Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Is Trump really like a dictator?


F3SS

Recommended Posts

On 11/18/2018 at 6:39 PM, sci-nerd said:

A lot has happened since 1787. Time to update, don't you think?

When the basic nature of humans changes to peace instead of an overwhelming desire for power then I'll be amenable to the changes you want.  Until then, I'll keep my ability to plead my case as I choose.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

The man is an ignoramus by every definition..

I'll say again that he's not a 'dictator', it's just that he doesn't have a damn clue how their government works.

An accidental dictator through ignorance then?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

An accidental dictator through ignorance then?

Not a dictator at all.  No more than any other president.  I don't recall people saying Obama was a dictator.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Myles said:

Not a dictator at all.  No more than any other president.  I don't recall people saying Obama was a dictator.  

They pretty much called him everything. You could probably find "dictator" in a search.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Myles said:

Not a dictator at all.  No more than any other president.  I don't recall people saying Obama was a dictator.  

Still not a dictator but a monarch wannabe.  He talks about "my" generals and "my" court.  It does not belong to him.  The oath is sworn to the Constitution of the United States.  Many of you are railing about the deep state or hidden adversaries that are blocking President Trump from getting things done.  Are those not the checks and balances written into the Constitution by our wise forefathers to keep a runaway monarch from taking full control?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Still not a dictator but a monarch wannabe.  He talks about "my" generals and "my" court.  It does not belong to him.  The oath is sworn to the Constitution of the United States.  Many of you are railing about the deep state or hidden adversaries that are blocking President Trump from getting things done.  Are those not the checks and balances written into the Constitution by our wise forefathers to keep a runaway monarch from taking full control?

I agree.  He is a wannabe many things.  But he is just the president.  No more, no less.  

The hate and fear mongering from the left is taking a hold of too many people.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone notice how much people who "speak" for the left just drive people away from their "side"? They talk about being anti-racist. Anti this anti that... but are violent against anyone who opposes their view.

I've never been driven more to the right in my life. I refuse to turn into one of those sheep.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2018 at 2:32 PM, Tatetopa said:

Still not a dictator but a monarch wannabe.  He talks about "my" generals and "my" court.  It does not belong to him.  The oath is sworn to the Constitution of the United States.  Many of you are railing about the deep state or hidden adversaries that are blocking President Trump from getting things done.  Are those not the checks and balances written into the Constitution by our wise forefathers to keep a runaway monarch from taking full control?

Not really.

The people you're talking about also arranged to manufacture a political document and pass it off as evidence to a secret court in order to used the resources of the United States to spy on, and attempt to prevent, the election of a legitimate presidential candidate.

Some of the same ones then lied in testimony to Congress about it, and are continuing to refuse to release documents that would show what they did.

In other words, there was a real attempt - by US parties - to subvert a legal election.

Harte

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

I just would like to add this into the mix for American Libs that actually aver that Donald Trump is a dictator.

There have been numerous orders that Trump has given, inre, immigration that were shot down by a liberal judge in Seattle or Hawaii.

You know what would have happened if Trump was a dictator...? He'd have had the judges executed and gone on to enforce his edict anyway. And Trump isn't doing any better with congress about building that wall, either.

You want to talk about "dictators"...? Think Adolph Hitler, who, like you, was a socialist.

propaganda and lies, that's what the left throws out on a daily basis. The Democrat Party is the biggest hate group in America.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Harte said:

Not really.

The people you're talking about also arranged to manufacture a political document and pass it off as evidence to a secret court in order to used the resources of the United States to spy on, and attempt to prevent, the election of a legitimate presidential candidate.

Some of the same ones then lied in testimony to Congress about it, and are continuing to refuse to release documents that would show what they did.

In other words, there was a real attempt - by US parties - to subvert a legal election.

Harte

OK.  I certainly don't know what is going on in the deep state. There could be a lot of subversion, I will grant you that. It could be true.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.   

