Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Are we already living in a dictatorship?


Skoo

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Sure but there’s almost always a higher judge that can review and potentially overrule the other judge. There are so many judges which makes any one judge (outside of the SC) not that influential or powerful- certainly not at all on the same level as the President. The fact that the judges act differently judge to judge just makes that even more true. 

You kind of replied to a point I didn't really make. I never said individual judges at lower levels are as powerful as the president. You can still have too much power, but be less powerful than somebody else.  

Judges acting differently in different cities doesn't illustrate that they don't have much power. It shows that the judge that sentences a guy to probation for a crime and the judge that sentences a man to 10 years for the same crime with an almost identical criminal history aren't functioning under a set of equal rules, or perhaps really any rules at all. Sure that can be appealed, but how much time does that take? How often is that changed? Multiply this by hundreds on a daily basis. 

Regardless the main point was the fact that the administration has to battle it out in court as often as they do shows that we aren't in a dictatorship. Its absolutely absurd to suggest we are. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attack the judiciary

Attack the prosecutors

Attack the investigators

Attack the press

Attack our government institutions 

Attack and punish anyone who criticizes

Attack ethnic minorities 

Attack other western democracies and allies

 

Promote a single ideology

Promote a false narrative and propaganda

Promote the use of government resources for personal gain

Promote and reward "loyalty" by surrounding yourself with sycophants

Promote and cozy up with other authoritarian regimes

 

It's not like we've ever been down this road before.  Nothing to see here. 

Edited by Mookie
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not.  Not even close.  Trump's policies are challenged in court all. the. time.  The press calls him out and pushes back on him every. waking. minute.  Congress does not move forward with legislation on which they disagree.  No one is locked up, people are free to march in the streets pointing out how bad he is, pundits and journalists are not being rounded up or silenced.  In less than a year we the people will hold a free election that may or may not give him another four years.  

We are living in the exact opposite of a dictatorship.  The hyperbole required to suggest this is about on the same level as people who are convinced that Trump will not leave if/when he loses.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

You kind of replied to a point I didn't really make. I never said individual judges at lower levels are as powerful as the president. You can still have too much power, but be less powerful than somebody else.  

Judges acting differently in different cities doesn't illustrate that they don't have much power. It shows that the judge that sentences a guy to probation for a crime and the judge that sentences a man to 10 years for the same crime with an almost identical criminal history aren't functioning under a set of equal rules, or perhaps really any rules at all. Sure that can be appealed, but how much time does that take? How often is that changed? Multiply this by hundreds on a daily basis. 

Regardless the main point was the fact that the administration has to battle it out in court as often as they do shows that we aren't in a dictatorship. Its absolutely absurd to suggest we are. 

 

I’m not relating it to the President or dictatorship at all. You said if anyone has too much power than it’s judges. Legislators can change sentencing variance by enacting mandatory minimums or maximums, etc. Judges carry out the will of the law. 

Also I agree, we are not living in a dictatorship. I think the POTUS would like it to be a dictatorship and has chipped away at many democratic foundations but he hasn’t toppled the democracy. The next election will be important for what direction we take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The lack of removal does not indicate there is no oversight.  All the checks and balances are still in place.  We have a judiciary who have ruled against the Trump administration nearly 100 times (it was 70 as of last April) and stopped or put on hold his actions.  We have a Congress which has refused to fund his biggest campaign promise, his wall.  Congress has been investigating and fighting the executive branch the entire time of his presidency.  How many in the Trump administration have been fired or forced to resign or even worse indicted?  Tons of Trump policies have never become law.  We have an election coming up and even if he somehow wins, he only has 4 more years of power left, period.  This is like the exact opposite of a dictator.  

No witnesses in a "trial" kind of does indicate there is no oversight any longer.

Should we go through the list of all the things Trump has done that would've impeached any other President? Because that's a much longer list.

As for the last part, I imagine you've seen his little gif of staying President forever and him mention how maybe he should get another term.

He might not be a dictator just yet, but he's certainly a wanna-be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Skoo said:

No witnesses in a "trial" kind of does indicate there is no oversight any longer.

Should we go through the list of all the things Trump has done that would've impeached any other President? Because that's a much longer list.

As for the last part, I imagine you've seen his little gif of staying President forever and him mention how maybe he should get another term.

He might not be a dictator just yet, but he's certainly a wanna-be.

They ALL are wannabe dictators.

