CDZ America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

[Donald H]

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?

Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.

Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?

I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions

Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?

 

[Donald H]

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

My reply is on the other thread.

 

[OldLady]

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?

Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.

Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?

I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions

Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?

No, I don't think it's a flaw that the Supreme Court only deals with Constitutional issues. There are many other courts to handle criminal matters and their appeals. Justice has every opportunity to be served.

I know nothing about Constitutional law, so I am basing my opinion on every expert I have heard, who all say that the Texas case is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

 

[Donald H]

I know nothing about Constitutional law, so I am basing my opinion on every expert I have heard, who all say that the Texas case is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

No answer. A simple 'no' will suffice?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

First of all, sorry that this is late. Was called away this morning ...

I think we ought NOT to think that the core of Trumpism is “authoritarianism” so much as it is rightwing nationalist populism. The Atlantic article is a bit misleading in this sense, but it is clearly talking about “nationalist authoritarian populists” who all over the world are being elected:

“Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms ... Orbán proudly uses the phrase illiberal democracy [my emphasis] to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.”

This article says that Trump FAILED to become a successful populist authoritarian like those above because of his incompetence in governing, because he demonized, frightened and infuriated unnecessarily too many otherwise potential supporters. It speaks mostly of voters in the recent election.

Behind the election game and two-party “democracy” there have always been other factors at play. Everyone knows Trump ran against and was hated by mainstream liberal media (whom he “played” to perfection). A key point not often discussed, however, is that over three years — despite throwing valuable economic benefits their way — Trump personally alienated key players on Wall Street and powerful private capitalist networks (e.g. the Koch brothers) which otherwise agreed with his policies and were willing to give him a chance to “grow into the presidency.” There were others at the high summits of the “Security State” who became convinced he was simply unstable, incompetent and irresponsible — a “moron” at actually running the complex world empire our system depends upon. A rightwing “patriotic” demagogue more competent at uniting the nation and governing it would have been able to win much greater support from the MIC and “Security State,” just as Trump won support from most cops. Few people, liberal or conservative, really appreciate this fact.

I’m not interested in arguing here with martybegan for flacaltenn or others who are convinced everything wrong in America is the fault of Democrats, or that their being asked to wear masks or flush toilets or give up their 60 watt incandescent bulbs is an intolerable sacrifice imposed by authoritarian communists. I am no defender of Biden either, though I confess I resentfully voted for him. I am just arguing that Republicans, with their crackpot minority intact, with Trump’s self-same “nationalist” policies, will probably sweep back into power sooner rather than later.

I agree with Republicans that “left” populist authoritarianism is often obnoxious. Under certain conditions and in other countries it can be a serious problem. But as a social movement, as an electoral bloc, it has and can have very little traction in this country. What remains of the U.S. “working class” mostly supported Trump, or is atomized, its unions broken. Many “progressive” liberal millennials will grow out of their Harry Potter dream worlds, like most hippies did. I believe real conditions in the U.S. will continue to deteriorate for those without a stock portfolio regardless of which party is in power, and this will help demagogic Republicans sweep back into power. Democrats (if they should win the Senate in 2022) may slightly cushion the economic blow, but I think this unlikely, and very unlikely to last. Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically. Even the conman Trump ALMOST won re-election, and probably would have, had Covid not arrived. Invoking the Flag, Guns, the Bible, and The Wall, attacking “socialist” Democrats — this remains the likely way forward for Republicans.

The last serious and lasting “progressive” or “left” re-formulation of national American politics (not counting the Civil Rights Movement which was initially bi-partisan) was the New Deal. The likelihood that another liberal capitalist like FDR can arise and lead another transformational reform movement addressing “bread and butter” and structural economic issues ... is very small. The necessary domestic conditions simply do not exist. The likelihood that such a movement could be led by a real authoritarian leftist ... is far, far smaller.

Early on, even before the COVID pandemic hit the U.S. and while Trump was still playing footsie with XiJinping, I predicted Trump would use the “China issue” to beat up on Democrats. This issue is not going away. Nor can corporate “globalism” be replaced by national autarchy. Trade with India and South America, competition from Japan, Korea, and old Europe, these all have already tended to devastate wages for working people in the U.S.A. The rise of the Amazon / Walmart / high tech economy will continue to bifurcate wealth. Democrats may also play tough with China, but the Wall Street & Federal Reserve American Empire, like U.S. military dominance all over the world, is riddled with (not always obvious) weaknesses. Protectionism, U.S. sanctions against competitors (easily redefined as “enemies”) and refusal to abandon our existing world supremacy, will almost certainly lead the U.S. into conflicts with China and other powers, and all the old nationalist madness will return. It will smooth the way for an elected, popular, rightwing authoritarian to take power.