My reference is to the Federal Judiciary.  When they  block an executive order, it is because they believe it does not follow the US Constitution.  That is a balance.  For example, the travel ban was rejected twice I believe before allowed to be carried out on the third revision.  The judges were expressing an opinion of legality, not policy.  When it fulfilled legal requirements, it was no longer blocked.   When the President rails against judges and their decisions and implies that they are hostile to him, it erodes our basis for trust in the government.  Even the Supreme Court drew the line at that and had to make a comment.

Congress declares war and approves a budget. Obviously a friendly Congress gives the President more latitude than a hostile one.  Love them or hate them, trust them or not, by the Constitution  they are an equal third partner in government.  If we find Congress distasteful, we have the power every two years to clean it out and put people in we do trust.

Those are the checks and balances any president must deal with every day, and frankly the president seems irritated by any opposition or impediment.  In the next two years I hope he can come to grips with that and manage it in better ways.  In a nutshell that is why I think the President has been and still behaves as if he is  CEO, a unitary executive of a company he completely controls without any checks and balances. He can't carry that pattern into presidency. 

More than likely every large corporation has an analogous "deep state" jockeying for position, challenging CEO's and other board members.  President Trump has never had experience with that.  His has been the head of a smaller family business, and he is unquestioned head of the house.  Not a criticism, it is a very traditional structure.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2018 at 5:39 PM, sci-nerd said:

A lot has happened since 1787. Time to update, don't you think?

You can’t litigate Natural Rights.  We do it all the time from limits on free speech to gun control, but that just shows how artificial litigation is.  Think about what Rights actually are and what they mean.  To expand on what @And Then was saying, human nature hasn’t changed in countless thousands of years.  The Founding Fathers understood this very well and gave us a form of government that took that into consideration.  They put limitations on government, not human nature.  Yes, they didn’t have AR-15s back then but the right to bear arms is not about the arms (and the Founding Fathers knew that the future would bring deadlier weapons), but about human nature.  We don’t need an update to the government or Fundamental Change, we need a rededication to the original promise.

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

On 11/18/2018 at 9:22 PM, Farmer77 said:

 

image.thumb.png.37a05d8259fe81dbb347d2c29bcd4c4d.png

 

Are they though? Or are they a whole ton of walmart level jobs? (honest question)

After so many months of being on unemployment, people drop out of the workforce.  The majority of those that drop is from millions leaving the workforce.  Between this and QE, we’ve seen a false strengthening of the economy, but now that real growth is occurring, more people are rejoining the work force.  In the next couple of years, we should see unemployment increase as we get back to a normal turnaround in jobs.  A healthy economy will float around 5% but Progs will use the increase to hammer the economy and blame Trump.  I’m sure that between the Progs, MSM, and never-Trumpers, they will all try to attack the economy over the next two years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

OK.  I certainly don't know what is going on in the deep state. There could be a lot of subversion, I will grant you that. It could be true.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.   

My reference is to the Federal Judiciary.  When they  block an executive order, it is because they believe it does not follow the US Constitution.  That is a balance.  For example, the travel ban was rejected twice I believe before allowed to be carried out on the third revision.  The judges were expressing an opinion of legality, not policy.  When it fulfilled legal requirements, it was no longer blocked.   When the President rails against judges and their decisions and implies that they are hostile to him, it erodes our basis for trust in the government.  Even the Supreme Court drew the line at that and had to make a comment.

Please. Obama berated the entire Supreme Court right to their face in a televised State of the Union address. A president can freely complain about a judge's decision. FDR was extremely critical of the Supreme Court - to the point of tying to increase their numbers to 12 just so he could pack the court with his picks.

In fact, some judges have stopped Trump orders only to be overturned by the SC. To me this indicates that there was obviously no constitutional problem with the order and that the judge that blocked it did so for political reasons. That's certainly worthy of railing at.

Besides, the "Deep State" doesn't refer to the institutions, it refers to people working within the bureaucracy. There's plenty of evidence of a deep state within the Justice Department, for example. Their own emails indicate individuals were actively working together to stop Trump from being elected, or get him impeached if he was elected. That's out in the open for anyone to read.

