Trump behaves like a dictator

[hislegacy]

That's true, but isn't that always the strategy of every presidential candidate, to paint a new portrait of the nation to show how much change is needed and proposing themselves as the great savior?

Politicians are so predictable

Case in point:

 

[Greenlee]

I'm guessing this may have to do with executive orders that Obama gave that you disagree with rather than the amount he gave? His total right now is 260 compared to Bush's 291, Clinton's 360 and if we go way back to FRD...3721.

Yes and yes, Bush is another great example of abuse of the office of president with the types of executive orders he wrote.

 

[Greenlee]

It's interesting that you misspell the word "reins".

You think that Trump won't try to rule from his 'throne'....?

Which of the "executive powers" causes you concern...?


.

1. Maybe a Freudian slip

2. Yeah, I think he'd like to, I have no intention to let him, nor do I think the other two branches of government will.

3. Executive orders. I disapprove of their use in most cases not related to imminent threats to national security

 

[SteveB28]

1. Maybe a Freudian slip

2. Yeah, I think he'd like to, I have no intention to let him, nor do I think the other two branches of government will.

3. Executive orders. I disapprove of their use in most cases not related to imminent threats to national security

To your 3, which of those privileges do you feel he has "abused" please?

 

[Greenlee]

To your 3, which of those privileges do you feel he has "abused" please?

Answered your question already. Refer to number 3 again. I'm not going to be baited into an argument of semantics.

 

[SteveB28]

Answered your question already. Refer to number 3 again. I'm not going to be baited into an argument of semantics.

No, I'm afraid you danced around it. Which executive orders did President Obama issue that constitute "abuse of privilege"?

I do hope you weren't simply mouthing an oft-repeated slur.....?



.

 

[Greenlee]

Let's just say any executive order that was not directly related to matters of imminent national security.

And you and I will differ in opinion on this because of fundamental philosophical differences of opinion on the role of the president. Since you are defending Obama and not Bush's use of executive order, I can surmise that you are a liberal. I am libertarian politically, and do not wish to enter a debate on political philosophy of the encumbant president on a thread that is about the president elect. I wish for Trump's power to be limited due to a precedent set by the previous administrations. I have no dog in this fight because our last several President have been completely antithetical to my political ideology as will Trump's presidency. Let it rest, oh righteous defender of Barrack Obama, and get some sleep.

 

[SteveB28]

Let's just say any executive order that was not directly related to matters of imminent national security.

And you and I will differ in opinion on this because of fundamental philosophical differences of opinion on the role of the president. Since you are defending Obama and not Bush's use of executive order, I can surmise that you are a liberal. I am libertarian politically, and do not wish to enter a debate on political philosophy of the encumbant president on a thread that is about the president elect. I wish for Trump's power to be limited due to a precedent set by the previous administrations. I have no dog in this fight because our last several President have been completely antithetical to my political ideology as will Trump's presidency. Let it rest, oh righteous defender of Barrack Obama, and get some sleep.

If you cared to look at my profile, you would see that I am an Australian.

So, how did you put it....? I don't have a "dog in the fight" either......

What I do have is a concern for my US friends and, more broadly, the stability of world affairs.

The election of Glorious Leader serves neither........




.

 

[SteveB28]

Oh, and I'm not a "defender" of President Obama.

I merely asked for the specifics of those executive orders in which you claim he "abused privilege".

That you cannot name even one and offer a blanket condemnation instead gives me all the answer I need, thank you.....


.

 

[Greenlee]

Oh, and I'm not a "defender" of President Obama.

I merely asked for the specifics of those executive orders in which you claim he "abused privilege".

That you cannot name even one and offer a blanket condemnation instead gives me all the answer I need, thank you.....


.

See this is what I'm talking about. Naming the executive orders is not the issue, it's a red herring that you keep insisting is the issue. You are free to look up his executive orders at whitehouse.gov and see for yourself which ones are not matters of national security and then you have your answer.

