President Donald Trump

Other laws have been amended in the past to incorporate some of the provisions of the patriot act.

But that's not the fascist provisions. It's mainly the anti money laundering ones which can be seen as strict but do not entail unlimited violation of privacy (surveillance) using secret courts' warrants and so on.

Lol at trying to assert Trump doesn't want to be a dictator because of Japanese internment and the Patriot Act. There are 3 branches of government that are used to keep each other in check - when one branch ignores and/or threatens the other two to do whatever he wants, there is a clear problem.

You guys would have an easier time arguing that Elon's BA in physics makes him more qualified to design and launch rockets than the astrophysicists he has working for him.

Non college educated whites voted for Trump only a little more than they voted for Romney (although from other data we know women moved toward the democrats a bit, men toward republicans, among them especially).

With college , just a few of them switched to the democrats (and this is mostly old college educated republicans dying, and younger college educated americans voting for democrats , substitution effect).

What swinged A LOT in favor of republicans with Trump in 2024 was exclusively NON COLLEGE EDUCATED NON WHITES. Quite the absolute opposite of what "experts" in this forum and elsewhere claim.

Didn't assert anything about Trump "inner desires".

I claimed something factual about what he actually did with power.

I often have wondered exactly the same thing. It's a bizarre premise.

It also reflects a real lack of historical perspective. In Luciom's conception of democracy, norms and constitutions and that embody high-level principles exist to be exploited. And if you don't like people abusing norms and exploiting loopholes, then pass a law that specifically addresses the issue. It's the whack-a-mole theory of democracy. Everything becomes the tax code -- a perpetual game of cat and mouse. Perpetual games of cat and mouse inevitably bloat bureaucracy and require large cadres of quasi-governmental advisors to navigate. In other words, Luciom's view of how democracy should operate doesn't lead to limited government; it leads to large government. Large bureaucracies and legal codes that resemble taxonomy projects are not coincidental features of totalitarian regimes.

I didn't assert anything about Trump's inner desires. I'm talking solely about his actions. Fukk outta here.

you said "want to be a dictator". That's a desire. Not actions.

his actions were objectively less fascists than the examples i provided fromt he american past. He actually let the patriot act expire.

And most of all, he had TWO grave emergencies he could have tried to exploit in 2020. Covid and the BLM mass riots.

He did far less than the median politician worldwide did for covid (thus proving the literal opposite of fascism) , and basically nothing for the BLM riots.

Not only he hasn't shown any fascist tendencies, he has actually shown dramatic anti-fascist tendencies.

in italy the term authoritarian is routinely used to describe illegal attempts to install a dictatorship. It is used to describe what dictators do routinely.

It is never used to contest a completly constitutional action with absolutely no illegality involved that people disagree with.

I understand that in english it might be different, but on social media, in english, when i see the word authoritarian used it isn't only to disagree about a legitimate political choice: it's to claim it is inherently illegitimate, illegal, unconstitutional the vasy majority of the time.

I never saw the word authoritarian to describe the actions of Biden DoJ to put as many j6 rioters in prison , except fromthe alt-right who claimed what happened to them was illegitimate for example.

From what i gather from you going after everyone that was there was authoritarian while perfectly legitimate right?

If that's not the correct use, can you point to me some example of something that is crystal clear OK under the american constitution but it is very authoritarian?

That's completely false. Most people who followed US election knew about this, here is me in June 2024.

yet you always, always, always use the "reverse DEI" white example when talking about trump voters...

A crystal clear example would be that you can pass pretty much any constitutional amendment you like with enough support. For a toy example, consider passing a constitutional amendment that declares Trump god king for life. That would be legal, constitutional, and authoritarian. Agreed?

Now consider proposing such an amendment, knowing it will never get passed. Does it stop being authoritarian because it doesn't hold the force of law? No, it is still authoritarian, because the qualities of being "legal" and being "authoritarian" are, as you love to (usually incorrectly) say, orthogonal. These words are not measuring things along the same axis.

No US president has been a dictator, so wtf are you talking about?

We are all, including you, talking about actions that sitting dictators do, or have done when transforming a government. Trump checks more boxes than any other US president has.

According to your understanding of the Constitution, what Trump tried to convince Pence to do.

To paraphrase a well known quote - it is very difficult to get Luciom to understand something when his ability to spew the propaganda he wants to spew depends on his not understanding it.

Obviously most Trump voters are low intelligence whites. That has not changed.

Obviously most Kamala voters are low intelligence whites too. That has not changed.

lol, the low intelligence whites seem upset at being called low intelligence...

So many words just to say: "I LOVE fascism and I chose Drumpf as my new fascist god!"

And how would that be authoritarian? It was either legal or illegal but where is the use of actual violence to limit other people freedom?

I thought authoritarianism was about the use of violence against body or property .

Btw just checked Britannica uses authoritarianism, about politics, to mean "against the principles of liberal democracy", so if something is allowed in liberal democracies it cannot be authoritarian.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/authori...

/

authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. Power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people. The term authoritarianism is often used to denote any form of government that is not democratic, but studies have demonstrated that there is a great deal of variation in authoritarian rule.

/

So my framing about legality (within a liberal democracy) was actually the proper one.

/

Rococo would you call judges blocking the Romanian candidate from running in the runoff authoritarian?

Why not if disregarding voters will would have been inherently authoritarian in the USA even if it had been legal according to you?

Oh, I think he understands things just fine. He's just dishonest.

Dictators wonnabe NEVER give up centralized power; they redirect it to their own uses.

A dictator wonnabe wouldn't cut international aid, he would redirect it to targets he gains from helping.

A dictator wonnabe doesn't attempt to dismantle the department of education. It uses it to reshape education in ways that conform with his preferences

Incorrect.

Very incorrect.

F for effort, F for attainment. At this rate we might have to send you to some sort of remedial reading class along with mongy and BJ and your other little friends who like to sit at the back and goof off all day.