U.S. Elections: Is Keeping The SC Worth Risking A Dictatorship?

[Tijgy]

2 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Our constitutional democracy is broken and needs a severe overhaul and I'm not sure how we're going to get it under the current system. 

IMO This is the reason why someone like Trump ever managed to get nominated. 

[Castel]

9 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

2. There is a limit to the damage that a president can do without Senate and House support. And while Trump may be a borderline lunatic, there are many sane Republican senators and congressmen who are not, and who would not help him do some of the stuff the anti-Trump fear mongerors  are suggesting he will do.

 

I would be less worried if most GOP members of Congress hadn't already capitulated to Trump, in sometimes humiliating ways. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Because I think Donald Trump (or Hillary to a much smaller degree) will pick conflicts that benefit him just like those medieval kings did.

Our constitutional democracy is broken and needs a severe overhaul and I'm not sure how we're going to get it under the current system. 

I’ll just say that I’m not a big fan of what I perceive as Hlliary’s interventionist inclinations.

That said, there is plenty of daylight between Hillary’s technocratic competence, temperament, and knowledge of policy and Donald Trump’s. And any suggestion otherwise is largely a load of crap. Hillary is far from perfect. But, I’m not willing to play this game of “they are both equally bad”.

Also, American politics has always been contentious and messy. But, even if it were true that our constitutional system were broken, it seems to me that is complete nonsense to throw the whole thing out for a military dictatorship.

[The Wedge]

It took me a while to figure out that the SC in the thread title did not mean South Carolina. 

Then again....

[Shryke]

Yes, yes, if only "the true conservative" or a purple squirrel would just make an appearance, all would be well.

Dubya's presidency was a disaster because he wasn't a "true conservative".

John McCain lost because he wasn't a "true conservative". Romney lost because he wasn't a "true conservative".

If only we could find us a "true conservative".

Trump's likely to be a disaster because he's not a "true conservative".

Maybe one day, perhaps when Brigadoon rises out of the mist, the mythical "true conservative" who can win an election will appear.

 

Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

[Shryke]

Also this latest tweetstorm of Trump's just underlines the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the "Support Trump cause of the SCOTUS!" bullshit.

At the end of the day, Trump simply can not be relied upon to be in any way calm, rational or controlled. You are talking about putting nukes in the hands of a guy who can't even handle a women insulting him.

People who still say they will vote Trump have simply exposed that at the end of the day they care more about that R then anything else, including the US itself or, frankly, the stability of the global political situation.

The entire period between the end of the WWII and now (and more then that too, but that's enough) has amply demonstrated the power the Presidency has to act unilaterally, especially when it comes to the use of force. And some of y'all wanna put it in the hands of a guy who can't even take a jab in a debate without fucking losing it and ranting on twitter at 3am?

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

28 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I’ll just say that I’m not a big fan of what I perceive as Hlliary’s interventionist inclinations.

That said, there is plenty of daylight between Hillary’s technocratic competence, temperament, and knowledge of policy and Donald Trump’s. And any suggestion otherwise is largely a load of crap. Hillary is far from perfect. But, I’m not willing to play this game of “they are both equally bad”.

Also, American politics has always been contentious and messy. But, even if it were true that our constitutional system were broken, it seems to me that is complete nonsense to throw the whole thing out for a military dictatorship.

Where did I suggest they were both equally terrible? I'd prefer to throw it out in favor of an entirely new system along the lines of the Westminster system. It is too contentious and messy and because it's always been that way isn't an excuse to continue.  We have a system that gives a person who is certifiable a 50/50 of being elected president? How is it not broken? 

I'm not military government  in perpetuity,  I just favor it over the eventual mutiny that would come if Trump becomes president and begins issuing insane orders. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

26 minutes ago, Castel said:

I hope Clinton gives Machado and whoever else she puts in front of Trump hazard pay. Cause, at this point, it's clear what he'll do.

I think Machado knew what she was in for. And I have my doubts about the purity of her motives to come forward. I think her pay out will be a tour a on the talk show circuit. And maybe get a small show for herself on some channel, and/or some auto-biography in the pipes. Don't get me wrong, she has every right to launch into Trump, and she may very well despise Trump. But I think she also might very well have some material gains in mind.

[OldGimletEye]

20 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Where did I suggest they were both equally terrible? I'd prefer to throw it out in favor of an entirely new system along the lines of the Westminster system. It is too contentious and messy and because it's always been that way isn't an excuse to continue.  We have a system that gives a person who is certifiable a 50/50 of being electern president? How is it not broken? 

