolvency, a mogul who happens to be buddies with the prime minister swoops in and offers you far more for your paper than it's currently worth (but less than it was before all this went down). So you take the deal, the paper stops criticizing the government, and lo and behold, all the advertisers are suddenly willing to come back!
What's even scarier about this kind of system is that the longer it stays in power, the harder it becomes to dislodge it. Orban and his cronies have gotten really rich over the past decade, and if they are ever ejected from power, they may have to answer some uncomfortable questions about how they got that money. So they have even further incentive to make sure that never happens. Rinse, repeat.
Whether or not Trump ever follows that path -- and it's worth pointing out that he has repeatedly praised Orban -- I find it highly unsettling that the roadmap is out there.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Again, great analysis.
I see stuff in here that some might say is already happening in some form or fashion here.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Yeah. One question. Did mexican citizens previously have US constitutional rights in Mexico?RedmondLonghorn said:
Eta: "without US ties" should be added after citizens since i imagine somebody that lived in the US for a while and was transported over border would be able to assert some rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Missing the broader point that the right to sue agents of the Federal government is likely going away for everybody, I see.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
we are obviously not living in a dictatorship. the democratic system is still in place and the level of freedom is obviously still high throughout the country.
however, many of Trump's instincts and tactics do align with those employed by dictators in the past. many of these are the result of some of the negative consequences of capitalism (i.e. populism/the consumer is always right), which can provide the means for manipulation, especially when combined with our current technologies. so it is fair to see these things happening and get a very surreal and eerie feeling.
however, many of Trump's instincts and tactics do align with those employed by dictators in the past. many of these are the result of some of the negative consequences of capitalism (i.e. populism/the consumer is always right), which can provide the means for manipulation, especially when combined with our current technologies. so it is fair to see these things happening and get a very surreal and eerie feeling.
Rove!
Footballguy
In modern times, the closest this country ever came to a dictatorship was probably under FDR.
more recently, starting with Clinton and then Bush and them Obama, each successive President claimed more and more executive power. Trump actually represents a retrenchment from the government by a phone and a pen of the Obama era.
more recently, starting with Clinton and then Bush and them Obama, each successive President claimed more and more executive power. Trump actually represents a retrenchment from the government by a phone and a pen of the Obama era.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Trump admin had a press conference about corona virus and BANNED RECORDING DEVICES. No video or audio allowed.
Authoritarian. No doubt.
Authoritarian. No doubt.
Michigan is the biggest authoritarian dictatorship we have. $1000 fines for visiting your neighbor and people are encouraged to turn in your neighbors. Might as well pass out brown shirts to everyone. She is making a strong showing for the Democratic VP spot with that kind of socialistic authoritarian leadership.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
If there's one thing we can always count on, it's Donald taking credit for someone else's work and using someone else's money to do it.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Credible link? Also, applying the socialist label to this particular claim = just plain misunderstanding what socialism is.
Link
DETROIT – Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer extended the state’s stay-at-home order Thursday, while adding several restrictions that weren’t in the original order.
For instance, in the new order, which will be in effect until April 30, prohibits people from traveling between residences they may own.
Also, it imposes stricter rules stores must follow to reduce foot traffic, including limiting how many people are in a store at a time, adding six-foot markers on the ground where customers will wait to enter and closing areas of the store that are dedicated to carpeting, flooring, furniture, garden centers, plant nurseries, and paint.
As the previous order did, the new one limits gatherings and requires all workers who are not necessary to sustain or protect life to stay home.
Both businesses and people who violate the order, which intends to promote social distancing during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, are subject to penalties.
If you violate orders related to the outbreak, you could receive a civil fine up to $1,000.
Criminal penalties also remain an option that prosecutors could choose.
Business violations
Businesses deemed nonessential that remain open risk a fine of $500 or 90 days in jail.
An entity that violates the orders will be referred to licensing agencies if they are regulated by a licensing agency.
Nonessential employees being forced to work can can file a complaint for working in hazardous conditions with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
There are penalties for employers who punish whistleblowers who turn in businesses still operating illegally.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I don't see anything there that supports your claim of "$1000 fines for visiting your neighbor and people are encouraged to turn in your neighbors."