 

[Donald H]

First of all, sorry that this is late. Was called away this morning ...

I think we ought NOT to think that the core of Trumpism is “authoritarianism” so much as it is rightwing nationalist populism. The Atlantic article is a bit misleading in this sense, but it is clearly talking about “nationalist authoritarian populists” who all over the world are being ELECTED:

“Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms ... Orbán proudly uses the phrase illiberal democracy [my emphasis] to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.”

This article says that Trump FAILED to become a successful populist authoritarian like those above because of his incompetence in governing, because he demonized, frightened and infuriated unnecessarily too many otherwise potential supporters. It speaks mostly of VOTERS in the recent election.

Behind the election game and two-party “democracy” there have always been other factors at play. Everyone knows Trump ran against and was hated by mainstream liberal media (whom he “played” to perfection). A key point not often discussed, however, is that over three years — despite throwing valuable economic benefits their way — Trump personally alienated key players on Wall Street and powerful private capitalist networks (e.g. the Koch brothers) which otherwise agreed with his policies and were willing to give him a chance to “grow into the presidency.” There were others at the high summits of the “Security State” who became convinced he was simply unstable, incompetent and irresponsible — a “moron” at actually running the complex world empire our system depends upon. A rightwing “patriotic” demagogue more competent at uniting the nation and governing it would have been able to win much greater support from the MIC and “Security State,” just as Trump won support from most cops. Few people, liberal or conservative, really appreciate this fact.

I’m not interested in arguing here with martybegan for flacaltenn or others who are convinced everything wrong in America is the fault of Democrats, or that their being asked to wear masks or flush toilets or give up their 60 watt incandescent bulbs is an intolerable sacrifice imposed by authoritarian communists. I am no defender of Biden either, though I confess I resentfully voted for him. I am just arguing that Republicans, with their crackpot minority intact, with Trump’s self-same nationalist policies, will probably sweep back into power sooner rather than later.

I agree with Republicans that “left” populist authoritarianism is often obnoxious. Under certain conditions and in other countries it can be a serious problem. But as a social movement, as an electoral bloc, it has and can have very little traction in this country. What remains of the U.S. “working class” mostly supported Trump, or is atomized, its unions broken. Many “progressive” liberal millennials will grow out of their Harry Potter dream worlds, like most hippies did. I believe real conditions in the U.S. will continue to deteriorate for those without a stock portfolio regardless of which party is in power, and this will help demagogic Republicans sweep back into power. Democrats (if they should miraculously win the Senate in 2022) may slightly cushion the economic blow, but I think this unlikely, and very unlikely to last. Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically. Even the conman Trump ALMOST won re-election, and probably would have, had Covid not arrived. Invoking the Flag, Guns, the Bible, and the Wall, attacking “socialist” Democrats — this remains the likely way forward for Republicans.

The last serious and lasting “progressive” or “left” re-formulation of national American politics (not counting the Civil Rights Movement which was initially bi-partisan) was the New Deal. The likelihood that another liberal capitalist like FDR can arise and lead another transformational reform movement addressing “bread and butter” and structural economic issues ... is very small. The necessary domestic conditions simply do not exist. The likelihood that such a movement could be led by a real authoritarian leftist ... is far, far smaller.

Early on, even before the COVID pandemic hit the U.S. and while Trump was still playing footsie with XiJinping, I predicted Trump would use the “China issue” to beat up on Democrats. This issue is not going away. Nor can corporate “globalism” be replaced by national autarchy. Trade with India or South America, competition from Japan, Korea, even old Europe, these all have already tended to devastate wages for working people in the U.S.A. The rise of the Amazon / Walmart / high tech economy will continue to bifurcate wealth. Democrats may also play tough with China, but the Wall Street & Federal Reserve American Empire, like U.S. military dominance all over the world, is riddled with (not always obvious) weaknesses. Protectionism, U.S. sanctions against competitors (easily redefined as “enemies”) and refusal to abandon our existing world supremacy, will almost certainly lead the U.S. into conflicts with China and other powers, and all the old nationalist madness will return. It will smooth the way for an elected, popular, rightwing authoritarian to take power.

Interesting perspective on all the problems in America. None of which I would disagree with but I'll add another possibility on their future.

