Does anyone on here think President Trump was a dictator or will become one if re-electe

[Cap]

Clearly! I mean, he pardoned them both last time, right? So he has a track record, right?

Right?

Did he??? See how ignorant I was, I'm going to go to the top of this thread and vote really hard that Trump is not a tyrant. Thanks. And BOO to you who fail to see the light!!!

 

[Cap]

Clearly! I mean, he pardoned them both last time, right? So he has a track record, right?

Right?



They won't. I've asked before. They clearly don't have much patience with people who lack faith in the Reverend Sun Trump Moon.

I'm sure that our esteemed orange colleagues have explained it, like me, you just failed to see the complexity of it all. I noticed that you are the sole yes vote. Now that I have been enlightened, I say to you, contact a moderator and maybe they can change your vote. Orange shame upon on you if you don't.

 

[Liberty_Tree]

Yeah, I'm sure that when Trump rides in on his white horse, he will surely pardon both Assange and Snowden. A tyrant would never pardon them, right? Or maybe I'm just not that good of a chess player to see how sacrificing both at the altar of the state saves liberty. Silly me. Help me understand...please?

He will pardon them next time he wins, you just gotta have faith & confidence

 

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/Trump_History45/status/1690099162661158915

It's only funny because of the cult of personality being built up around this guy. But that makes these times pivotal. Sooner or later I believe this is going to come down to a choice between Trump and the Constitution. That smells like the name of the game to me. Expediency or principle? Choose wrong and you never get to choose again.

If course, this one has become doubly funny since October, when he doubled down on kissing Zionist ass.

 

[TheCount]

Does it ever occur to you that it isn't so much that I want to "tongue the taint" of Trump, as much as it is that I vehemently disbelieve damn-near-everything the MSM puts out these days?

Believing any lie so long as it's told to you by the "right" people is exactly the same level of stupid whether your chosen "right" people are MSNBC news anchors, blue checks on Twitter, or any such category of retard. Swallowing Trump's blatantly obvious and self-contradictory lies is thoroughly in the category of tonguing his taint.

So when I see an unprecedented coordination between the courts, the media, and various NPCs (such as yourself) making every possible attempt to dismiss any prospect of fraud in the 2020 election, all reciting the same script and playing cover for a system that is obviously— at this point— plagued by a double-standard in how justice is applied, apparent to even people who don't like Trump . . . yeah, it's bad enough, I'm gonna give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I stopped buying the MSM's bullshit before Trump came along. I won't be buying it after he's gone.

Maybe try thinking for yourself instead of just reflexively believing or disbelieving depending on your parasocial relationship with the speaker?

 

[sparebulb]

"Take the guns, do the due process later"

I don't know.

It sure doesn't seem like something that would be uttered from the leader of a healthy constitutional republic.

But hey, what do I know?

 

[Working Poor]

Never underestimate the power of your words.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I read insinuations from multiple members that indicate they consider him a dictator. Why is the Yes only 1. Is the poll broken? Are people afraid to vote?

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

If Dominion or Liberals were in charge of these polls would people be allowed to vote more than once?

 

[pmbug]

I read insinuations from multiple members that indicate they consider him a dictator. Why is the Yes only 1. Is the poll broken? Are people afraid to vote?

I didn't vote because I think the poll is a stupid troll. Trump is certainly predisposed to authoritarian tendencies and is certainly capable of running the office as a tyrant (I think, with a high degree of probability), but the poll question didn't ask for folks opinions on that.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I didn't vote because I think the poll is a stupid troll. Trump is certainly predisposed to authoritarian tendencies and is certainly capable of running the office as a tyrant (I think, with a high degree of probability), but the poll question didn't ask for folks opinions on that.

I think if you had to vote, your vote would align more with Yes than No. Not voting makes the poll look like pretty much nobody thinks he is.

 

[acptulsa]

I think if you had to vote, your vote would align more with Yes than No. Not voting makes the poll look like pretty much nobody thinks he is.

The poll set up by the socialist is yielding misleading results.

So?

 

[TheCount]

I read insinuations from multiple members that indicate they consider him a dictator. Why is the Yes only 1. Is the poll broken? Are people afraid to vote?

Trump is a petty tyrant and a narcissist, but whether or not he gets to become a dictator depends on those around him, those in key government positions, and the general public.

Would he if he could? Yes, absolutely.

Will he get that chance? To be determined.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

And as far as "the separation of powers and [...] the notion of an independent judiciary" goes, if any judge(s) ever did dare to venture into that territory, then why wouldn't Congress (depending on its partisan composition at the time, and on whom any such rulings favored) regard impeachment and removal as an instance of "turnabout is fair play"?

