Obama dictator?

[USincognito]

So trust no one? LOL. Glad you admit all sources have bias, most of that liberal.

Gig 'em Aggies!

 

[LionofJudahDK]

There's no way in fiddlestick that Obama can turn the US into a dictatorship in any stretch of that word before his period is up, much less in only two years.

Evil has won, temporarily, with Obama's re-election, yes. But grow up, please.

 

[Nabobalis]

Evil has won, temporarily, with Obama's re-election, yes. But grow up, please.

So telling people to grow up but also declaring that Evil has won? I suspect you need to take the same advice that you are giving out.

 

[jgarden]

What is this all about ?? It dont look good though.

In 2014, The Obama Dictatorship Will Be Complete

Just another example of a "Chicken Little, the Sky is Falling" thread.

If the country can survive 8 years of GW Bush, it can survive anything!

 

[LionofJudahDK]

So telling people to grow up but also declaring that Evil has won? I suspect you need to take the same advice that you are giving out.

Well, no, because if one genuinely believe a candidate to be serving evil's purpose (mind you, I'm not saying he's the Antichrist or any of that nonesense...or even that he does so knowingly.),
then it's right to say that evil has temporarily won.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

So when you said;



I was focusing on "states rights" in your post.

Many feel that "states rights" were part of the causus belli in the Civil War. (Obviously along with such bigger issues as Slavery)

This is an ongoing and always present concept in the US but the Civil War kind of put things in favor of a strong federal government and limits on states rights.

Hence my comment that the South lost. We are not a "confederacy".

I think what your civil war decided, was that you can join the US, but you can't leave. Once you're in, you're enslaved (sic!) and there's no escape.
I don't recall your Constitution being changed, apart from the amendment that banned slavery (and possibly also explicitly saying that you can't leave, though I'm not sure about that one..), though, so states' rights shouldn't be different.
Of course, with the unfortunate history of legal activism on the part of the SCOTUS, which, IMHO, pretty much leaves Congress with no purpose, in practical application it has turned out to be a different matter. That's an argument for the SCOTUS going against the spirit of the Constitution, though, and not about abolishing states rights.

 

[DaisyDay]

I think what your civil war decided, was that you can join the US, but you can't leave. Once you're in, you're enslaved (sic!) and there's no escape. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267095-interior-proposes-shielding-federal-lands-in-west-from-drilling

Emigration is still freely allowed.

 

[DaisyDay]

Isn't Pelosi's smiling delivery of Obamacare dictatorship enough? ("Just pass it and then you'll see what's in it.") What have we got used to?

That is true of any bill that is still in the process of being negotiated. How do you think it works?

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Emigration is still freely allowed.

But a state saying "we want out" isn't. And that was the point, which I'm sure you caught.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There's no way in fiddlestick that Obama can turn the US into a dictatorship in any stretch of that word before his period is up, much less in only two years.

Evil has won, temporarily, with Obama's re-election, yes. But grow up, please.

Two years is an eternity . Dictatorship can be achieves in a few hours. All it takes is a determined autocrat, a large amount of supporters, a general populace that prefers security to freedom and a weak, divided and ideologically lukewarm opposition that will accept a role in the dictatorship rather than lose all power. So if President Obama desired to, which I do not know that he does, he could easily achieve that goal at any time he pleased. Certainly, As Terrance has pointed out the conditions for dictatorship being established have become more favorable as each President has expanded the power of the Executive and the reach of the federal government and each Congress has ceded more power to the Executive Branch. Unlike modern European countries where dictatorship would require a more fundamental change in their present governing structure and the nature of their government structure leads to leaders that tend to be more managerial and less dictatorial personalities, we have in place an Executive branch that presently holds not only the command of all military power but has been shown to be able to enact its will as if by law independent of the Legislative branch. This situation is not solely the invention of the Obama administration but has evolved over decades.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Two years is an eternity . Dictatorship can be achieves in a few hours. All it takes is a determined autocrat, a large amount of supporters, a general populace that prefers security to freedom and a weak, divided and ideologically lukewarm opposition that will accept a role in the dictatorship rather than lose all power. So if President Obama desired to, which I do not know that he does, he could easily achieve that goal at any time he pleased. Certainly, As Terrance has pointed out the conditions for dictatorship being established have become more favorable as each President has expanded the power of the Executive and the reach of the federal government and each Congress has ceded more power to the Executive Branch. Unlike modern European countries where dictatorship would require a more fundamental change in their present governing structure and the nature of their government structure leads to leaders that tend to be more managerial and less dictatorial personalities, we have in place an Executive branch that presently holds not only the command of all military power but has been shown to be able to enact its will as if by law independent of the Legislative branch. This situation is not solely the invention of the Obama administration but has evolved over decades.