This is silly.  We're no closer to a dictatorship than we were during the Obama years.  Or any other President.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skoo said:

Disagree on both points.

Obama was a wannabe dictator? C'mon.

You don't think he didn't want that?  Please.  His rule by Executive Order should have shown you that.

The over-reaction the last 3 years has been absolutely exhausting as well as ridiculous.  The left has gone insane.

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Skoo said:

No witnesses in a "trial" kind of does indicate there is no oversight any longer.

Should we go through the list of all the things Trump has done that would've impeached any other President? Because that's a much longer list.

As for the last part, I imagine you've seen his little gif of staying President forever and him mention how maybe he should get another term.

He might not be a dictator just yet, but he's certainly a wanna-be.

Many other Presidents have done similar things.  Every President since Reagan has obstructed Congressional investigations.  There were tons of witnesses at the impeachment hearings.  This thread is silly.  This is not a dictatorship or even remotely close.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

You don't think he didn't want that?  Please.  His rule by Executive Order should have shown you that.

The over-reaction the last 3 years has been absolutely exhausting as well as ridiculous.  The left has gone insane.

Issuing executive orders doesn't make you a wanna-be dictator.

As for the bolded, go ahead and check out the "Obama is the worst President ever" thread that was at least a few hundred pages.

And he was neither impeached nor had multiple people from his administration get indicted.

 

If Trump makes it another 4 years, then you'll know what we just went through under Obama.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Many other Presidents have done similar things.  Every President since Reagan has obstructed Congressional investigations.  There were tons of witnesses at the impeachment hearings.  This thread is silly.  This is not a dictatorship or even remotely close.  

I must have missed that at the Senate trial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Many other Presidents have done similar things.  Every President since Reagan has obstructed Congressional investigations.  There were tons of witnesses at the impeachment hearings.  This thread is silly.  This is not a dictatorship or even remotely close.  

No other President has ever been impeached without witnesses at the freaking "trial".

Ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Many other Presidents have done similar things.  Every President since Reagan has obstructed Congressional investigations.  There were tons of witnesses at the impeachment hearings.  This thread is silly.  This is not a dictatorship or even remotely close.  

For which other impeached President was there an ex-cabinet member professing to have first-hand knowledge of the events in question - reportedly referring to it as a "drug deal" - and no effort was made to have him testify in the impeachment trial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

They were televised and part of the record.  Was there a point of rehashing them?  The Senate is not bound by your rules.  Too bad for you.  

John Bolton's testimony was part of the record? Must have missed that too.

First Senate Impeachment ever without any witnesses. EVER. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, parrot said:

For which other impeached President was there an ex-cabinet member professing to have first-hand knowledge of the events in question - reportedly referring to it as a "drug deal" - and no effort was made to have him testify in the impeachment trial?

Seems like Pelosi was a huge failure.  She should have waited and got his testimony.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jon_mx said:

Seems like Pelosi was a huge failure.  She should have waited and got his testimony.  

Right on cue; talk about Pelosi to deflect from the fact that the Senate had no interest in actually performing their constitutional duty of truth finding in impeachment matters.  :thumbup:

You can say "Pelosi!" a thousand times and it won't change the fact that the GOP Senate was only interested in providing cover for the President.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, parrot said:

Right on cue; talk about Pelosi to deflect from the fact that the Senate had no interest in actually performing their constitutional duty of truth finding in impeachment matters.  :thumbup:

You can say "Pelosi!" a thousand times and it won't change the fact that the GOP Senate was only interested in providing cover for the President.  

The Senate performed their Constitutional duties precisely as outline in the Constitution.  It is totally up to them to decide the rules, which they did.  This is really the sore loser syndrome with people crying foul when the very predictable results happened exactly as expected.  

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The Senate performed their Constitutional duties precisely as outline in the Constitution.  It is totally up to them to decide the rules, which they did.  This is really the sore loser syndrome with people crying foul when the very predictable results happened exactly as expected.  

More deflection.  Shocking.  Talk about the rules til you're blue in the face. Their "duty" is to hold a trial and make a good-faith effort to find the truth.  They did none of that.  

Edited by parrot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what would happen if the president were a democrat and the house was GOP and impeached the president and then the senate acquitted the democrat president with a mostly party line vote.

I wonder if people would feel the same way how they feel now about the senate succumbing to the will of the president and how that makes the president all powerful. 

Now of course it would have to be a scenario where it was clear as day that the president had in fact done what the house accused him of. Like if there was really solid evidence brought forward by a blower. 