I contend that racism is behind all the trouble. It even became Trump's main drawing card that he used to bury the fact that income inequality to an extent that it has impoverished the working class. And so the American people need to break through the wall that the system has imposed on them and become a socially responsible capitalist country, similar to the world's leading democracies. America has the wealth that would allow them to do just that, in far greater excess than any of those other countries.

But the main stumbling block is still the racism that allowed Trump to con the people into buying his lies of bringing prosperity to the ordinary people. And so, dealing with the racism is necessary to first bring the people together in a concerted effort to demand a piece of the great American pie.

If racism can be dealt with then their poverty can be dealt with and they would soon see some fairness in their country for the working people.

The Biden plan speaks volumes for accomplishing just that but most likely it will only cause the opposite reaction, as with what happened to Obama's attempts. However, Biden points in the right direction even though he's probably too weak or too insincere to follow through with any attempts that can make a difference.

There's only the power within the non-white movements themselves to bring about the needed reform the US needs. That power currently seems to be sorely lacking, but that's not written in stone for the future. Maybe even the immediate future, as in Biden's 4 years.

If Joe drops dead before his 4 years are up, then Kamala will give it a serious try. So serious that assassination would be the biggest danger to her.

I believe it really is as simple as eliminating most of the racism, at least down to normal levels as seen in other democracies. Can any American even begin to accept that as the problem?

Can I simplify everything you said with that answer? I think I can if one understands how Hitler used the same tactic on the people that allowed him to rise to power in pre-WW2 in Germany. That simply is, find a scapegoat group to blame for his country's grief.

When racism goes away, America becomes a normal functioning democratic country once again.

 

[Donald H]

And in addition to that, M.A.D. most likely eliminates the military solution for America. That needs to be mentioned bacause it was relied upon as the solution every time in the past.

 

[flacaltenn]

Trump was ineffective ... A future strongman won’t be...

Yeah, we truly dodged a bullet here. We've now learned that a significant portion of our population aggressively desires an authoritarian, autocratic strongman. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell didn't know that.

Indeed, if Trump had been more intelligent, empathetic, competent, articulate and self-aware, this country literally could have gone down that road. That opening existed, and still does to large extent.

That's chilling, it really is. A true cautionary tale.

This use of Authoritarian in this context simply means "policies you dont agree with"... AMIRITE?
Like taking personal charge of negotiating "fairer trade" with China. Or stepping up to do one on one talks with the crazy Kim Chee. Or building a wall because CONGRESS cant and wont get their shit together to FIX immigration law..

Nobody here has given the heebies about "the Authoritarian treat from the Trump" versus the very real and quantifiable fear of THOUSANDS of would-be WannaBee Authoritarians we've ACTUALLY uncovered during the Covid crisis in mainly Blue seats..

But I suppose you find THEIR whimsical and erratic edicts more than justified because YOU LIKE some heavy handed mental midgets telling YOU what to do, but not doing it themselves..

 

[flacaltenn]

The anger is real in his supporters. I wonder where it comes from? Maybe if we address this anger we can prevent such a thing in the future.

What kind of anger caused this in Kenosha??

Or what kind of anger caused this carnage on Rodeo Drive in Hollwood?

And btw -- Authoritarian Dictator Newsome of Cali CALLED the Nat Guard the NEXT day...

Ya, they were passed because people were killing innocent family members. By the way some of those not pictures of what you say but you fucking conservatives don't give a shit about truth anymore. They had real reasons to be passed. You on the other hand are just passed because your skin color does not quite benefit ya like you used to and because you are the ones who actually fuelvthe swamp Trump talks about. Your most your party have become scum.

So -- before the courts have admitted the evidence -- you go out and DESTROY your own city or some prestige place like Rodeo Drive and call it reparations? THATS NOT ANGER???

And I can give the address of the burnt out car lot in Kenosha.. Owned by the same guy who a day later was defending his gas station with the kid rifleman.. Same with burning bus and bus stop. And the Gucci store on Rodeo Drive that STILL is boarded up pending FUTURE unmitigated "anger attacks".. That news AINT fake..

The "AUTHORITARIAN" US media that is a Political PAC now for the DNC -- just wouldn't SHOW YOU the carnage and pillaging.. Another kind of "authoritarian" the left aint worried about..

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm disappointed you wouldn't look at the vid. He's a thoughtful guy.

