So when will people say enough is enough? What's the line? The actual line that is. At which crossing it would result in removal by force. — Christoffer

By that time it may be too late to remove him by force or any other means. He has made it clear that he will be firing military leaders who do no demonstrate sufficient "loyalty", that is, obedience to him. He will have eliminated government agencies, made the Department of Justice an instrument of his will, effectively curtailed the powers of Congress to act against him, and have a Supreme Court that promotes theocratic rule and an even larger majority if there is an opening.

By that time it may be too late to remove him by force or any other means. He has made it clear that he will be firing military leaders who do no demonstrate sufficient "loyalty", that is, obedience to him. He will have eliminated government agencies, made the Department of Justice an instrument of his will, effectively curtailed the powers of Congress to act against him, and have a Supreme Court that promotes theocratic rule and an even larger majority if there is an opening. — Fooloso4

So, where is the line being drawn? There are many instances in that description where I would think that people had enough and remove him by force.

Or are people that gullible, naive and blind that it would get so far before people act? Disregarding the status of Hitler within the context of history, if we look at his rise to power, it was a long line of exploiting democratic institutions in order to gain power legally. All while the opponents struggled within their own parties. The narrative of Trump's rise to power is similar to Germany in the 30s. Like then, the depression produced an extremely dissatisfied group of working class people, which is similar to the post 2008 financial crash. On top of that, the pandemic and economic turmoil at the moment, most people viewed Hitler as a savior.

The interesting thing is how no one opposed Hitler until it was too late. So when is too late? How far is a line drawn until people realize that things have gone too far?

Most of Trump's worst statements are dismissed as jokes. In the same way as Hitler's opposition dismissed him as a buffoon. So maybe Trump just is a buffoon and we just get 4 years of shenanigans that can be laughed at while his support sinks and we get another 2020 election with some half-assed democrat that the people don't really like or support.

Or, with the much greater grip on power this time around, he slowly installs ways to hold on to power and step by step dismantle the institutions that are there to block anyone from gaining authoritarian power.

People generally don't notice the small steps until its too late. But even if many notice it and talks about it, when is it enough to organize any kind of removal by force against him?

When is the line so crossed that a large portion of the population is organized and standing behind a coup removal of him because the normal process of removal has been dismantled?

The US seems to naively think that fascism and totalitarian power is a thing that simply "don't happen here". Something that happens elsewhere. But when taking into account how most aspects of Trumpism looks eerily similar to how other states went from free democracies to authoritarian, the pieces are on the board.

If that is just a coincident that this buffoon of a clown happens to have similar pieces on the board as authoritarian leaders who took power, remains to be seen.

But the question remains... where is the line drawn?

But the question remains... where is the line drawn? — Christoffer

I don't think there is one. He was elected for a reason: because he represents what the majority of Americans want the USA to be. This isn't evil or unnatural. History repeats itself.

I don't think there is one. He was elected for a reason: because he represents what the majority of Americans want the USA to be. This isn't evil or unnatural. History repeats itself. — frank

As I mentioned...

it was a long line of exploiting democratic institutions in order to gain power legally. — Christoffer

He could very well dismantle everything through legal means until it grants him the power to take the next steps. Seen as many Maga zealots would fight for him, he could install them as his own agency/force to do his biddings.

Him being elected were for reasons that, if we listen to the voters, are all fair game. I'm not talking about the election, there wasn't anything illegal or wrong with that. I'm talking about how he will wield his power over the next four years. Where is the line drawn if he goes too far? When would people, hypothetically, realize a line has been crossed and action needs to be taken so as to prevent things from escalating into a situation in which it's impossible to take action at all?

He could very well dismantle everything through legal means until it grants him the power to take the next steps. Seen as many Maga zealots would fight for him, he could install them as his own agency/force to do his biddings. — Christoffer

That's Project 2025, which is a plan for removing all opposition to Trump in the government. His VP endorsed it, but Trump hasn't. His VP embraces "dark Enlightenment" principles, which basically says the Enlightenment was bullshit and we need to go back to monarchy.

For some years now I've also believed the US has problems that would best be addressed by a dictator, such as changing social norms that result from neoliberalism. I'm starting to understand why Lenin was opposed to democracy. Lenin was a monster, btw, I'm just saying I'm seeing the dimensions of the challenges he faced.

So, where is the line being drawn? — Christoffer

For many voters the lines have already been crossed and Trump will get us back on the right side. For others Trump crosses the line. With Trump the line continues to move. The US survived Trump the first time around and so many think we can survive Trump 2.0. That there is no real danger. We can survive this or that, and one thing after another it is no longer clear where the lines are. This is authoritarian creep.