Ruling on cases brought before them is part of judges' job descriptions, and it's quite a stretch to envision a Congress trying to convert a ruling it doesn't like into a high crime or misdemeanor.

"If there are" ... according to whom?

The judiciary. Who else is going to rule on procedural grounds?

Dismissals of such cases on procedural grounds are ultimately dispositive of nothing - except that sane judges don't want to touch them with a ten-foot gavel.

Oh please. Are you seriously suggesting that there are no valid reasons for dismissing a case on procedural grounds? Good grief, if the plaintiff lacks standing or if limitations have run or if a party seeking equitable relief waits too long (i.e., laches) why in the world should a court hold a trial on the merits?

 

[acptulsa]

Oh please. Are you seriously suggesting that there are no valid reasons for dismissing a case on procedural grounds?

It didn't seem to me that he said anything of the sort. It seems to me that he said that it's possible to dismiss a case for other reasons and use that as an excuse, and no one would be the wiser.

Which doesn't make that improper cross-examination, of course. Amateurish and ham-handed, but not properly improper. But does make it disingenuous.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The judiciary. Who else is going to rule on procedural grounds?

No one else, of course. That's the point.

Oh please. Are you seriously suggesting that there are no valid reasons for dismissing a case on procedural grounds? Good grief, if the plaintiff lacks standing or if limitations have run or if a party seeking equitable relief waits too long (i.e., laches) why in the world should a court hold a trial on the merits?

Yeah, right - "there are no valid reasons for dismissing a case on procedural grounds" - that's what I said. Sure it is.



I'm done here. Your bad-faith elisions and distortions are tiresome.

Go find someone else's words and meanings to selectively ignore and/or pervert.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Desperation? Biden Warns Trump To Rule As 'Dictator'

With 'Russiagate" dead and buried (for now), President Biden is looking for new scares to warn voters off Trump. "He'll be a dictator," is the new mantra. Meanwhile the reality is that all presidents rule as dictators. Also today: how about that Republican debate? Finally: MTG lets loose on the evil NDAA and limp Republican dealmakers.

//

 

[Occam's Banana]

It didn't seem to me that he said anything of the sort. It seems to me that he said that it's possible to dismiss a case for other reasons and use that as an excuse [...]

It's really not that hard to understand, unless one is being willfully obtuse. ST is pulling the same kind of argumentation shenanigans Zippyjuan liked to indulge. If someone said something like "the Fed causes bubbles", Zippy would react as if they had said something like "all bubbles are caused by the Fed".

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It's really not that hard to understand, unless one is being willfully obtuse. ST is pulling the same kind of argumentation shenanigans Zippyjuan liked to indulge. If someone said something like "the Fed causes bubbles", Zippy would react as if they had said something like "all bubbles are caused by the Fed".

Here's what you said: "Dismissals of such cases on procedural grounds are ultimately dispositive of nothing - except that sane judges don't want to touch them with a ten-foot gavel. (Of course, this doesn't preclude them from also wanting to nix such cases for other reasons, as well - including their own political preferences.)[/quote]

Here you are saying that the only reason "such cases" are dismissed on procedural grounds is that the "sane judges" don't want to entertain the case on the merits, possibly because of their political preferences. In doing so, you have completely dismissed the possibility that there are valid reasons for dismissing these cases in accordance with well-established rules of law having nothing to do with the judges' personal feelings. Your generalization in this regard was too broad, as was mine if I misunderstood that you were referring only to cases such as Bush v. Gore or the various cases filed by Trump supporters following the election and not to other types of cases. My focus was on the cases filed by Trump supporters following the election, which IMHO were baseless.*

* The case filed by Texas AG Ken Paxton (who is a star in the clown show that postcards are sent from) complaining of how other states conducted their elections is a particularly egregious example. Even the Trump-appointed justices weren't about to find that Texas had standing.

 

[acptulsa]

Here's what you said: "Dismissals of such cases on procedural grounds are ultimately dispositive of nothing - except that sane judges don't want to touch them with a ten-foot gavel."

Here you are saying that the only reason...

When someone correctly identifies your bullshit, double down? Saul Alinski would be so proud.

No, the fact that it's the only thing of which it could be ultimately dispositive does not mean it's the only thing. It's simply the only thing of which it could be ultimately dispositive. See how logic works? Well, that's fine--everybody else reading this does.

Care to question the statement? Or do you not care, so long as it's easier to misrepresent it?