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Yes, it is happening. A father and son who lived on the same block each got a 1000.00 fine for fishing in the same boat. The dad was like 75 and the son 45. Someone called and ratted them out. My buddy who is a State police officer said he is refusing to write anyone the 1000.00 ticket.
Someone is starting a recall campaign of Whitmer. Need 300K to start the ball rolling. They have 250K already in a day and a half.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I'd still be interested to see the actual legislation in question. I highly suspect it is not what @jon_mx claims.
Re: bankroll on a recall, I'm not impressed. In the era of hyperpartisanship, I imagine it's trivial to garner $250K from a few wealthy donors from "the opposition party", regardless of party, state, or reason.
From Detroit's Free Press:
Combine that with the above article which includes "If you violate orders related to the outbreak, you could receive a civil fine up to $1,000" it exactly what I said. You could be fined $1000 to visit your neighbor.
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Well, don't I look silly. Sorry, completely misunderstood that one. Physical signatures or online?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I just read what I think is the text of the actual order. I'm not sure it says what the Detroit Free Press claims. Regardless, I'm honestly not sure that forbidding people to visit neighbors inside their homes is necessarily a bad thing.
The amount of the fine doesn't matter to me at all; either something is a good idea or it isn't. If thing X should be prohibited for emergency purposes, then make the fine more and incent people not to do the stupid thing.
In any case, let's take a step back and rather than criticize, consider what the actual text should say. What should be banned? What should be allowed? Let's get specific.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
I am all for stay at home and I get Whitmer is in a tough spot..but she has many Trump like mannerisms with knee jerk decisions she has made way before this.
Stay at home people have no issue with. But you can go to the store and buy lottery and booze, but you can`t buy paint, not even spray paint, mulch, simple home improvement items for people to pass the time in their home. Home Depot only allows 50 people at a time in their whole huge store. People can buy dirt but not paint, can`t buy any wood products. Hopefully she will lighten up on those items.
I am trying not to judge the people who are making these decisions though as we are in a situation that nobody has dealt with ever before in our lifetime and second guessing is easy on the sidelines for everything.
Last edited by a moderator:
The dumbest thing is thze ban on selling gardening stuff. You can walk by and see all the gardening stuff at Lowe's or whereever but it is illegal to buy. How silly. It seems like a perfect stay at home activity to plant gardens and work on the yard, but no you can't do it and you can"t hire anyone to do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
JAA
Footballguy
Socialistic authoritarian? No way you didn’t just make that up, hahahahaha!
Kiddin aside, the word you want is “fascist”
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Lmfao indeed.
Can Trump Delay the 2020 Election? Here's What the Constitution Says
If the president’s lawyers gin up an argument that he can, we will be witness to authoritarianism in its defining form.
By Cass R. Sunstein
April 13, 2020
It is alarming, to say the least, that people are even asking this question: Does President Donald Trump have the legal authority to postpone or cancel the 2020 presidential election?
The answer is entirely clear: He does not.
Start with the Constitution itself: “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
The founding document reflects an unambiguous judgment that Congress, and not a potentially self-interested president, gets to decide when the leader of the United States shall be chosen. If the president could set the time of his own election, he could specify a date that is favorable to him – or postpone a specified date until the conditions are just right.
Congress has exercised the authority that the Constitution gives it. A law enacted in 1948 says this: "The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President."
A finicky reader might respond: Those provisions are about selection of members of the Electoral College. What does that have to do with the popular vote?
The answer is that the two are inextricably intertwined. Under the Constitution, of course, the winner of the election is the candidate who gets the most votes in the Electoral College. Each state is allocated a specific number of electors, whose votes are generally given (by state law) to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state.
In practice, Congress’s specification of “the Time for choosing the Electors” is also a specification of the time for the popular vote. (To be sure, the Constitution also gives states a significant role in deciding how to appoint electors, but it does not give the president the authority to tell states what to do.)
It’s true that Congress could change the date that it enacted. Because Democrats control the House of Representatives, however, that isn’t very likely (unless circumstances get a lot worse).