Or are people that gullible, naive and blind that it would get so far before people act? — Christoffer

The majority of voters think things are bad and blame the government. They want change and destroying the government as it is will bring change. A demagogue steps in, with promises he won't keep, and scapegoats to be eliminated as the solution.

The Clown did something he's good at, "drag others down to his level and beat them with experience" (paraphrasing Twain or whoever). Why play his game? That's his circus.

Why play his game? — jorndoe

Because he's the president elect of the United States.

That's Project 2025, which is a plan for removing all opposition to Trump in the government. His VP endorsed it, but Trump hasn't. His VP embraces "dark Enlightenment" principles, which basically says the Enlightenment was bullshit and we need to go back to monarchy. — frank

Partly why I'm not so worried about Trump, but more worried about what he's bringing with him. What he is legitimizing.

For some years now I've also believed the US has problems that would best be addressed by a dictator, such as changing social norms that result from neoliberalism. I'm starting to understand why Lenin was opposed to democracy. Lenin was a monster, btw, I'm just saying I'm seeing the dimensions of the challenges he faced. — frank

I think such thoughts are young thoughts of rebellion. The allure of quick fixes in frustration of the status quo. In reality, people need to be careful constructing the new house, and see to it being properly built with the care of wise builders.

For many voters the lines have already been crossed and Trump will get us back on the right side. For others Trump crosses the line. With Trump the line continues to move. The US survived Trump the first time around and so many think we can survive Trump 2.0. That there is no real danger. We can survive this or that, and one thing after another it is no longer clear where the lines are. This is authoritarian creep. — Fooloso4

Yes, and so far no lines are crossed. The potential scenario of Trump taking authoritarian power in a way that crosses the line of what the US generally stands for; pushing the boundary of what people generally deem normal for what the US is, might be pushed so far that people don't realize it's already over.

But for the ones who notice, when is the line crossed? Because there has to be line clearly drawn and people knowledgeable enough to know when its crossed.

I think such thoughts are young thoughts of rebellion — Christoffer

I think it might be you who discounts the possibility of a US dictatorship, not Americans. A lot of Americans want it now.

Yes, and so far no lines are crossed. — Christoffer

Well, so far he is not the president. Although it is within the powers of the office, his choice of people like Gaetz, Kennedy, and Musk, and threats to remove military leaders who are not sufficiently "loyal" crosses a line. Replacing people who are competent and can serve as a check against his self-serving interests and destructive tendencies with people who are not but are willing to do whatever he wants is crossing a line.

Sam Harris said voters don't like seeing women boxers punched in the face by men. He's right. Biological men in women's sports is a minor issue in the scheme of things, but it's indicative of a mindset Americans find abhorrent. It's also stupid policy. Biological men should not be in women's sports.

Biological men should not be in women's sports. — RogueAI

:up:

Well, he certainly can't be elected again. That would require a constitutional amendment which ain't happening. — Michael

Ahahaha, rule-based thinking has never stopped dictators. If he's so inclined he will look for other ways. I personally think he's in it for himself, vanity, greed, etc. and therefore don't think there's a particularly high chance but even so "culture eats rules for breakfast".

I think it might be you who discounts the possibility of a US dictatorship, not Americans. A lot of Americans want it now. — frank

What I meant was that the idea of speed running society to preferable changes by overthrowing democracy is what childish minds think leads to a better world. I'm not saying that such childish minds exist all over society, but it says something about the knowledge and intelligence of the population if such ideas remain into adulthood.

Well, so far he is not the president. Although it is within the powers of the office, his choice of people like Gaetz, Kennedy, and Musk, and threats to remove military leaders who are not sufficiently "loyal" crosses a line. Replacing people who are competent and can serve as a check against his self-serving interests and destructive tendencies with people who are not but are willing to do whatever he wants is crossing a line. — Fooloso4

Exactly, the line seems to exist all over the place, pushed and pulled by the preferences of the one evaluating its placement. But the interesting thing is when a line gets crossed that fully rally the people against an authoritarian leader.

When I hear Trump "joke" about a third term, I'm thinking of the movie Civil War in which part of the reason why that fictional conflict started was both the president dismantling the FBI and going for a third term. It eerily echoes what Trump is talking about. As I said, he's most of the time just bullshitting for likes and attention, it's part of his shenanigans, but even so, if he were to act on his authoritarian fantasies, when would the people be like "that's too far" and arm up a coup?

