Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Are we already living in a dictatorship?


Skoo

Recommended Posts

This has got to be the greatest dictatorship in world history. I mean who is not doing better than ever? If you are not, its time to look in the mirror to see the problem. Dictator Trump has been able to raise the USA to never before seen heights. Hopefully we can change the 22nd amendment and keep this greatness rolling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lod001 said:

This has got to be the greatest dictatorship in world history. I mean who is not doing better than ever? If you are not, its time to look in the mirror to see the problem. Dictator Trump has been able to raise the USA to never before seen heights. Hopefully we can change the 22nd amendment and keep this greatness rolling.

Farmers... and actually quite a lot if people aren’t doing better than ever.  People not invested in the market. People still struggling to afford healthcare. 
All the bogus claims and hyperbole about the economy wont change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Farmers... and actually quite a lot if people aren’t doing better than ever.  People not invested in the market. People still struggling to afford healthcare. 
All the bogus claims and hyperbole about the economy wont change that.

Life is better today than it was a few years ago for most people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

In some aspects yes. In others no...and not for all either.  Also at the expense of increasing the deficit.

Has there ever been a time where life has improved for all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2020 at 5:25 PM, jm192 said:

Yes.  Good ol' election reform.  We should abolish the electoral college and make sure we honor the voice of the people.  

Unless of course, you're not the candidate with the most delegates at the Democratic National convention.  Then we should see what the party wants us to do.  

It would be much easier to believe they cared about the voice of the people if any of them would have agreed to go by delegates--but they call care about themselves.  Bernie was the only person to commit and I'm sure it's because he's the front runner.

I'm pretty critical of the lack of attention Dems have been paying to election reform, too. And primaries in this country are indeed a terrible mess. But the only movements at getting substantive election reform lie in the Democratic Party these days so that's where those of us interested in better elections have to look. It's a pretty rare day when we can entice a conservative FBG into one of the discussions about making our elections better.

You may have missed it but we're not debating the EC much any more; even though a majority of voters are in favor of ending it, the reality is that 13 small states will always block the necessary constitutional amendment. So why discuss it? The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has a better chance of passing (and surviving court challenges) than an amendment abolishing the EC. But there're still lots of other cool subjects to talk about, like approval voting and multi-member super districts. I don't know why those aren't of interest to our conservative posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I'm pretty critical of the lack of attention Dems have been paying to election reform, too. And primaries in this country are indeed a terrible mess. But the only movements at getting substantive election reform lie in the Democratic Party these days so that's where those of us interested in better elections have to look. It's a pretty rare day when we can entice a conservative FBG into one of the discussions about making our elections better.

You may have missed it but we're not debating the EC much any more; even though a majority of voters are in favor of ending it, the reality is that 13 small states will always block the necessary constitutional amendment. So why discuss it? The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has a better chance of passing (and surviving court challenges) than an amendment abolishing the EC. But there're still lots of other cool subjects to talk about, like approval voting and multi-member super districts. I don't know why those aren't of interest to our conservative posters.

I was responding to a post about how "Fair elections would favor Democrats, imagine that."

When the Democrats can't even abide by their own rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2020 at 10:45 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'm referring to sworn testimony and the adherence to legal subpoenas.

Executive branch subpoenas will always bring executive privilege issues.  This is not administration or party specific.  These are constitutionally gray areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jonessed said:

Executive branch subpoenas will always bring executive privilege issues.  This is not administration or party specific.  These are constitutionally gray areas.

Well I disagree on the distinction that Trump has claimed executive immunity, for all matters, and for all personnel. That’s wholly new and not constitutionally defensible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well I disagree on the distinction that Trump has claimed executive immunity, for all matters, and for all personnel. That’s wholly new and not constitutionally defensible.

:shrug:

Then the courts will compel the administration to comply.  Same as it ever was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Then the courts will compel the administration to comply.  Same as it ever was.

My point further up was in response to what could or should be relied upon when evaluating different political claims. My point wasn't about the rightness of Trump's blocking evidence and witnesses, my point was in resting on the testimony that was gotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a lot closer to living in a communist nation thanks to the media and the left.

Latest example:

Deranged NC congressional candidate suggests composing a list of all Trump supporters and firing them after the election

Not proposing policy – just seeing where people are on this:

In 2021, after Trump is gone, we will be able to tell who 90% of his supporters are via Social Media records.

Should we fire all of them from any Federal Jobs, to include the military, in order to protect the Nation?