You do not need to save me from worship and veneration of the president-elect. Although your altruistic efforts to prevent me from supporting a president that I already do not support are touching. If you read my previous posts without you would see that it is my opinion that Trump is dangerous, and that the precedent set by previous presidents, which includes Bush and Clinton, is part of the reason he is so dangerous because it has set him up with the power to make unilateral edicts without the checks and balances that should limit the power of the presidential office.

Respectfully, your responses indicate that you may lack the political and social context to fully engage in this conversation. Maybe reading Bonhoeffer will help though since I read in a previous post that you lived through the events of the 30's. It's similar to the führer principle that he was fighting against in which he believed that relinquishing power to one man or even one party was a deadly error. As we have continued to allow presidents to use their office to accomplish sociopolitical agendas, we have effectually relinquished liberty a little bit at a time to the point where a president may more easily succumb to the temptation to secure supreme power and have thus expanded a public perception of the role of the president and of the government. We will all pay a dear price if we don't limit this and other executive tools.

 

[Greenlee]

And also let me add that the tone of condescension does not lend your concern's credibility. I respect your years of observation and experience, but feel that you lack a sociopolitical context. This assertion is based upon my observation of how you imply that by defying previous administrations I somehow support the president elect's supreme power.

As an outsider you do have a perspective that has some value, but insinuating an American's ignorance about their own government is not good way to secure influence in American political dialogue.

You would do well to consider the issues at least deeply enough to see that their isn't a simple dichotomy here but a complex spectrum of positions.

 

[Veritas]

Trump behaves like a dictator. If he doesn't like someone, he'll put him(her) into jail. He accepts election results 'if I win', otherwise..... Why he is so arrogant and arbitrary? Because he is the candidate of the FBI. That's their culture - lawlessness. He is a full reflect picture of it.

Funny, this is how many of us view Obama.

 

[SteveB28]

Ha ha ha......."simple dichotomy"?

On this issue, the sum total of what I have been able to draw from you is...

'Executive order for national security - good'

'All other executive orders - bad'

THAT, my young friend, is a "simple dichotomy" defined....!


.

 

[Aryeh]

The populist similarities bear a striking resemblance to how other dictators have come into power. But.... and this is a big but... there is one very important denominator that we are missing that the other countries where dictators came in to power had. We are not a country with a failing economy, picking up the pieces after losing a crippling war, or facing annihilation by international policy written by a super power or a coalition of other countries.

Without this desperation, the chances of this country giving a president the authority to become a dictator are nil.

The States have been at a war on abstractions for several decades. The strength of a dollar in the 80s buys $3 worth of stuff today; with inflation, minimum wage should be ~$21.19. The economy hasn't recovered; we are just told it has. The States had their credit rating downgraded. The troops are spread very thin. Racism and violence is exploding.

This is the perfect time for a facist or dictator to exploit the people, and play "savior" to the problems.

Trump is that man.

Businesspersons have no obligation to the people: only capital. So, it is ironic how Trump is being seen as one who will make positive change for the regular person.

Even more so surprising is that people think Trump is SEPARATE from the "elite" he talks badly about (to gain support.) He IS them.

Trump is the only man who could do what is about to happen to the States.

 

[Aryeh]

Funny, this is how many of us view Obama.

There is no difference between any politicians. They all talk a game to attract voters, and they all renege on most of those things.

Of course, partisanship will often see their opponent party elect as less than favorable. The thing is, it is all a game.

When people who voted PERIOD (Trump or Hillary) realize they were played as usual, then the real civil uprest and problems will begin.

And, this will happen because they are not taught the patience and cunning of the bear and dragon in history. Russia and China have been destabilizing the US since the arms race. They are now seeing the fruits of their patient labor.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Funny, this is how many of us view Obama.

I don't think you understand what the word 'dictator' means.

 

[Greenlee]

Ha ha ha......."simple dichotomy"?

On this issue, the sum total of what I have been able to draw from you is...

'Executive order for national security - good'

'All other executive orders - bad'

THAT, my young friend, is a "simple dichotomy" defined....!


.

The dichotomy I was referring to is that if I object to other presidential administrations then I must support Trump.

