As if there's anything remotely democratic about the system he would be purging. If you told the Athenians, let alone the founding fathers, that an imperialistic police state which
imprisoned and tortured its own people in military black sites,
spent billions on foreign aid to nations that hate us while letting its own people starve, and
locked up huge portions of its population for decades with no hope of ever living a normal life
was a "democracy", they'd think you were mocking them.
So you are openly in favour of the American president to purge his political opponents?
Also, I would not use the ancient Athen as a good example of a democracy. Not only because only a small subset of the population could vote, but also because of the fact that they had a legal right to purge their political opponents (Ostracism). And the fact that they voted for the execution of Socrates, even though he wasn't guilty of doing any crime.
Nice way to dodge the point. Pearl-clutching and pilpul isn't an argument. Do you contend that there is anything good about the US government murdering dozens of US citizens, as in Waco? Private citizens at will, as in Ruby Ridge? Defying its own laws and constitution, as it has with gun laws? Putting its constituents last, as it has with the spending bill? Sending armed police to imprison its citizens in their own homes without due process, as it has during the lockdowns? Openly and provably committing voter fraud, as it has this past year?
If not, do you contend that there is any way of preventing or solving these problems that is achievable without the consent of those who perpetrated these acts? Because you will never get Mitch McConnell to vote for his having LESS power.
Using a list of unconnected things is not a good argument.
Even if I would admit that there isn't anything good about the US government murdering dozens of US citizens in the early 90s, how would it be solved if Donald Trump suddenly became a dictator? Or to take Trump out of the question, how would the situation be improved if the legislative and judicial branches of government would be purged and the executive branch became the only power in the country?
Also, the other things in your list is just dodging the point. For example, I could argue that Trump himself was guilty of 'putting his constituents last' with his own budget plan, but that is not the point.
The point is that you are supportive of Trump being an actual dictator by purging his political opponents. If you did not support his politics you would not want him to be a dictator, right?
Did I ever say I was a Trump supporter? Did I even say I would support him doing that? I just said that your contention that it's in any way undemocratic is simply false, or at least totally irrelevant. Like another user posted, it was in a sense "undemocratic" for the founding fathers to declare independence from Great Britain and start the American Revolution against the Crown, if you only define "democratic" actions as those you take having some kind of national vote. I do personally believe that direct executive action would be needed to solve the problems of the US government. I don't believe it has to be Trump, and in fact I'd rather it was any of a number of other people, but I'll work with what I have.
You're also operating on wild conjecture and equating it to truth. The executive branch becoming the only power in the land does not proceed from Trump removing those currently in office who are provably corrupt. There's a wild difference between saying "There's a risk A will happen if we do B", and saying "A will happen if we do B". There is some risk, negligible or non-negligible, that unilateral executive actions will lead to dictatorships. This is not a rule. There are plenty of incidences in history where unilateral and extra-legal executive actions do NOT lead to dictatorships, most famously Cincinnatus, but certainly in our own history Lincoln, FDR, and Washington
Again, pilpul and pearl clutching are not arguments. If you contend that there are ways to get rid of the injustice and corruption that has worked its way to the heart of the US government, which are not extralegal and do not rely on unilateral executive action, say them. Just saying "Well I don't know but there have to be ways" is wasting everyone's time. No one, least of all me, is going to waste hours or days brainstorming how to peacefully reform one of the worst and most corrupt governments on the planet just so you can self-aggrandize.
Of course they are. They would be in favor of Trump stabbing their mothers in the head and shiting in the wound is he said it was the best course of action.
As if there's anything remotely democratic about the system he would be purging. If you told the Athenians, let alone the founding fathers, that an imperialistic police state which
was a "democracy", they'd think you were mocking them.
I see this as well. The founding fathers removed their oppressors in a very undemocratic way.
So you are openly in favour of the American president to purge his political opponents?
Also, I would not use the ancient Athen as a good example of a democracy. Not only because only a small subset of the population could vote, but also because of the fact that they had a legal right to purge their political opponents (Ostracism). And the fact that they voted for the execution of Socrates, even though he wasn't guilty of doing any crime.
Nice way to dodge the point. Pearl-clutching and pilpul isn't an argument. Do you contend that there is anything good about the US government murdering dozens of US citizens, as in Waco? Private citizens at will, as in Ruby Ridge? Defying its own laws and constitution, as it has with gun laws? Putting its constituents last, as it has with the spending bill? Sending armed police to imprison its citizens in their own homes without due process, as it has during the lockdowns? Openly and provably committing voter fraud, as it has this past year?
If not, do you contend that there is any way of preventing or solving these problems that is achievable without the consent of those who perpetrated these acts? Because you will never get Mitch McConnell to vote for his having LESS power.
Using a list of unconnected things is not a good argument.
Even if I would admit that there isn't anything good about the US government murdering dozens of US citizens in the early 90s, how would it be solved if Donald Trump suddenly became a dictator? Or to take Trump out of the question, how would the situation be improved if the legislative and judicial branches of government would be purged and the executive branch became the only power in the country?
Also, the other things in your list is just dodging the point. For example, I could argue that Trump himself was guilty of 'putting his constituents last' with his own budget plan, but that is not the point.
The point is that you are supportive of Trump being an actual dictator by purging his political opponents. If you did not support his politics you would not want him to be a dictator, right?
Did I ever say I was a Trump supporter? Did I even say I would support him doing that? I just said that your contention that it's in any way undemocratic is simply false, or at least totally irrelevant. Like another user posted, it was in a sense "undemocratic" for the founding fathers to declare independence from Great Britain and start the American Revolution against the Crown, if you only define "democratic" actions as those you take having some kind of national vote. I do personally believe that direct executive action would be needed to solve the problems of the US government. I don't believe it has to be Trump, and in fact I'd rather it was any of a number of other people, but I'll work with what I have.
You're also operating on wild conjecture and equating it to truth. The executive branch becoming the only power in the land does not proceed from Trump removing those currently in office who are provably corrupt. There's a wild difference between saying "There's a risk A will happen if we do B", and saying "A will happen if we do B". There is some risk, negligible or non-negligible, that unilateral executive actions will lead to dictatorships. This is not a rule. There are plenty of incidences in history where unilateral and extra-legal executive actions do NOT lead to dictatorships, most famously Cincinnatus, but certainly in our own history Lincoln, FDR, and Washington
Again, pilpul and pearl clutching are not arguments. If you contend that there are ways to get rid of the injustice and corruption that has worked its way to the heart of the US government, which are not extralegal and do not rely on unilateral executive action, say them. Just saying "Well I don't know but there have to be ways" is wasting everyone's time. No one, least of all me, is going to waste hours or days brainstorming how to peacefully reform one of the worst and most corrupt governments on the planet just so you can self-aggrandize.
Of course they are. They would be in favor of Trump stabbing their mothers in the head and shiting in the wound is he said it was the best course of action.
Imagine being such a coward that even when all you have to do to insult me is move your mouse two inches you STILL choose to preach to your choir.
Hahaha you dumb fucking cunt I'm on my phone. You don't need a mouse to use a phove. - posted from LG GX8 ThinQ
Omg Q nooooooooooooo!