I don't know where to begin...
1: Those that support Obama are the people least likely to support a military coup and installation of a dictatorship. At least one that isn't left-wing. (and anyone saying that Obama IS left-wing, should be fish-slapped with a red herring)

2: Obama's opposition is anything BUT lukewarm towards him. They hate him with a passion. There's no way the Republical party is going to allow him to pull an "Ermächtigungsgesetz"...nor would it even be possible without a significant majority of states backing such.

3: Even IF Obama ordered the military to take over Congress and execute or incarcerate Senators and Representatives unsympathetic to him, there's no way that enough of the US military would obey that order, for it to work. The order would be downright illegal, and it's more likely that it would be Obama himself that would get arrested and locked away.

I'm not any happier with Obama's re-election than you guys are. But there's simply no way that he's going to be able to turn your country into a dictatorship. It just isn't happening.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I think what your civil war decided, was that you can join the US, but you can't leave. Once you're in, you're enslaved (sic!) and there's no escape.

Not so much.

The South wanted to leave only after they felt they were being slighted. The South also had a somewhat different view of Federal control vs States Rights. And of course the biggie: the slave economy which was what provided for the economic output of the South.

The South was much less well developed in terms of industry and was largely an agrarian society. As such it is unlikely that they would have ever been able to make a long-term go of it even if the North just let it go.

But the North, while in a much stronger position economically, also needed the South as well.

I don't recall your Constitution being changed, apart from the amendment that banned slavery (and possibly also explicitly saying that you can't leave, though I'm not sure about that one..), though, so states' rights shouldn't be different.

This is where you may be confused about American history. Just because the Constitution didn't get changed on the topic of States Rights it is and has been for most of our history one of the key discussion points. The Civil War helped maintain our UNION rather than turn us into a 'confederacy' (which even before our Constitution we as a nation had the "Articles of Confederacy". We've always had a tough time on this.

[quote]
Of course, with the unfortunate history of legal activism on the part of the SCOTUS, which, IMHO, pretty much leaves Congress with no purpose, in practical application it has turned out to be a different matter.[/quote]

This is grossly overstating the matter. The "legal activism" of the courts is usually just a term Americans use when they don't get a legal decision they like. Arguably some decisions may look like legislation from the bench and those points are debatable, it is hardly even close to rendering Congress with no purpose.

That's an argument for the SCOTUS going against the spirit of the Constitution, though, and not about abolishing states rights.

No one said anything about States Rights being "abolished". But generally put back in their place in light of a stronger federal goverment was what I was talking about.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

None of what Jeff said was wrong

Nor did I say it was. Again, Jeff brought up "states rights", I only responded to that.

, and yes it was you who brought up the Civil War. I mean seriously:

That's just taking it and running with it so far you get lost.

No, Terrance, I see you want to get all up in this and make something big out of it. I was only responding with a"side comment" to one of Jeff's points which he made about Obama being less keen on "states rights".

I know you must know this but it is possible to say "side comments" in a thread. Further you must know that Obama is from Illinois. I assume you also know that Lincoln was from Illinois.

So when someone says "states rights" it is only appropriate for a side-comment to be made on this point.

I was actually only kind of making it in fun. But apparently it has you worked up enough to have a go at me. For what possible reason I cannot imagine.

Are you spent yet? Happy? Get your "internet mommy" feelings out?

OK! Good.

 

[drjean]

Might be a good time for all the people who have harbored an unending and irrational hatred of Obama in the form of:

1.Secret muslim
2.Communist
3.Radical black-pantheresque type revolutionary
4.Kenyan anti-colonialist intent on destroying America
5.Dictator-Nazi-Monster-Creature

to get out while there's still time! Be afraid! BE AFRAID! Obama is coming for you!!!!


OOoooooOOOooooo

Or maybe, people could act like grown ups when the name Obama is mentioned?

There is some truth in every poison... I agree.

Just for easy comparison (let's not go off the deep end here on this ok?) At the first, Hitler appealed to many different Leaders and Political Schemas. He approached them in the manner they would be most vulnerable, yet he had his one very determined, underlying goal, right?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't know where to begin...
1: Those that support Obama are the people least likely to support a military coup and installation of a dictatorship. At least one that isn't left-wing. (and anyone saying that Obama IS left-wing, should be fish-slapped with a red herring)

My statement was not an Obama thing it is the way that the US government has become structured. Anyone that denies that Obama is left wing simply has no knowledge of his political ideology. Try reading his autobiographies and his pronouncements about government and the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted that oppose his views don't take anyone else's word for it believe what he himself tells you.