And even if Congress decided to do that, it wouldn’t much help Trump. Under the 20th Amendment, “the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.” The plain meaning is that after the expiration of a four-year term, a president who has not been re-elected has to leave office.
Isn’t that the end of the matter? Not quite. It has long been disputed whether the president has some kind of inherent “emergency power.” Trump seems to think he has that power (and more). But the Constitution does not explicitly grant the president anything like that – which is a big problem.
The most relevant Supreme Court decision is known as the Steel Seizure Case, and it is one of the most important in the nation’s history. It arose when President Harry Truman issued an order in 1952 directing seizure of U.S. steel mills, arguing that a possible work stoppage could create a national catastrophe in the midst of the Korean War.
In a nationwide address, Truman explained: “Our national security and our chances for peace depend on our defense production. Our defense production depends on steel.”
As a matter of law, the government argued that under the Constitution, Truman had "inherent power" to do what he had done – power that, in its view, was "supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions."
The Supreme Court flatly rejected that argument. It said this: “The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice.”
Justice Robert Jackson, a strong defender of presidential prerogatives, had this to say about Truman’s claim of emergency power, and about the views of the Constitution’s authors: "They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies. Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. I do not think we rightfully may so amend their work."
That’s pretty decisive.
Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Trump’s lawyers will gin up a constitutional argument that will support whatever he wants to do, or that he will ignore legal restrictions on his authority. If so, we would be in a genuine constitutional crisis – and be witness to authoritarianism in its defining form.
If the president’s lawyers gin up an argument that he can, we will be witness to authoritarianism in its defining form.
By Cass R. Sunstein
April 13, 2020
It is alarming, to say the least, that people are even asking this question: Does President Donald Trump have the legal authority to postpone or cancel the 2020 presidential election?
The answer is entirely clear: He does not.
Start with the Constitution itself: “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
The founding document reflects an unambiguous judgment that Congress, and not a potentially self-interested president, gets to decide when the leader of the United States shall be chosen. If the president could set the time of his own election, he could specify a date that is favorable to him – or postpone a specified date until the conditions are just right.
Congress has exercised the authority that the Constitution gives it. A law enacted in 1948 says this: "The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President."
A finicky reader might respond: Those provisions are about selection of members of the Electoral College. What does that have to do with the popular vote?
The answer is that the two are inextricably intertwined. Under the Constitution, of course, the winner of the election is the candidate who gets the most votes in the Electoral College. Each state is allocated a specific number of electors, whose votes are generally given (by state law) to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state.
In practice, Congress’s specification of “the Time for choosing the Electors” is also a specification of the time for the popular vote. (To be sure, the Constitution also gives states a significant role in deciding how to appoint electors, but it does not give the president the authority to tell states what to do.)
It’s true that Congress could change the date that it enacted. Because Democrats control the House of Representatives, however, that isn’t very likely (unless circumstances get a lot worse).
And even if Congress decided to do that, it wouldn’t much help Trump. Under the 20th Amendment, “the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.” The plain meaning is that after the expiration of a four-year term, a president who has not been re-elected has to leave office.
Isn’t that the end of the matter? Not quite. It has long been disputed whether the president has some kind of inherent “emergency power.” Trump seems to think he has that power (and more). But the Constitution does not explicitly grant the president anything like that – which is a big problem.
The most relevant Supreme Court decision is known as the Steel Seizure Case, and it is one of the most important in the nation’s history. It arose when President Harry Truman issued an order in 1952 directing seizure of U.S. steel mills, arguing that a possible work stoppage could create a national catastrophe in the midst of the Korean War.
In a nationwide address, Truman explained: “Our national security and our chances for peace depend on our defense production. Our defense production depends on steel.”
As a matter of law, the government argued that under the Constitution, Truman had "inherent power" to do what he had done – power that, in its view, was "supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions."
The Supreme Court flatly rejected that argument. It said this: “The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice.”
Justice Robert Jackson, a strong defender of presidential prerogatives, had this to say about Truman’s claim of emergency power, and about the views of the Constitution’s authors: "They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies. Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. I do not think we rightfully may so amend their work."