— Mark Judson For Congress (@Judson4Congress) February 23, 2020

Of course the coward deleted the text, unfortunately for him the internet of forever

 

Those survey results are reassuring. Only 11% of the left is deranged enough to agree with him.

Edited by Bozeman Bruiser
  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

We are a lot closer to living in a communist nation thanks to the media and the left.

Latest example:

Deranged NC congressional candidate suggests composing a list of all Trump supporters and firing them after the election

Not proposing policy – just seeing where people are on this:

In 2021, after Trump is gone, we will be able to tell who 90% of his supporters are via Social Media records.

Should we fire all of them from any Federal Jobs, to include the military, in order to protect the Nation?

— Mark Judson For Congress (@Judson4Congress) February 23, 2020

Of course the coward deleted the text, unfortunately for him the internet of forever

 

Those survey results are reassuring. Only 11% of the left is deranged enough to agree with him.

I assume you're also really upset that Trump is doing the same thing within the federal government, trying to force out anyone they don't deem "loyal"?

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

22 hours ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

We are a lot closer to living in a communist nation thanks to the media and the left.

Latest example:

Deranged NC congressional candidate suggests composing a list of all Trump supporters and firing them after the election

Not proposing policy – just seeing where people are on this:

In 2021, after Trump is gone, we will be able to tell who 90% of his supporters are via Social Media records.

Should we fire all of them from any Federal Jobs, to include the military, in order to protect the Nation?

— Mark Judson For Congress (@Judson4Congress) February 23, 2020

Of course the coward deleted the text, unfortunately for him the internet of forever

 

Those survey results are reassuring. Only 11% of the left is deranged enough to agree with him.

So we're all in agreement now that people should be condemned for the crazy s##t they say on Twitter? It's no longer acceptable to simply turn our nose up and say, "I wish he wouldn't tweet so much"?

I'll make you a deal: When this guy wins the Democratic nomination for president, I will officially join the Never Judson resistance and work to elect his Republican opponent. In return, you promise to do the same if the Republicans ever nominate some Twitter crazy as their candidate (I know, what are the odds of that happening?)

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What’s the argument for approval voting over ranked-choice voting?

That's a little complicated for me to address in the middle of a work day but both are good and an improvement over first past the post. There's a couple of different ranked choice methods, too, all of which have their advantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What’s the argument for approval voting over ranked-choice voting?

A short answer: Both have positive attributes. One advantage of approval voting is the simplicity of the ballot and of the counting. There is no strategic or tactical voting, you just vote for everyone that you think is worthy of filling the office. 

I think approval voting works best in crowded fields like small town city races or major party primaries. RCV or instant runoff may be better for a single seat race with three candidates but I haven't thought this through yet.

Approval voting might also make it easier for third parties to grow in influence. There's no penalty or risk for voting for the third party candidate. Just do it if you think he or she is good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this question some more. I think regarding them problem as being whether Trump has flipped the switch from "democracy" to "dictatorship" may be the wrong way to look at it. The bigger problem is that he's destroying institutions and norms (to be fair, he's part of a larger trend where this has been going on for awhile, but he has definitely accelerated it). 

With the obligatory disclaimer that I'm not comparing any contemporary American to Hitler, one thing that always struck me when I studied the rise of the Third Reich was that the Nazis did not dismantle a functioning democracy. Instead, Weimar Germany had basically become ungovernable. The two biggest parties were the Nazis and the Communists, both committed to overthrowing the democratic system that was still nominally in place, but neither of whom could command a majority. Hindenberg kept appointing as chancellor "centrists" who commanded miniscule electoral support and who basically ruled by fiat. Meanwhile, public faith in institutions had been destroyed, first by the hyperinflation crisis of the mid-20s, then by the Great Depression a few years later. When Hitler finally did come to power, over the course of a few years he gradually swept away the few remaining democratic institutions and implemented a full dictatorship.

My point is not that we are in a dictatorship now, or even that we're in the equivalent of Weimar Germany. It's that every erosion of norms, and weakening of institutions, makes a future dictatorship more likely. As I said, I think that Trump is vastly accelerating that trend, and would do so even more in a second term, but even if you don't believe that, even if you support him, it's something you should worry about a future leader who you don't agree with taking advantage of.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

A short answer: Both have positive attributes. One advantage of approval voting is the simplicity of the ballot and of the counting. There is no strategic or tactical voting, you just vote for everyone that you think is worthy of filling the office. 

I think approval voting works best in crowded fields like small town city races or major party primaries. RCV or instant runoff may be better for a single seat race with three candidates but I haven't thought this through yet.