2: Obama's opposition is anything BUT lukewarm towards him. They hate him with a passion. There's no way the Republical party is going to allow him to pull an "Ermächtigungsgesetz"...nor would it even be possible without a significant majority of states backing such.

I said ideologically lukewarm not lukewarm in opposistion to President Obama. Additionally, his opposition in this case is his political opposition not just citizens that don't like him.

3: Even IF Obama ordered the military to take over Congress and execute or incarcerate Senators and Representatives unsympathetic to him, there's no way that enough of the US military would obey that order, for it to work. The order would be downright illegal, and it's more likely that it would be Obama himself that would get arrested and locked away.

Don't get stuck in the past, such unsubtle, ham handed ways of usurping or acquiring dictatorial power are not necessary nor are they likely. Modern dictators find less violent means. We have seen throughout the world that government that is efficient and gets things done is very popular and that charismatic leaders are also very popular. When one has a large base of very committed support one can intimidate politicians that wish to retain some part of the little power they have left.

I'm not any happier with Obama's re-election than you guys are. But there's simply no way that he's going to be able to turn your country into a dictatorship. It just isn't happening.

Again, I don't know that the current President has any desire to do nor am I afraid that it is about to happen but if he had such a desire it would not be that difficult to achieve. Nor will it if someone in the future does so desire.
1) His supporters would never criticize anything that he did and would call any opposition racist and hate mongering. This would apply to the current President but any future would be dictator can easily find similar ways to become critic proof. Find a group identity and a perceived enemy of that group and youy have it.
2) The opposition of the House of Representative would simply be ignored.
What action could they take to actually stop the President from doing whatever he pleased to do? Impeachment would simply be a waste of time as the Senate would not convict.
3) Any other opposition, Supreme Court or the States would just as easily be ignored as the only federal enforcement power in the country resides in the executive branch nullifying any Supreme Court opposition and the little enforcement power the States hold pales in comparison to federal power and the Democrat Party is in charge of much of the enforcement power of the several States.

 

[drjean]

So when you said;



I was focusing on "states rights" in your post.

Many feel that "states rights" were part of the causus belli in the Civil War. (Obviously along with such bigger issues as Slavery)

This is an ongoing and always present concept in the US but the Civil War kind of put things in favor of a strong federal government and limits on states rights.

Hence my comment that the South lost. We are not a "confederacy".

Since the Civil War was brought up I thought it apropos to remind everyone that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY was born due to disagreement with others (Democrats) that negroes should remain slaves. Republicans are the ones who fought to make all men free!

So it's rather odd that now the Republican party is being trounced by this President as being biased against minorities (as his own policies have done this, not others.) This is called projection, where a person projects their own biases etc onto another because they are too difficult to own. (Psych 101) He's doing this in effort to put forth his own power and desires, imo.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Since the Civil War was brought up I thought it apropos to remind everyone that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY was born due to disagreement with others (Democrats) that negroes should remain slaves. Republicans are the ones who fought to make all men free!

That doesn't mean that the current Republican or Democrat parties look much of anything like they did 150 years ago.

So it's rather odd that now the Republican party is being trounced by this President as being biased against minorities

This is an indicator of how the party has changed. The GOP has decided the service to the privileged is of key importance. They also preach a gospel of such severe self-reliance (ironic in a sense when one gives historic tax breaks to the wealthy) at the expense of work for the common good of the poor that they had to lose the support of those minorities which are historically less well off.

The Dems go from being a Southern stronghold to being more focused on "social welfare". Maybe even too some detriment to those who work to avoid needing social safety nets.

This isn't to say one view or the other is ipso facto superior but rather to show that the GOP has put themselves in this position through the last 30-60 years worth of actions.

African Americans didn't turn their backs on the GOP out of some misguided ignorance. No, they saw that for nearly 100 years after the Civil War they were still second (or third) class citizens of the US and systematic racism kept them less affluent on average. Their access to the American dream remained remote.

The Dems after being in the pocket of Southern interests for so long, started to move to the Left and started supporting more social programs. Guess who benefits from social programs: people who have been disenfranchised from the American Dream.

So of course minorities will gravitate to the party that serves their interests.

This is precisely why rich white guys love the GOP! The GOP fights night and day for their interests. Of course they try to tell everyone that by helping the wealthy it will "trickle down" as a benefit for all, but since that has failed to occur at any point in the last 30 years of Supply Side economic tests, it rings hollow!

(as his own policies have done this, not others.) This is called projection, where a person projects their own biases etc onto another because they are too difficult to own.