Harte

 

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

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

My reference is to the Federal Judiciary.  When they  block an executive order, it is because they believe it does not follow the US Constitution.  That is a balance.  For example, the travel ban was rejected twice I believe before allowed to be carried out on the third revision.  The judges were expressing an opinion of legality, not policy.  When it fulfilled legal requirements, it was no longer blocked.   When the President rails against judges and their decisions and implies that they are hostile to him, it erodes our basis for trust in the government.  Even the Supreme Court drew the line at that and had to make a comment.

The first iteration did follow the Constitution.  8 USC 1182(f) gives the President the authority to ban anyone he pleases from entering this nation.  The Judges are Obama appointees following the party line Obfuscating the President’s authority.  Why do you think they always shop in the 9th district?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harte said:

Please. Obama berated the entire Supreme Court right to their face in a televised State of the Union address. A president can freely complain about a judge's decision. FDR was extremely critical of the Supreme Court - to the point of tying to increase their numbers to 12 just so he could pack the court with his picks.

In fact, some judges have stopped Trump orders only to be overturned by the SC. To me this indicates that there was obviously no constitutional problem with the order and that the judge that blocked it did so for political reasons. That's certainly worthy of railing at.

You got a point there.  Is Obama your pinnacle of presidential behavior?  Did he criticize their opinion or point out their race and say they couldn't be impartial because they were white? Did he say they were wrong because they were "Bush" judges?  That was the point when Roberts made a comment; not that the President was complaining about a decision. FDR couldn't stack the court to 12 could he?  Checks and balances.   Now to your other point, the supreme court does overturn decisions on a number of issues.  They don't take cases that are obvious and a waste of time. The supreme court is the final referee, the instant replay so to speak.  A circuit court judge may be overruled, that doesn't  mean his decision was political, just incorrect. 

 

6 minutes ago, Harte said:

Besides, the "Deep State" doesn't refer to the institutions, it refers to people working within the bureaucracy. There's plenty of evidence of a deep state within the Justice Department, for example. Their own emails indicate individuals were actively working together to stop Trump from being elected, or get him impeached if he was elected. That's out in the open for anyone to read.

People in government service, bureaucrats are supposed to remain neutral, but I know as well as you that they don't in all cases.  Were there deep state individuals working to defeat Obama or get him impeached?   How about Bush or Clinton or Carter?   I yield to you this point, no doubt there were anti-Trumpers in the DOJ.  Were there pro-Trumpers as well?   Do they get fired?  Do they get prosecuted? Have they committed a crime? If so, they should bear the consequences.  Is it that major or a fake news kerfuffle like Ivanka's emails?

I am of the equal justice school, I admire the wisdom of the Constitution.  I don't like shenanigans from either "side" because that does nothing to help the United States. If the emails are evidence worthy of presecution, those individuals should certainly be prosecuted.  Neither side is helped by bad apples in the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The first iteration did follow the Constitution.  8 USC 1182(f) gives the President the authority to ban anyone he pleases from entering this nation.  The Judges are Obama appointees following the party line Obfuscating the President’s authority.  Why do you think they always shop in the 9th district?

If so, then it gets sorted out.   Now of course there were a lot of folks that thought Obama was overstepping a President's authority.  Were those all Bush appointees? Do you trust the Supreme Court or not?  I am not innocent enough to believe everyone is a Boy Scout, but I do have faith that the system is strong enough to arrive at justice and uphold the Constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Do you trust the Supreme Court or not? 

When was the last case where the Democrat-appointed justices didn't vote in a bloc?  It is so rare, I cannot recall and it is NEVER done on cases of national significance.  The same is not true for those justices who are appointed by Republican presidents.  Robert's ruling on Obama care comes to mind.

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

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

snip...

Those are the checks and balances any president must deal with every day, and frankly the president seems irritated by any opposition or impediment.  In the next two years I hope he can come to grips with that and manage it in better ways.  In a nutshell that is why I think the President has been and still behaves as if he is  CEO, a unitary executive of a company he completely controls without any checks and balances. He can't carry that pattern into presidency. 

...snip

 

'Xactly. The American system was deliberately built as a check-and-balance system to prevent dictators from taking control. The courts and congress have a say over the executive branch in their own way. And I am one happy American for their doing just that.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

...snip

I am of the equal justice school, I admire the wisdom of the Constitution.  I don't like shenanigans from either "side" because that does nothing to help the United States. If the emails are evidence worthy of presecution, those individuals should certainly be prosecuted.  Neither side is helped by bad apples in the government.