He's 80% drama and 20% emotional.. Just the premise of "pardoning Trump" for imagined high crimes is absurd.. Trump is the most fully vetted President in our lifetimes. As opposed to the coming carnage of an relatively unvetted 45 yr political hack the media just wouldn't do... You've yet to tell me the "authoritarian crimes" that require a pardon.. I mean CRIMES -- not just "policy or methods" that you dont agree with.

It's all a matter of degree. Saying this was just business as usual ... I'm not buying it. From the moment he stepped foot in office and began asking for loyalty oaths, lying about crowd size at his first presser, flaming anyone and everything on twitter that dared criticize him, and set about convincing any who would listen that the most legitimate newspapers in the country were lying about him...
that was the beginning.

And with the entire media complex in the tank ACTIVELY colluding to frame him -- he's NOT supposed to "flame people"??? Why that would be so distasteful.. As soon as you give me the list of people he "attacked" who didn't slap him first -- I'll consider some outrage.. The Dems have enjoyed a media advantage for 30 years or more.. That's why the Darwinian evolution that removed the spines of the Repub "old guard".. Meanwhile, actors like Max Waters, Pelosi, Swallwell, Schiff can go out and LIE REPEATEDLY about him being an agent of Putin and an "illegitimate president"??? Nope.. Not in the real world where folks aren't planning a CAREER in Republican politics.. It's like they've been neutered and defanged. It's refreshing to WATCH a "fairer fight" from expensive sideline seat... You're STILL not over having an outsider coming in to D.C. to attempt to "clean the swamp".. But the Swamp is gonna win and then WE -- all lose...

Thanks for making my point. He does control what media half the country believes. Therefore, what news they will hear. As far as guns...ever hear of Commander in Chief? If the generals hadn't balked, there would be a lot more of them crawling around civilian neighborhoods right now.

He controls the loyalty of 1/2 of America, but NOT 1/2 of the American media.. Do you NOT SEE how that 1/2 of America is now in EXILE media-wise? Censored -- stories blacked-out, free discussion stifled?? THe AUTHORITARIAN FACT CHECKERS running defense for them? People fleeing FB. Twitter, even Fox News? Biggest story of the day on MSN feed is how NewsMax -- a clueless inept pseudo-news operation is whooping Fox News? There's no NEWS on NewsMax. No balance at all. And you're LOOKING at a growing divide that's gonna KILL MY COUNTRY...

Why dont we play this out? You list all the sources that just abandoned journalism to go full monty bat shit crazy on Trump's ass and I'll TRY to keep up with you with "all the media outlets" that TRUMP CONTROLS..

I know you're not purposely dishonest.. I just think you've screwed by YOUR choice of information and news.. It's more of a pity than any kind of real animus. But it makes it completely impossible to have HONEST conversations with you..

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact that AUTHORITARIANS like Zuckerberg and Dorsey felt the NEED to Black-out Hunter Biden news and news about the shady Democrat set-up manuveuring for ballot fraud that took place just before the election -- shows HOW SCARED they were about "free discussion".. Didn't LIKE a level field. Needed to landmine the landscape to AID in the fraud..

 

[OldLady]

you're LOOKING at a growing divide that's gonna KILL MY COUNTRY...

Yes. But Trump engineered it. I watched him do it.

 

[flacaltenn]

In all those posts, did anybody say something that relates to the topic?
If anybody is serious and needs some direction, read my reply to Tom Paine above.

Did Tom Payne make any point that asks for a debate? I think he must have been suggesting that the US Constitution isn't equipped to handle a future athoritarian who is more capable than Trump.

There's no dispute about the danger. The wisdom is in the hands of the voters. The "debate" is where the certifiable, valid and documented threats will come from.. Most of the emotion in the OPost is just a failure to accept the LAST election.. Nothing really to do about authoritarian threats..

 

[flacaltenn]

you're

Yes. But Trump engineered it. I watched him do it.

He engineered it because he called them out for aiding and abetting an attempted coup with "fake news"? Did I guess that right?

Your problem is that YOUR MEDIA fed you bovine scatology 24/7 for FOUR YEARS to KEEP you ignorant of the lies, distortion, and evil schemes.. The rest of us knew early on that the Steele Dossier was a POS political dirtbagging, Russian collusion commissioned by Hillary and the DNC and money laundered thru their lawyers. You didn't.. We KNEW that Carter Page was a patriot -- not a traitor and that he had actively aided the FBI and Intel with his work in Russia.. You did not.. Later on -- we KNEW that the real "Quid pro Quo" was Biden bragging at a CFR council meeting about how he shook down the leaders of the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma where his son got a cushy patronage job. Gave them 3 hours to do it.. Or the $Bill in aid would disappear.. And ALL THE CFR laughed out loud at the chutzpah of that move.. You never accepted an actual video ADMITTING he threatened Ukraine.. You WILL.. Trust me..

