zlacker

very very far from reality. i heard the same thing from liberal friends about GWB and i heard the same thing from conservative friends about Obama.

>>chasd0+(OP)
Comparing GWB to Trump is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Trump is an actual wannabe autocrat, as opposed to GWB and Obama.

>>chasd0+(OP)
Out of interest, what public statements from Obama did your conservative friends use to justify those beliefs?

>>chasd0+(OP)
I heard those things too. This is the first time I've considered it even slightly plausible. I'd give it a 20% chance that he calls on his most fanatical base to march armed on DC if he loses the election.

Go check into the Qanon cult and similar circles. There are conservatively probably a few hundred thousand people in this country that would take up arms against the (literal) baby eating pedophile illuminati. All he has to do is say "the storm is upon us" and provide instructions. "Where we go one we go all."

Can any constitutional scholars comment on what happens then? What if he as commander in chief orders the military to stand down? Would they obey him or protect the constitution? What about the national guard? Local police? What would any of these agencies do if removing Trump required opening fire on tens of thousands of Americans?

Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were much more broadly popular than Trump, but the thought of them attempting this and having any chance of success is laughable. I don't even think Bush II could have pulled it off right after 9/11 at the peak of his popularity and with his powerful religious right base.

Trump on the other hand has a fan base unlike any I've ever seen. If you don't believe me research Qanon. There's a shockingly large group of people who worship him as something almost akin to a prophet. I'm sure there's some percentage who would die for him. It's a bit disturbing.

I agree that it's unlikely, but it is plausible.

Personally I think he will leave office, but what he has accomplished is to pave the way for an actual future dictator.

If the COVID recession plus unlimited QE results in further divergence between the real economy and the financial economy I could definitely see real fascism or totalitarian socialism winning some day. As I've been saying for a while, which one we get probably depends on which side is able to field the most compelling demagogue. I don't think people will care about left or right as long as there are pitchforks being handed out.

>>chasd0+(OP)
During his 'The president has total power' gaffe he at one point said something along "I am president, the president isn't a person, but the office. I have the office now. Then the next guy will have the office..." You know, the kind of thing a dictator would say. Sometimes I feel like defending him due to people's over reactions when I wouldn't otherwise.

>>magna7+L2
And yet Obama jailed journalists and worked towards instituting Socialist ideas - which include a ruling class.

Meanwhile, Trumps only "autocrat" proof is words? He talks snit... What has he done to become a King? Nothing he's done so far isn't powers used by previous Presidents - including Obama.

What actual has Trump taken to expand Presidential powers? And what steps has Trump taken to become a King?

Because until actual actions are taken... words are just Trump talking shit. Which he's allowed to do...

>>paiute+H8
Vladimir Putin talks about his office in a similar way. Yet he's managed to hold it for 20 years even though the Russian constitution was supposed to limit him to two four-year terms.

At least since Augustus, dictators have been diligent in paying lip service to law and established tradition while trampling over both.

>>chasd0+(OP)
I did too, but the funny thing about "this time is different", is that sometimes it is true. Consider the fact that Trump is the only president that said he would not respect the results of an election if he lost. Also consider the dramatic backsliding in democracy we've seen in other countries throughout the world in the last decade. Vladimir Putin never explicitly called himself Emperor for Life, but for all practical purposes, he is just that.

At the end of the day there is no such thing as "the law". They are just words written on paper.

>>paiute+H8
The context for this is also that although Democrats wanted Obama to use executive orders to advance their agenda, Obama understood that future presidents would use his use of executive orders as precedent for their own--regardless of to what party they belong.

>>api+g8
I think it's impossible to predict whether he makes such a call, it's the realm of psychology. What's the trigger? Let's say he loses the election. Does his decompensation happen so fast and so hard that he turns into Jell-O? Or does he rage tweet (or go on Facebook or TV or all of the above) that the election is rigged, illegal, invalid, and must be challenged with violence, before it's too late?

shrug

At that moment it is less about law than it is about character of other leaders. Does the Vice President, who is still the VP following his own election loss, contradict the POTUS' election fraud claims and call for violence? Necessarily on the table is 25th amendment and/or impeachment. A call for violent revolution to achieve the dissolution of constitutional order is unquestionably a violation of oath of office for any elected official.

People are conditioned to think that an impeachment would take a week or more. If Congresscritters actually get scared? They can follow strict rules of order and still get it done very quickly. Hours. The real impediments to speed are physical presence in the chamber. Not opposition. They will not wait for TV cameras, spectator chairs or tickets to get printed. If they really believe the POTUS is trying to incite an overthrow of the government, which is what autocracy means, they know full well they are inside the blast radius of imploding power.

>>chasd0+(OP)
Did you read the end of the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

>>werner+w9
He's neutered the justice department[0] and he's packing the federal judiciary with ideologues to the exclusion of sober-minded jurists. He's firing inspectors general tasked with oversight of the executive.[1]

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/attack-fun...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/politics/trump-state-d...

>>werner+w9
Obama jailed a journalist? Who?

What do you mean by socialism? What socialist ideas did Obama institute? What is the "ruling class" within socialism?

Regarding Trump: what do you make of him removing the inspector general who had opened an investigation against Pompeo? What do you make of him pushing out Jeff Sessions because Sessions recused himself from the Muller investigation?

Put another way: what would count as stepping toward autocracy, other than an explicit suspension of Congress or the like? Barring outright coups, these things happen incrementally. See Hungary, Brazil, etc.

>>cmurf+Of
The POTUS can bar senators from entering the room. Then what?

>>ncmncm+uH
POTUS is a legal term, and no law gives them power to prevent senators from entering either capitol chamber. Each house has their own rules who can enter. They each keep their own Sergeant at Arms.

IF a POTUS can use force to stop them, it is extra-constitutional, and at that point this person is not POTUS but something else.

>>JoeJon+2p
> Obama jailed a journalist? Who?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/shocked-by-th...

I don't see anything about jailing them - and I remember reading a story awhile back about but can't find it. So if I'm wrong on that point, I stand corrected.

With that said - Obama definitely attacked journalists from DC. Spying on them, following them, etc.

> Trump removing various people

Those people work at the Presidents discretion. All previous Presidents have fired staff at various stages for various reasons.

Trump is a businessman who is known for firing people... You may have seen his Reality TV Show. His catch line? YOURE FIRED!

https://www.rollcall.com/2017/05/10/a-list-of-notable-presid...

He has the ability to fire people at will.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/165983

> The final vote was ten in favor and ten opposed, so Adams, exercising for the first time his Constitutional authority to break a tie, settled the matter in favor of the president’s exclusive removal power.

> The president’s authority to dismiss an appointee is now settled law, but with the text unclear, it had to be settled by the First Federal Congress.

> autocracy

Trump doesn't have the "unlimited powers" of a King or a Dictator though... you can claim it but he's got the same power as those before.

You could argue about "incremental" movements... but Trump hasn't moved the needle any further that I know of. Previous Presidents? Definitely... but Trump has been using everything previous Presidents have used - from Obama on back.