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.
No, you did not say that you were a Trump supporter. But your words say that you support him "doing that". It's like with death penalty or abortion, you either support it or you don't. And you do support it.
Yes, there are some (not plenty) instances where "unilateral and extra-legal executive actions do NOT lead to dictatorships", but these are the exceptions. You list some of the greatest men in our history. Trump is not one of them. He is closer to Stalin or to Sulla.
Also, it's my belief that none of the men you listed did imprison people from the supreme court or the congress. If you imprison people to stay in power, you don't generally let someone else take power.
And let's say that Trump was not the unhinged corrupt person that he is. Let's say that he was as honest as Lincoln. If he would take this kind of action outside of war, it would just mean that someone else would make a coup later, just like Caesar did not long after Sulla. Once the floodgate is opened [...]
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.
No, you did not say that you were a Trump supporter. But your words say that you support him "doing that". It's like with death penalty or abortion, you either support it or you don't. And you do support it.
Yes, there are some (not plenty) instances where "unilateral and extra-legal executive actions do NOT lead to dictatorships", but these are the exceptions. You list some of the greatest men in our history. Trump is not one of them. He is closer to Stalin or to Sulla.
Also, it's my belief that none of the men you listed did imprison people from the supreme court or the congress. If you imprison people to stay in power, you don't generally let someone else take power.
And let's say that Trump was not the unhinged corrupt person that he is. Let's say that he was as honest as Lincoln. If he would take this kind of action outside of war, it would just mean that someone else would make a coup later, just like Caesar did not long after Sulla. Once the floodgate is opened [...]