 

[flacaltenn]

you're LOOKING at a growing divide that's gonna KILL MY COUNTRY...

Yes. But Trump engineered it. I watched him do it.

What's HIS impact on media management compared to the 100s of phony ass "fact checkers" and the dictators of speech at all our major sosh media? It's puny.. But I canceled my FB and Twitter accounts this week just to add to the polarization here..

 

[OldLady]

it makes it completely impossible to have HONEST conversations with you..

I'm very aware of the arguments you make. I hang out here, don't I? How could I not know? I actually listen to the vids, read the articles, follow the links. I have made my decision knowing both arguments; as a matter of fact, I knew exactly what responses I would get when I was typing them. Almost made me give up, because I knew there was no sense in it.

Unless you define 'honest' as agreeing with you, I fail to see where it is impossible to have an honest discussion with me. But that's entirely your choice and it's no skin off my nose.

 

[Skylar]

I defend the basic view of this article. If you disagree, explain why. I am especially interested in debating liberal views, but of course all are welcome to express their opinions.

Trump was ineffective ... A future strongman won’t be...

Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world.... But there’s one key difference between Trump and everyone else.... The others are all talented politicians who win elections again and again....

Trump is not good at his job. He doesn’t even seem to like it much. He is too undisciplined and thin-skinned to be effective at politics over a sustained period, which involves winning repeated elections....

The situation is ... perfect ... for a talented politician to run on Trumpism in 2024. A person without the eager Twitter fingers and greedy hotel chains, someone with a penchant for governing rather than golf. An individual who does not irritate everyone who doesn’t already like him.... Someone who isn’t on tape boasting about assaulting women, and who says the right things about military veterans. Someone who can send appropriate condolences about senators who die, instead of angering their state’s voters, as Trump did, perhaps to his detriment, in Arizona. A norm-subverting strongman who can create a durable majority and keep his coalition together to win more elections....

Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism — without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent — is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president.

America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

Now that genuinely scares the shit out of me. As a competent authoritarian could have done some horrendously evil shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

all of the voter election misconduct affidavits are being dismissed out of hand or automatically being labeled debunked

They are being looked into and THEN explained or debunked. But the fraud crowd ignores that and keeps spewing them.

NO major court in the past month -- INCLUDING the SupCt decision today -- has EVER ruled on ANY of the merits of the case.. Evidence is collected thru discovery PRE-TRIAL.. No court has EVER granted a trial.. WHY? Because in the end --- there's NO REMEDY to be had.. Alito and Thomas said that today.. They stated that by all rights -- the Sup Ct should NOT have rejected the case on the technical "no standing" decision.. But said there was no possible remedy for the damage.

That's because the STATEHOUSES in those states that were blindsided by their courts MAKING LAW ILLEGALLY are the ones to determine remedies. It's the ANTI-Authoritarian "states rights" recognition as it SHOULD be.. Repubs failed again to keep the left from destroying election trust and integrity.. Trump KNEW this was the likely outcome and tried to warn them.. But did NOTHING himself to interfere. Which is the way it should be..

It's done. You cannot reconstruct the election crimes once the mail ballot packaging is discarded. You can only look at the forensic fingerprints of how many ballots were shoved thru ILLEGALLY once the Dems destroyed any chain of custody on those ballots.. And Dems have a fundamental blindspot between "legal and illegal".. Be it ballots or immigrants or election laws.. Cant' trust a party that totally screwed up the count at their own Iowa primary to be ANYWHERE NEAR -- election law or policy..

 

[Sunsettommy]

it makes it completely impossible to have HONEST conversations with you..

I'm very aware of the arguments you make. I hang out here, don't I? How could I not know? I actually listen to the vids, read the articles, follow the links. I have made my decision knowing both arguments; as a matter of fact, I knew exactly what responses I would get when I was typing them. Almost made me give up, because I knew there was no sense in it.

Unless you define 'honest' as agreeing with you, I fail to see where it is impossible to have an honest discussion with me. But that's entirely your choice and it's no skin off my nose.