The only thing that makes a civil war unlikely is if Trump is bullshitting. If he's not, all he says are grounds for how such a conflict would happen. I don't think that the population would just stay silent and take it if it were to happen that he acts in violence against the people. I don't think the military would follow orders of it either. But it is interesting to speculate at which point the people would collectively wake up into organized rebellious opposition against him.

Primarily since the people of a nation like the US are so far in thought from such actions. If something like this would have happened in France, a person like Trump wouldn't be able to sneeze in the wrong direction before the people storm against it.

Amazing to watching the GOP manufacture issues by taking non-problems and statistically insignificant events and blowing them up into a “crisis,” and the inevitable see everyone gradually jump on board.

Trans issues, the border, immigrants, Iran, Muslims, critical race theory, ESG, DEI, voter fraud, the national debt (only while Democrat in office), etc. All complete bullshit. They’re masters of proposing solutions in search of problems. I remember how each one of these started, in the infancy of their propagandic journey — it’s been enlightening watching the evolution.

Then it’s fun to watch the lemmings in the press, the Democratic Party, and all the way down to goofy internet posters on Reddit, Twitter, and even here, tacitly accept the framing and react accordingly — all while the planet burns and wealth inequality gets wider.

What I meant was that the idea of speed running society to preferable changes by overthrowing democracy is what childish minds think leads to a better world. I'm not saying that such childish minds exist all over society, but it says something about the knowledge and intelligence of the population if such ideas remain into adulthood. — Christoffer

I'm not sure why you think this. All ancient democracies ended in tyranny. What makes you think we would be different?

Amazing to watching the GOP manufacture issues ... — Mikie

They would not be nearly so successful if not for Fox and more recently the proliferation of podcasts that cynically treat politics as a rule free, fact free competitive sport.

:up:

Very true— although liberal leaning establishment media go right along with most of it too. The “border crisis” especially.

There is no border crisis, and there never was.

I'm not sure why you think this. All ancient democracies ended in tyranny. What makes you think we would be different? — frank

Not sure what you mean, I'm agreeing with you on the point of people craving for a form of tyranny. As long as that tyranny takes the shape of being on their side it is an alluring idea for the simple minded ones.

I would say though, that there is one form of tyranny that is required even though people have problems with handling the parameters of such ideas. And that's the tyranny against intolerance and anti-democracy. I think that there should be an absolute intolerance against even the slightest notion of change that does not aim to improve democracy and the quality of it. Any attempt by an individual or small group to increase their own power outside of democratic means should be a straight to jail situation. A rigid form of system that can only be changed by a large amount of all its citizens, say 90% of all people need to be behind it to make substantial changes. Because any change that is substantial cannot be by the tyranny of the minority.

In such a system, Trump would be removed long before he's even close to running for president, by the reason of how he talked about the US and its politics alone. If any politician even utters any form of anti-democratic idea to the public they should be disqualified and banned from halls of power.

I'm of the opinion that a government should be run by only the competent and one way to make sure of it is to ban anyone who can't form policy and politics that aren't for the benefit of the people and the nation. They need to show that they are stable individuals who work as actual representatives of their voters for the purpose of steering the ship with confidence and not malice. If people are angry about something, it does not help them whatsoever to align with someone who wants to basically take their voting power away from them. Sorry to say, but people are generally gullible and stupid and the only way to guarantee that they don't shoot themselves in the foot is to make sure that there's never ever any candidate who can take advantage of their gullible nature.

If people cannot imagine a society in which both freedom of speech, and an intolerance against the anti-democratic authoritarians can co-exist, then they're not really thinking beyond the shallow.

I'm also inclined to ban people born male from participating in female sports, as a general rule, because they had the benefit of testosterone after they reached puberty. I was curious about the testosterone of pre-pubescent boys and girls and was surprised to discover that girls have more testosterone than boys (see this).

It also leaves open the problem of intersex people like Caster Semenya - she was classified as female at birth, but has internal testes that produce testosterone. IMO, she should not be allowed to participate in female sports.

A rigid form of system that can only be changed by a large amount of all its citizens, say 90% of all people need to be behind it to make substantial changes. — Christoffer

Flexible governments survive where rigid ones fail.

I'm of the opinion that a government should be run by only the competent and one way to make sure of it is to ban anyone who can't form policy and politics that aren't for the benefit of the people and the nation. They need to show that they are stable individuals who work as actual representatives of their voters for the purpose of steering the ship with confidence and not malice. If people are angry about something, it does not help them whatsoever to align with someone who wants to basically take their voting power away from them. Sorry to say, but people are generally gullible and stupid and the only way to guarantee that they don't shoot themselves in the foot is to make sure that there's never ever any candidate who can take advantage of their gullible nature. — Christoffer

It's strikes me as very strange that you think you're a supporter of democracy when you think people are too gullible to make their own choices.