Guess we will never know. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, squistion said:

John Bolton's testimony was part of the record? Must have missed that too.

First Senate Impeachment ever without any witnesses. EVER. 

Meh.  You had 17 previous witnesses that couldn't prove anything.  Only Dem witnesses.  No republican witnesses.

If you paid any attention to the pattern the Democrats were employing, there was ALWAYS a "last minute" revelation that needed to be told.  Yeah, okay.

John Bolton and Mitt Romney - previously excoriated and ridiculed by the left - are now suddenly the most honest, trusted Patriots this nation has ever seen.  Right next to Adam Schiff.  :rolleyes:

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The Senate performed their Constitutional duties precisely as outline in the Constitution.  It is totally up to them to decide the rules, which they did.  This is really the sore loser syndrome with people crying foul when the very predictable results happened exactly as expected.  

So you would've been cool with an Obama impeachment trial with no witnesses, right?

No need to answer.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, parasaurolophus said:

I wonder what would happen if the president were a democrat and the house was GOP and impeached the president and then the senate acquitted the democrat president with a mostly party line vote.

You forgot the part about NO WITNESSES.

That's what makes it a kangaroo court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

They ALL are wannabe dictators.

This is silly.  We're no closer to a dictatorship than we were during the Obama years.  Or any other President.

The Obama who campaigned and constantly expressed that he couldn't do anything but we could do everything?  That Obama?   

The Obama that was worn down at the end and couldn't wait to get out the door?

Lots of silliness here!

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, parrot said:

More deflection.  Shocking.  Talk about the rules til you're blue in the face. Their "duty" is to hold a trial and make a good-faith effort to find the truth.  They did none of that.  

Deflection?  Everyone knew everything they needed to make a decision.  That is their choice.   Courts can make summary judgments if they so desire.  It is completely the power of the Senate.  Not yours or the DNC.  You do not control the Senate.  Get over it.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The Obama who campaigned and constantly expressed that he couldn't do anything but we could do everything?  That Obama?   

The Obama that was worn down at the end and couldn't wait to get out the door?

Lots of silliness here!

 

Yep, that one!

If he could've served indefinitely he would have.  Don't be fooled.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

You don't think he didn't want that?  Please.  His rule by Executive Order should have shown you that.

The over-reaction the last 3 years has been absolutely exhausting as well as ridiculous.  The left has gone insane.

Yes his reluctance to use executive orders to try to accomplish anything once congress was obstruct everything mode is the evidence that your points are utterly ridiculous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

Deflection?  Everyone knew everything they needed to make a decision.  That is their choice.   Courts can make summary judgments if they so desire.  It is completely the power of the Senate.  Not yours or the DNC.  You do not control the Senate.  Get over it.  

Now that's some good comedy right there.

"No, I don't need to hear from witnesses, my mind was made up before this thing started!"

Yay democracy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skoo said:

You forgot the part about NO WITNESSES.

That's what makes it a kangaroo court.

I mean of course. The entirety of a party having made up their mind without any testimony on the senate floor by witnesses would just be insane right? I mean like what if a democratic senator brought forward, before there were any witnesses, a motion to dismiss that all but one democrat senator voted for? 

Like I said, I guess we will just never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Deflection?  Everyone knew everything they needed to make a decision.  That is their choice.   Courts can make summary judgments if they so desire.  It is completely the power of the Senate.  Not yours or the DNC.  You do not control the Senate.  Get over it.  

There was an ex-cabinet member with first hand info and they made no attempt to hear what he had to say.  The Senate was in the bag for the President and made no effort to get to the truth of the matter.   No matter how many weak attempts at deflection you make, that point will never change.  

You like the President so you're happy about them eschewing their constitutional duty.  That's your prerogative I guess, but at least own it. 

Edited by parrot
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Deflection?  Everyone knew everything they needed to make a decision.  That is their choice.   Courts can make summary judgments if they so desire.  It is completely the power of the Senate.  Not yours or the DNC.  You do not control the Senate.  Get over it.  

I agree with Jon.  The Senate had everything they needed to know that Trump was guilty of the charges and that these were text book definition of what Madison, Mason, and Randolph had written about as far as removal prior to an election when the discussion of impeachment was going on during the Constitution convention and later during ratification.  Witnesses were only really needed to provide a defense but there was none.   Cowering to Trump's supporters whims on the other hand is not something that decent people should "get over".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...