Well the United States has voted for some real losers before. See Dubya. See Zachary Taylor. See James Buchanan. We managed to survive those losers. Not saying we should vote for losers, but you know a military dictatorship seems a little extreme.

20 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

I'm not military government  in perpetuity,  I just favor it over the eventual mutiny that would come if Trump becomes president and begins issuing insane orders. 

And where and how do you think this military government will voluntarily give up power?

Also, we have a process for removing presidents. 

And what kind of precedent do you think it would set to legitimize a military dictatorship every time we perceive we have some problems.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I was not responding to the title of this thread, I was responding to the posts about the issue near the end of the previous thread before it closed.

What makes you think that those who believe they are voting for Trump because of the Supreme Court believe as you do that those other things are likely to happen under a Trump presidency, OR that they are all necessarily bad things if they do? 

Of course there are Republicans who support Trump and don't believe those things are necessarily bad. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the Paul Ryans of the world, who openly acknowledge that Trump is unfit for the presidency, but are still willing to support him because of the Supreme Court. That's why I was pointing out that your equation was inaccurate. 

52 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Once someone has committed to supporting a certain candidate, the normal human reaction to cognitive dissonance would lead them to either discount the possibility of the other bad things really happening, or lessening their evaluation of just how bad they really are. That is the way the human mind works, unfortunately, no matter what one's political convictions are. 

Fair enough.

52 minutes ago, Ormond said:

And of course you think their "priorities are messed up." You aren't a conservative Republican. right? 

Political ideology doesn't matter. If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd say the same thing about liberal Democrats. At least I hope I would.

42 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

2. There is a limit to the damage that a president can do without Senate and House support. And while Trump may be a borderline lunatic, there are many sane Republican senators and congressmen who are not, and who would not help him do some of the stuff the anti-Trump fearmongers  are suggesting he will do.

So it's basically - get the conservative SC judges for the long term, and if you have to endure Trump for 4 years then that's an acceptable price to pay.

Yes and no. There certainly are some things they could do to prevent or mitigate the damage Trump could inflict on the nation, but given how meekly they've responded to him already, I don't think it's likely that they'll show any backbone in the future. And there are several things that Trump could do unilaterally that would severely damage our country's standing in the world. 

Also, here's a "fun" read for you and anyone else that's interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can't_Happen_Here

[SerPaladin]

Yes, yes, if only "the true conservative" or a purple squirrel would just make an appearance, all would be well.

Dubya's presidency was a disaster because he wasn't a "true conservative".

John McCain lost because he wasn't a "true conservative". Romney lost because he wasn't a "true conservative".

If only we could find us a "true conservative".

Trump's likely to be a disaster because he's not a "true conservative".

Maybe one day, perhaps when Brigadoon rises out of the mist, the mythical "true conservative" who can win an election will appear.

A "true conservative" cannot win a general election (note: maybe one could have own this year against what was a self-immolating Hillary earlier, but against normal opponents such as a Gore or Obama or Bill Clinton, no way). "True conservatives" such as Pat Buchanan are a bad thing, by the by, as much as any inflexible doctrinaire politician of any flavor.

A moderate Republican can win a general election, but usually can't get through a primary unless they are a war hero. Dubya ran in the primaries as a conservative, as did Romney, at the very least as social true conservatives.

The democrats have a similar, but less prickly, situation with "true progressive" Bernie Sanders potentially creating a tea party analogue on the other side. Time will tell if it was a personality thing, a one-shot, with Bernie, or if another future candidate will get similar traction.

[aceluby]

50 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

1. Single issue voters.

2. There is a limit to the damage that a president can do without Senate and House support. And while Trump may be a borderline lunatic, there are many sane Republican senators and congressmen who are not, and who would not help him do some of the stuff the anti-Trump fearmongers  are suggesting he will do.

So it's basically - get the conservative SC judges for the long term, and if you have to endure Trump for 4 years then that's an acceptable price to pay.

The simpler explanation is he has an R behind his name and for the vast majority of GOP voters, that's all that's needed.

Fact is that the President can do A LOT without congressional support.  He also has a theocrat as his running mate and an entire congress that supports that kind of Christian theocracy.  For those of us that don't want to live in a that type of govt, his potential win brings out a lot of actual fear; despite how much you want to downplay it.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well the United States has voted for some real losers before. See Dubya. See Zachary Taylor. See James Buchanan. We managed to survive those losers. Not saying we should vote for losers, but you know a military dictatorship seems a little extreme.

And where and how do you think this military government will voluntarily give up power?

Also, we have a process for removing presidents. 

And what kind of precedent do you think it would set to legitimize a military dictatorship every time we perceive we have some problems.