That’s pretty decisive.
Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Trump’s lawyers will gin up a constitutional argument that will support whatever he wants to do, or that he will ignore legal restrictions on his authority. If so, we would be in a genuine constitutional crisis – and be witness to authoritarianism in its defining form.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I worry a little about Donald asking red state legislatures to appoint electors who will vote for him even if the state's popular vote went against him. Wisconsin and North Carolina legislatures have proven themselves in the past to be relatively unconcerned about fairness and the will of their voters.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
It really strike me how offended so many people get by the use of socialism with authoritarianism. What is going on in Michigan has zero to do with fascism, which is associated with policies driven by nationalism and/or racism. Socialistic policies go far beyond economic ownership or control of production. It is a mindset that what is best for society trumps individual freedoms. It is precisely what is happening in Michigan. It is a few elitist socialists who believe they can ignore basic human freedoms for what they believe is best for society. Socialists have a long long history of becoming authoritarian. Sorry if pointing out the ills from socialist leaders offends people.
zoonation
Footballguy
There is nothing about “socialism” that can even be remotely compared to, or synonymous with, “authoritarianism.”
Doing so is either a result ignorance or, worse, is being deliberately deceptive. Either way, it should be called out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually what you are doing is deliberately deceptive, but I am sure the leftwing groupthink in here will back your false narrative up to defend the good name of socialism.
On the extreme, communism is branch of socialism which is indisputedly very authoritarian. But even a more democratic variant of socialism still requires authoritarian beauracracies to run them. As the reach of socialism grows, the size and numbers of these beauracracies grow with ever increasing authoritarian rules. History has shown it has been impossible to implement a true socialist society without authoritarian means. Socialist policies can only freely exist under a strong capitalistic economy. Socialism by itself is a proven failure.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Is there where people complain about the use of broad generalizations?
Also...for the rest of your statement...is anyone...any major politician at all...calling for socialism by iteself?
Oh I am sure people will complain, but it was not a generalization. It was an obvious observation about the makeup of the vast majority of the most prolific posters on this forum. The forum is overrun by leftwing groupthink who tends to drive away posters. Every small freckle from a post which supports a right-wing viewpoint gets attacked from six different directions, while left-wing posts oozing with pus from its pimples gets praised.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Workhorse
Footballguy
As an idea, socialism vs. capitalism comes down to a pretty simple philosophy: In a world filled with scarcity of various resources, are you organizing your society based on the individuals ability to pay for fill needs (capitalism) or based purely on need (socialism). Taking healthcare as one example, capitalism treats it as a commodity and socialism treats it as a common good.
True democratic socialism advocates and implements the following things: Common ownership of various sectors of the economy including healthcare, housing and education. Strong labor unions and worker's rights. Society-wide accountability for institutions and businesses with an appropriate regulatory system. These are arguments about concentration of wealth and power and are not absolute: You can certainly have lots of socialist institutions within a capitalist society - It's really a question of degree.
Many of those who advocate for an American version of "Democratic Socialism" are simply trying to shift the slider a bit more towards a more egalitarian model than what currently exists. Trying to paint this authoritarian boogeyman about socialism is just plain silly and reflects far more about the scare-tactics of the right than it does about the actual policy prescriptions of the left.
It works both ways. Why not call it compassionate conservatism? The left creates a boogeyman out of corporations and wealthy people. The left tries to coop words and phrases to make all things right into evil and all things left into good. Power is abused just as much by the left as it is the right. Governments spending should never consume more than 50% of the GDP and an individual tax should never exceed 50% of the income.
Last edited by a moderator:
JAA
Footballguy
JAA
Footballguy
You realize our existing government has numerous socialized programs which are driven by an authoritarian position of the presidency*?
* - want to make a specific point not to call out any particular president, this is about our form of govt and not aligned with any party or person
JAA
Footballguy
Look - there is lots of wrong on the left. Lots of wrong. However, claiming that one side is making all of the mistakes is simply disingenuous.
JAA
Footballguy
Since you like broad generalizations, here is one: nationalism can be defined as socialized authoritarianism
Similar threads