You are masterful in your use of logical fallacy. That unenviable talent aside, you claim a concern for dictatorial process yet take issue with my call to limit executive powers. What alternative solution do you propose?

The reduction of an argument about the appropriate use of executive power to a dichotomy, even if this is what I had done, is not a fallacy in itself. If all dichotomies were fallacious then truth (ie. right vs wrong, legal vs. illegal) would be impossible to determine..

The reduction of a political position to either supporting Obama or supporting Trump is, however, a false dichotomy. I cannot in good conscience support either.

Do you lean statist in your political ideology?

 

[Greenlee]

The States have been at a war on abstractions for several decades. The strength of a dollar in the 80s buys $3 worth of stuff today; with inflation, minimum wage should be ~$21.19. The economy hasn't recovered; we are just told it has. The States had their credit rating downgraded. The troops are spread very thin. Racism and violence is exploding.

This is the perfect time for a facist or dictator to exploit the people, and play "savior" to the problems.

Trump is that man.

Businesspersons have no obligation to the people: only capital. So, it is ironic how Trump is being seen as one who will make positive change for the regular person.

Even more so surprising is that people think Trump is SEPARATE from the "elite" he talks badly about (to gain support.) He IS them.

Trump is the only man who could do what is about to happen to the States.

I see what you are getting at, but it's all a matter of perspective. Inflation was at a thousand percent higher before Germany allowed a dictator like Hitler to take control. The US may not be in a wonderful position domestically or internationally, but as a part time resident in a developing country, in a more broad global view, the US is far from dire straights, whatever Trump tries to claim.

I just don't see it happening, especially if the US takes notice and reins in the executive power a little. Without this step, I can see a dictator coming to power maybe not immediately but in the not so distant future.

But we can't have it both ways. If we allow the executive branch to continue its trajectory of the last couple of decades where sociopolitical agenda-driven unilateral edicts are handed down in the form of executive orders, we are probably heading down a road that could install a despot regime some day.

 

[Veritas]

I don't think you understand what the word 'dictator' means.

If you believe Trump to be a dictator, than neither do you.

 

[SteveB28]

See this is what I'm talking about. Naming the executive orders is not the issue, it's a red herring that you keep insisting is the issue. You are free to look up his executive orders at whitehouse.gov and see for yourself which ones are not matters of national security and then you have your answer.

You do not need to save me from worship and veneration of the president-elect. Although your altruistic efforts to prevent me from supporting a president that I already do not support are touching. If you read my previous posts without you would see that it is my opinion that Trump is dangerous, and that the precedent set by previous presidents, which includes Bush and Clinton, is part of the reason he is so dangerous because it has set him up with the power to make unilateral edicts without the checks and balances that should limit the power of the presidential office.

Respectfully, your responses indicate that you may lack the political and social context to fully engage in this conversation. Maybe reading Bonhoeffer will help though since I read in a previous post that you lived through the events of the 30's. It's similar to the führer principle that he was fighting against in which he believed that relinquishing power to one man or even one party was a deadly error. As we have continued to allow presidents to use their office to accomplish sociopolitical agendas, we have effectually relinquished liberty a little bit at a time to the point where a president may more easily succumb to the temptation to secure supreme power and have thus expanded a public perception of the role of the president and of the government. We will all pay a dear price if we don't limit this and other executive tools.

Oh, I have indeed looked at quite a few of the executive orders in question, other than those of a security nature, and I am still perplexed as to how you arrive at "abuse of privilege".

For example, many of those orders seem to be entirely administrative in nature - dotting i's and crossing t's in the week-to-week function of doing government business. I am at a loss as to how you can view these actions as potentially "dangerous" to the welfare of your nation...??

I thought perhaps it was the volume of orders that troubled you, but this would be puzzling also. President Obama has issued the least number of these orders for the last 9 presidents, all the way back to Lyndon Johnson and he appears to be well below the average for all presidents.

So, the nature of the orders largely appears to be benign and the volume is relatively contained.


Where's your problem.....?



.