If people cannot imagine a society in which both freedom of speech, and an intolerance against the anti-democratic authoritarians can co-exist, then they're not really thinking beyond the shallow. — Christoffer

Maybe. Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself.

:up:

Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself. — frank

e.g. Dune.

Some very interesting, and much calmer takes here, than prior to the election. Interesting stuff.

Flexible governments survive where rigid ones fail. — frank

Yes, but I didn't say government, I said system, as in the system that protects the democratic process. Rigid enough so that no one could overthrow the system just by being elected.

It's strikes me as very strange that you think you're a supporter of democracy when you think people are too gullible to make their own choices. — frank

People are gullible to make choices if manipulated. Real choices are reliant on truth and honesty from the people giving out that choice. This gullible nature has been established by enough research into both psychology and social psychology. If we can agree on this being true about people, especially in social groups, then it should be obvious that for democracy to function as it is intended, there shouldn't be any possibilities of political actors to manipulate this gullible nature and instead force politicians to stand by truth and facts.

If all political agents do this, then we focus society to democratically function by the idea of Wisdom of Crowds. Rather than become a demagogy.

It is naive to not recognize the gullible nature of people while forming protections against those wanting to destroy democracy. Otherwise we risk being blind to those who use democracy to destroy democracy.

Maybe. Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself. — frank

Democracy is a form of power. The problem is that people can only think in binary or extreme forms. It's either authoritarian or it is democratic etc. We are either under full control of one or a few or we are absolutely under the tyranny of the gullible morons of the masses. But I don't think that is true at all, that kind of absolutist thinking is for the shallow simple minded people who think in polarized forms.

Democracy is far better than authoritarian systems as the authoritarian systems easily becomes corrupted or form abuse of power. But democracy needs to have a system that does not collapse onto itself. It needs to get rid of grifters and manipulators, get rid of psychopaths and power hungry career politicians. The only politicians who should be allowed in such halls of power should be those with absolute interest in caring for the people, humanity and society. Anyone of them who's just there to gain their own power should be defeated in a show of societal force that prevents people to even dare to try and seize power.

It should be dangerous as hell to try and seize power in such a system. To the point of absolute annihilation. If that is true for all in such a society, then no one can wield power for their own benefit against anyone, and society truly governs itself with representatives rather than individuals.

Yes, but I didn't say government, I said system, as in the system that protects the democratic process. Rigid enough so that no one could overthrow the system just by being elected. — Christoffer

For Americans "government" does refer to the system. We use "administration" to refer to the people who occupy the executive branch at a certain time.

The whole population of the USA watched as Trump attempted to override an election, going so far as to contact the Pentagon for help. Those same Americans re-elected Trump. As the US heads further and further toward right-wing authoritarianism, it's not gullibility, it's not childishness, and it's most certainly not the work of one man. It's that the political pendulum is swinging toward something that's always been native to the US ever since Hamilton arranged for the president to have direct access to the Treasury. There's nothing that can stop Trump except maybe a bullet.

Democracy is far better than authoritarian systems as the authoritarian systems easily becomes corrupted or form abuse of power. — Christoffer

It usually takes a few generations for that to happen. New monarchies can be very beneficial to society as the new dictator seeks to establish legitimacy.

.

the political pendulum — frank

What are the forces behind the movement today? Dissatisfaction and the desire for change play a role, but is authoritarianism the only option? Of course one man's authoritarianism is another's New Deal. From that perspective some see MAGA is a correction.

Is the demagogue or a plutocracy or kleptocracy the natural consequence of democracy?

Or is our system robust enough to self-correct?

With any historical event you can play a game. Find the causal factors in

1. The moments just prior to the event.
2. The previous three decades.
3. The previous three generations.
4. The unfolding narrative of the culture spanning 1-2 millennia.
5. Human nature.

It's fun. Try it with the civil war.

18Nov24

I'm not mad at MAGAs, a majority of white women and "low information" citizens for again voting for The Clown. Instead, I'm pissed at the ten-plus million of Dems who didn't bother to vote for the second time in 8 years (2 out of the last 3 general elections) most likely because the Dem candidate for president was female.

Lesson: (If I'm not profoundly mistaken) many working class, non-college educated men & women would rather not vote than vote for an "Alpha Woman" to be POTUS.

So will the DNC learn this lesson? :mask:

I doubt it ... TBD.