Maybe I missed it but you still haven't answered his question about Trump behaving as a dictator or something similar...., heck many democrats have called Trump a Dictator, but when pressed on what he has done as a Dictator, they dodge the question or ignore altogether.

 

[DustyInfinity]

First of all, sorry that this is late. Was called away this morning ...

I think we ought NOT to think that the core of Trumpism is “authoritarianism” so much as it is rightwing nationalist populism. The Atlantic article is a bit misleading in this sense, but it is clearly talking about “nationalist authoritarian populists” who all over the world are being elected:

“Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms ... Orbán proudly uses the phrase illiberal democracy [my emphasis] to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.”

This article says that Trump FAILED to become a successful populist authoritarian like those above because of his incompetence in governing, because he demonized, frightened and infuriated unnecessarily too many otherwise potential supporters. It speaks mostly of voters in the recent election.

Behind the election game and two-party “democracy” there have always been other factors at play. Everyone knows Trump ran against and was hated by mainstream liberal media (whom he “played” to perfection). A key point not often discussed, however, is that over three years — despite throwing valuable economic benefits their way — Trump personally alienated key players on Wall Street and powerful private capitalist networks (e.g. the Koch brothers) which otherwise agreed with his policies and were willing to give him a chance to “grow into the presidency.” There were others at the high summits of the “Security State” who became convinced he was simply unstable, incompetent and irresponsible — a “moron” at actually running the complex world empire our system depends upon. A rightwing “patriotic” demagogue more competent at uniting the nation and governing it would have been able to win much greater support from the MIC and “Security State,” just as Trump won support from most cops. Few people, liberal or conservative, really appreciate this fact.

I’m not interested in arguing here with martybegan for flacaltenn or others who are convinced everything wrong in America is the fault of Democrats, or that their being asked to wear masks or flush toilets or give up their 60 watt incandescent bulbs is an intolerable sacrifice imposed by authoritarian communists. I am no defender of Biden either, though I confess I resentfully voted for him. I am just arguing that Republicans, with their crackpot minority intact, with Trump’s self-same “nationalist” policies, will probably sweep back into power sooner rather than later.

I agree with Republicans that “left” populist authoritarianism is often obnoxious. Under certain conditions and in other countries it can be a serious problem. But as a social movement, as an electoral bloc, it has and can have very little traction in this country. What remains of the U.S. “working class” mostly supported Trump, or is atomized, its unions broken. Many “progressive” liberal millennials will grow out of their Harry Potter dream worlds, like most hippies did. I believe real conditions in the U.S. will continue to deteriorate for those without a stock portfolio regardless of which party is in power, and this will help demagogic Republicans sweep back into power. Democrats (if they should win the Senate in 2022) may slightly cushion the economic blow, but I think this unlikely, and very unlikely to last. Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically. Even the conman Trump ALMOST won re-election, and probably would have, had Covid not arrived. Invoking the Flag, Guns, the Bible, and The Wall, attacking “socialist” Democrats — this remains the likely way forward for Republicans.

The last serious and lasting “progressive” or “left” re-formulation of national American politics (not counting the Civil Rights Movement which was initially bi-partisan) was the New Deal. The likelihood that another liberal capitalist like FDR can arise and lead another transformational reform movement addressing “bread and butter” and structural economic issues ... is very small. The necessary domestic conditions simply do not exist. The likelihood that such a movement could be led by a real authoritarian leftist ... is far, far smaller.

Early on, even before the COVID pandemic hit the U.S. and while Trump was still playing footsie with XiJinping, I predicted Trump would use the “China issue” to beat up on Democrats. This issue is not going away. Nor can corporate “globalism” be replaced by national autarchy. Trade with India and South America, competition from Japan, Korea, and old Europe, these all have already tended to devastate wages for working people in the U.S.A. The rise of the Amazon / Walmart / high tech economy will continue to bifurcate wealth. Democrats may also play tough with China, but the Wall Street & Federal Reserve American Empire, like U.S. military dominance all over the world, is riddled with (not always obvious) weaknesses. Protectionism, U.S. sanctions against competitors (easily redefined as “enemies”) and refusal to abandon our existing world supremacy, will almost certainly lead the U.S. into conflicts with China and other powers, and all the old nationalist madness will return. It will smooth the way for an elected, popular, rightwing authoritarian to take power.

So this is all about globalism? If you love your country and autonomy, it is part of the old madness? Don't you think it is pessimistic to think countries can't be independent without killing each other? I don't think it makes sense to give up our autonomy because aggressive bad actors such as China may be displeased.