Approval voting might also make it easier for third parties to grow in influence. There's no penalty or risk for voting for the third party candidate. Just do it if you think he or she is good enough.

here's an idea I've been kicking around: an anti-vote.  As in, I don't care who wins, as long as it isn't __________.  each anti-vote would cancel out an actual vote. 

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Been thinking about this question some more. I think regarding them problem as being whether Trump has flipped the switch from "democracy" to "dictatorship" may be the wrong way to look at it. The bigger problem is that he's destroying institutions and norms (to be fair, he's part of a larger trend where this has been going on for awhile, but he has definitely accelerated it). 

With the obligatory disclaimer that I'm not comparing any contemporary American to Hitler, one thing that always struck me when I studied the rise of the Third Reich was that the Nazis did not dismantle a functioning democracy. Instead, Weimar Germany had basically become ungovernable. The two biggest parties were the Nazis and the Communists, both committed to overthrowing the democratic system that was still nominally in place, but neither of whom could command a majority. Hindenberg kept appointing as chancellor "centrists" who commanded miniscule electoral support and who basically ruled by fiat. Meanwhile, public faith in institutions had been destroyed, first by the hyperinflation crisis of the mid-20s, then by the Great Depression a few years later. When Hitler finally did come to power, over the course of a few years he gradually swept away the few remaining democratic institutions and implemented a full dictatorship.

My point is not that we are in a dictatorship now, or even that we're in the equivalent of Weimar Germany. It's that every erosion of norms, and weakening of institutions, makes a future dictatorship more likely. As I said, I think that Trump is vastly accelerating that trend, and would do so even more in a second term, but even if you don't believe that, even if you support him, it's something you should worry about a future leader who you don't agree with taking advantage of.

This is great analysis.

And the other thing that goes hand in hand with this is that many authoritarian leaders who could ultimately be described as dictators came to power, initially, in democratic elections that were at least ostensibly fair.

Without even thinking too hard, Putin, Chavez, and Erdogan all fit this model. Once they were elected, they didn't immediately roll tanks into the downtown of the capital and declare that they were leaders for life. They chipped away at norms and institutions, installed loyalists in key positions, and accumulated power (and ultimately full control) somewhat gradually.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The centralization of information worries me. Data, big data, too much data for the more authoritarian among us to exploit.

One weird thing: The Executive almost seemed to function as its own shadow government by appointment. Once that government has been eliminated -- and it seems to be that it has -- what steps into its vacuum?

This is why the next election is so important. We need a moderate Democrat to come and and appoint people to head positions that are qualified and willing to work within an administration based in sensibility.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rockaction said:

The centralization of information worries me. Data, big data, too much data for the more authoritarian among us to exploit.

One weird thing: The Executive almost seemed to function as its own shadow government by appointment. Once that government has been eliminated -- and it seems to be that it has -- what steps into its vacuum?

This is why the next election is so important. We need a moderate Democrat to come and and appoint people to head positions that are qualified and willing to work within an administration based in sensibility.

Any non-authoritarian who respects the rule of law and democratic norms and institutions would do. No political litmus test necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Trump never raised executive privilege, as far as I know. He just said the proceedings were a sham, which is not a formally recognized privilege, at least traditionally.

He only did so officially with the full Mueller report.  I don’t believe it’s actually used that often.  Generally Presidents just delay and pull it out at the end if need be.

The House could have held the witnesses in contempt and gone to the courts.  I suspect at some point along the way Trump would have claimed executive privilege.  I doubt it would have held up in an impeachment, but I’m not really sure.  Unfortunately, the House was in a bit of a hurry so we won’t know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jonessed said:

He only did so officially with the full Mueller report.  I don’t believe it’s actually used that often.  Generally Presidents just delay and pull it out at the end if need be.

The House could have held the witnesses in contempt and gone to the courts.  I suspect at some point along the way Trump would have claimed executive privilege.  I doubt it would have held up in an impeachment, but I’m not really sure.  Unfortunately, the House was in a bit of a hurry so we won’t know.

 

Dang it man, for the hundredth time, by the time it goes through the courts Trump might not even be POTUS. The whole point of this was election interference by asking Ukraine to smear Trump's most likely opponent that would defeat him.  It didn't work out exactly as he (the royal he) wanted but all of the baseless accusations has knocked Biden out of contention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism in action:

https://reclaimthenet.org/the-donald-moderators-purged/amp/

If someone disagrees with you silence them.

They allow subs of people shoving sharpies up their ### and people beating the #### out of each other, but a sub of people supporting the president and sharing news is wrong think and must be eliminated.