It is not projection to see that the GOP is working harder for the tax cuts to the wealthy and simultaneously trying to "privatize" and come up with "creative" unfunded solutions to social program fixes.

That is just looking at reality.

(Psych 101) He's doing this in effort to put forth his own power and desires, imo.

Obama has hardly put out any "racial rhetoric" as president. The fact that so many on the Right see this is probably the much more appropriately labeled "projection".

Obama has done NOTHING that is overtly racist in his policies toward the American people.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

This is where you may be confused about American history. Just because the Constitution didn't get changed on the topic of States Rights it is and has been for most of our history one of the key discussion points. The Civil War helped maintain our UNION rather than turn us into a 'confederacy' (which even before our Constitution we as a nation had the "Articles of Confederacy". We've always had a tough time on this.

If you want to pursue that solution, then you can't really argue in favor of strengthening Federal government more than the levels of Pre-ACW US. Unless you're arguing in favor of an ever-closer, more centralized Union, but I don't know that such a phrase, or words to that effect, is anywhere in your constitution.

This is grossly overstating the matter. The "legal activism" of the courts is usually just a term Americans use when they don't get a legal decision they like. Arguably some decisions may look like legislation from the bench and those points are debatable, it is hardly even close to rendering Congress with no purpose.

But when Congress can be overridden on whimsical notes by an activist SCOTUS, then what's the point of having a congress?
I'm fully in favor of having a Supreme Court that can hold government and parliament accountable and in line with the Constitution. But not a Supreme Court that makes policy. The role of a court is to uphold the laws, not make new ones.

No one said anything about States Rights being "abolished". But generally put back in their place in light of a stronger federal goverment was what I was talking about.

So, de facto, what is the difference? Would you allow a state that wanted to secede from the Union to do so? (not going into whether or not it would be a good idea.....freedom is also the freedom to mess up)
If not, then how is that particular state not enslaved, if it is forced to remain in the Union against its will?

There is some truth in every poison... I agree.?

"Where there's smoke, there's a fire"? Really?

Anyone that denies that Obama is left wing simply has no knowledge of his political ideology.

Anyone who claims that Obama is left wing simply has no knowledge of what "left wing" means, ideologically.
There are very, very, very few actual socialists in the US. For sure, many of those voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils, but that does not make the man a socialist. He is probably more of a Social_Liberal .

Additionally, his opposition in this case is his political opposition not just citizens that don't like him.

I got that, and that's what I was talking about, too. There is no way that Obama's political opponents are going to let him take over a la 1930s Germany.




Don't get stuck in the past, such unsubtle, ham handed ways of usurping or acquiring dictatorial power are not necessary nor are they likely. Modern dictators find less violent means. We have seen throughout the world that government that is efficient and gets things done is very popular and that charismatic leaders are also very popular. When one has a large base of very committed support one can intimidate politicians that wish to retain some part of the little power they have left. [/quote]

While that's true to a certain extend in many places, especially here in Europe, it's less true in America with its deeply individualistic culture.
It COULD theoretically happen in America too, in the same way that a monkey theoretically COULD accidentally type the collected works of Shakespeare on a typewriter, but there is no way in fiddlestick that America is going to get a political culture so totally opposite to every single fibre of its being, in four years, or two. Not happening.

2) The opposition of the House of Representative would simply be ignored.
What action could they take to actually stop the President from doing whatever he pleased to do? Impeachment would simply be a waste of time as the Senate would not convict.

But the House could then block every attempt of this "Dictator" to get legislation through. That's the beauty of the two-chamber system (which has its flaws too, obviously)

Enough of this sillyness....
To become a "dictator", Obama would have to do away with the US Constitution, which your founding fathers made extraordinarily difficult to even change, and make sure that the military was still loyal to him...which is a non-starter. And if he DIDN'T first get rid of the Constitution, any action he took, and any order he gave to the military, would be invalid, and illegal, and he would soon find himself somewhere in Fort Leavenworth, awaiting trial for treason, while either the VP, or, more likely, the Speaker, would be POTUS pending elections.

 

[drjean]

Well, yes the parties have changed greatly (which is why I'm no longer Republican.) IMO-- the democratic party has been stolen by socialists (now using the term progressives so they are better accepted) and the Republican party has moved far enough left that they almost mirror (IMO remember) the Democratic party of old.

However, I still think today's Republican party stands for the littler guy, minorities, small businesses etc., in general.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Since the Civil War was brought up I thought it apropos to remind everyone that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY was born due to disagreement with others (Democrats) that negroes should remain slaves. Republicans are the ones who fought to make all men free!

That was 150 years ago -- look how far they've fallen since then.