Good points.

It's clear that Hilary Clinton got away with committing a high crime that caused 18 Chinese spies to be executed, and right in front of the world, a felonious FBI let her off the hook. And as much happiness as that gave to democrats with the upcoming election, they should realize that - as you put it, "neither side is helped". The structure of our government is fine, but if people sidestep government from doing its job through criminal action, they are traitors.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, and then said:

When was the last case where the Democrat-appointed justices didn't vote in a bloc?  It is so rare, I cannot recall and it is NEVER done on cases of national significance.  The same is not true for those justices who are appointed by Republican presidents.  Robert's ruling on Obama care comes to mind.

Shockingly, there was the lone democrat that voted to approve Justice Kavinaugh. On the other hand, when Clinton was impeached for  lying to a grand jury, every democrat in the senate voted "not guilty" when Clinton was as obviously guilty as sin, so I do generally concur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

fter so many months of being on unemployment, people drop out of the workforce.  The majority of those that drop is from millions leaving the workforce.  Between this and QE, we’ve seen a false strengthening of the economy, but now that real growth is occurring, more people are rejoining the work force.  

Do you have any conceptualization of how cult minded this post is?

You do lay out very real factors that could actually affect the job numbers. Yet without sharing any resemblance of fact to back up your position you then proclaim that those very real factors only affect the guy you dont like.

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

  I’m sure that between the Progs, MSM, and never-Trumpers, they will all try to attack the economy over the next two years.

Conversely many economists have predicted an economic crash as a result of Trumps policies roughly in the next 3-4 years so yeah youre right Trump will be taking some heat for the economy.

Again with the cult mentality, whether its you doing it on your own  or whether your media is feeding it to you , you're setting up a reality where Trump can do no wrong and any identifying of real factors by the media will be an "attack".

Scary stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

If so, then it gets sorted out.

In general, that’s the way it should workout but when one group mocks the system and games it to create anarchy, the system’s defenders need to help it out.  Ignorance and Apathy are the best allies of Progressivism.  The system cannot work when it is under attack.

 

Now of course there were a lot of folks that thought Obama was overstepping a President's authority. 

What do you think the implication of “I have a phone and a pen” is?  Packing the lower courts with ideologues.  Weaponizing the government against Americans in general and opponents specifically.  What do you think “Fundamental Change” means?  He wasn’t just overstepping, he was usurping the Constitution.

 

Were those all Bush appointees?

Bush appointees don’t play politics.  I didn’t see anyone go shopping for originists to block Obama.  As much as Justice Roberts appeared too naïve, he properly stated the position of the court when he said that it was up to the people to change Obamacare.  And the people have.  While Conservatives acknowledges that the Supreme Court upholds the law, Progs use it for something entirely different.  They use it to block or make changes to the law.  Changes are supposed to come from the legislative.

 

Do you trust the Supreme Court or not?  I am not innocent enough to believe everyone is a Boy Scout, but I do have faith that the system is strong enough to arrive at justice and uphold the Constitution. 

As long as the majority are originists.  When it is the other way around, Progressive Judges take their marching orders from the Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, and then said:

When was the last case where the Democrat-appointed justices didn't vote in a bloc?  It is so rare, I cannot recall and it is NEVER done on cases of national significance.  The same is not true for those justices who are appointed by Republican presidents.  Robert's ruling on Obama care comes to mind.

You know what, you are right.  I was being foolish.  Of course that is why judicial nominations are so critical to a party and administration.  One more ray of hope snuffed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy ****...........

Trump shares image calling for his opponents to face trials for ‘treason’

Quote

President Trump on Wednesday morning shared an image calling for his opponents to face trial for "treason," with many of them behind bars.

The image, which the president retweeted from a pro-Trump Twitter account, depicts a host of figures Trump has criticized, including former President Obama, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Bill Clinton. 

DtEwcW2WsAADSP2.jpg

 

I think this helps answer the question posed in the OP rather conclusively.....he may not be a dictator yet but he sure wants to be

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.