 

Recipe to eliminate wrong think:

1. Change your algorithms to hide their content

2. Manipulate system software to censor their content

3. Label content you disagree with as "hate speech"

4. Selectively apply objective rules to remove members

5. Isolate remaining members from the main forum

6. Replace long-standing mods with communist approved mods to finish the job

(talking about Reddit, not this place even though 4/6 apply) 

 

Good job Reddit! 

Edited by Bozeman Bruiser
6 not 7
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Communism in action:

https://reclaimthenet.org/the-donald-moderators-purged/amp/

If someone disagrees with you silence them.

They allow subs of people shoving sharpies up their ### and people beating the #### out of each other, but a sub of people supporting the president and sharing news is wrong think and must be eliminated.

 

Recipe to eliminate wrong think:

1. Change your algorithms to hide their content

2. Manipulate system software to censor their content

3. Label content you disagree with as "hate speech"

4. Selectively apply objective rules to remove members

5. Isolate remaining members from the main forum

6. Replace long-standing mods with communist approved mods to finish the job

(talking about Reddit, not this place even though 4/7 apply) 

 

Good job Reddit! 

4/7 apply?  There are only 6...and you are claiming mods have been replaced with communists?

Im guessing it goes beyond what you are claiming as to what was happening.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

4/7 apply?  There are only 6...and you are claiming mods have been replaced with communists?

Im guessing it goes beyond what you are claiming as to what was happening.

Mods at Reddit, specifically r/t_d, yes.

Not here, this place already had mods who all hate Trump so there was no need to replace anyone.

Also, before you hyperventilate, I am not calling the mods here communist. They have actually gotten a lot better over the last few months, not permanently banning Trump supporters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Communism in action:

https://reclaimthenet.org/the-donald-moderators-purged/amp/

If someone disagrees with you silence them.

They allow subs of people shoving sharpies up their ### and people beating the #### out of each other, but a sub of people supporting the president and sharing news is wrong think and must be eliminated.

 

Recipe to eliminate wrong think:

1. Change your algorithms to hide their content

2. Manipulate system software to censor their content

3. Label content you disagree with as "hate speech"

4. Selectively apply objective rules to remove members

5. Isolate remaining members from the main forum

6. Replace long-standing mods with communist approved mods to finish the job

(talking about Reddit, not this place even though 4/6 apply) 

 

Good job Reddit! 

As someone who spends even more time on Reddit than I do here, "lol" is the only appropriate response to your post.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2020 at 1:06 PM, roadkill1292 said:

I'm pretty critical of the lack of attention Dems have been paying to election reform, too. And primaries in this country are indeed a terrible mess. But the only movements at getting substantive election reform lie in the Democratic Party these days so that's where those of us interested in better elections have to look. It's a pretty rare day when we can entice a conservative FBG into one of the discussions about making our elections better.

You may have missed it but we're not debating the EC much any more; even though a majority of voters are in favor of ending it, the reality is that 13 small states will always block the necessary constitutional amendment. So why discuss it? The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has a better chance of passing (and surviving court challenges) than an amendment abolishing the EC. But there're still lots of other cool subjects to talk about, like approval voting and multi-member super districts. I don't know why those aren't of interest to our conservative posters.

I dont think we should get rid of EC.  The reform I am looking for is removing corp money from politics and stopping of all gerrymandering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Communism in action:

https://reclaimthenet.org/the-donald-moderators-purged/amp/

If someone disagrees with you silence them.

They allow subs of people shoving sharpies up their ### and people beating the #### out of each other, but a sub of people supporting the president and sharing news is wrong think and must be eliminated.

 

Recipe to eliminate wrong think:

1. Change your algorithms to hide their content

2. Manipulate system software to censor their content

3. Label content you disagree with as "hate speech"

4. Selectively apply objective rules to remove members

5. Isolate remaining members from the main forum

6. Replace long-standing mods with communist approved mods to finish the job

(talking about Reddit, not this place even though 4/6 apply) 

 

Good job Reddit! 

First, you realize reddit is a private company and not a govt org right?  They can do what they want.

However, Mr Trump firing all non-loyalists ... nothing to see here, right?

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

41 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Mods at Reddit, specifically r/t_d, yes.

Not here, this place already had mods who all hate Trump so there was no need to replace anyone.

Also, before you hyperventilate, I am not calling the mods here communist. They have actually gotten a lot better over the last few months, not permanently banning Trump supporters. 

Wow - I feel so sorry for you.  I'm imagining you hating so much, so many, when you live such a privileged and exceptional life.

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...