That's  exactly what you're saying.  It's ok to have them because we've had them already. We barely survived Buchanan. But not one of them were certifiably insane. We shouldn't be in a position where that choice even exists just because it's always been that way.

How often has that process been successful? And both times it was attempted it was on trumped up charges. 

That's why I'd prefer system where the military has more or final say in policy that requires a military solution.  So they are under no obligation to follow dangerous orders. 

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

That's  exactly what you're saying.  It's ok to have them because we've had them already. We barely survived Buchanan. But not one of them were certifiably insane. We shouldn't be in a position where that choice even exists just because it's always been that way.

How often has that process been successful? And both times it was attempted it was on trumped up charges. 

That's why I'd prefer system where the military has more or final say in policy that requires a military solution.  So they are under no obligation to follow dangerous orders. 

So in other words you're willing to accept fascism as the solution? Sorry, but I don't roll that way.

I don't believe that all we need "is just a strongman (or woman) to make the trains run on time." Sorry, if I take mighty dim view of the Pinochets and Mussolini's of the world.

We have some problems. But, accepting some kind of fascist solution is just not acceptable.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So in other words you're willing to accept fascism as the solution? Sorry, but I don't roll that way.

I don't believe that all we need "is just a strongman (or woman) to make the trains run on time." Sorry, if I take mighty dim view of the Pinochets and Mussolini's of the world.

We have some problems. But, accepting some kind of fascist solution is just not acceptable.

Good for you, because you shouldn't. 

What kind of changes in out form of government would you like to see? How would that change happen?

So do I,  my grandparents fled Italy to escape Mussolini. 

How did we get from me questioning the wisdom of civilian control of the military in light of the possibility of President Trump to fascism?

 

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Good for you, because you shouldn't. 

What kind of changes in out form of government would you like to see? How would that change happen?

So do I,  my grandparents fled Italy to escape Mussolini. 

How did we get from me questioning the wisdom of civilian control of the military in light of the possibility of President Trump to fascism?

 

1. One, I'll take constitutional democracy, even one that has it's flaws, over a military junta any day of the week. Under no circumstances, that I think of, is it a good outcome to let a military junta have the complete authority to decide when or when not to go to war. That's what you are seemingly suggesting here.

2. Allowing a military clique to decide what wars the United States will engage in or when it won't is a giant step toward fascism. What you are saying here is that the military shouldn't be subjected to any legal authority. It shouldn't be subjected to congress or to the president's authority. That's how we got to a discussion of fascism.

One of the most awesome and terrifying responsibilities of the modern state is when to employ mass violence. And you're saying this awesome and terrifying responsibility should just be left to a few individuals to decide. And then you ask, how did this become a discussion about fascism? Really?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The most dangerous thing Trump are that he might upend the US constitutional order or start a shooting war because of something stupid.

so the way to respond to Trump getting elected would not be to upend US constitutional order and start a civil war.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

2 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

The most dangerous thing Trump are that he might upend the US constitutional order or start a shooting war because of something stupid.

so the way to respond to Trump getting elected would not be to upend US constitutional order and start a civil war.

Which is why I'd prefer the military have more input as to whether or not they start shooting. 

 

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. One, I'll take constitutional democracy, even one that has it's flaws, over a military junta any day of the week. Under no circumstances, that I think of, is it a good outcome to let a military junta have the complete authority to decide when or when not to go to war. That's what you are seemingly suggesting here.

2. Allowing a military clique to decide what wars the United States will engage in or when it won't is a giant step toward fascism. What you are saying here is that the military shouldn't be subjected to any legal authority. It shouldn't be subjected to congress or to the president's authority. That's how we got to a discussion of fascism.

One of the most awesome and terrifying responsibilities of the modern state is when to employ mass violence. And you're saying this awesome and terrifying responsibility should just be left to a few individuals to decide. And then you ask, how did this become a discussion about fascism? Really?

Right now it's ultimately up to ONE individual. And one of our choices includes a person who has said he refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe.  

How would you address the flaws in our constitutional democracy? This isn't about military government or anything.  I'm genuinely interested. 

[Maithanet]

I was reading one of the Republican Never Trumper blogs and she said something interesting - Evangelicals have for the most part come around to Trump in the polls.  How do they feel about Trump tweeting in the middle of the night that Americans should go watch a sex tape? 

[S John]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I was reading one of the Republican Never Trumper blogs and she said something interesting - Evangelicals have for the most part come around to Trump in the polls.  How do they feel about Trump tweeting in the middle of the night that Americans should go watch a sex tape? 

There is no group in this country more collectively full of shit than conservative Evangelical Christians.