Autocracy: Rules for Survival

[Mac-7]

In Stones case mueller targeted him because they wanted to turn him into a witness against trump

so they raided his home with a swat team and had CNN cameras there to record it

that was total misconduct

then trying to imprison him for 9 years when a rapist only get 4 1/2 years

The sentencing guidelines for his crimes call for up to 50 years. Sending a SWAT team to raid his house isn't judicial misconduct.

It certainly is misconduct

it was grandstanding by the Deep State

It's the standard operating procedure for the service of warrants and arrests by the FBI. Stone is a criminal who was indicted by a Grand Jury, arrested by the FBI, charged, tried and FOUND GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS.

There is NOTHING illegal, improper or conspiratorial in the treatment of Roger Stone. Furthermore, the Trump Administration has ordered the Justice Department to aske for MAXIMUM sentences under the guidlines for ANY defendant who pleads not guilty, refuses to cooperate, goes to trial and is convicted. So Trump is violating his own policies to do favours for his friends.

There is no way to spin this as anything other than President Trump wants his friends and associates to feel free to violate any laws they choose. That's not America. That's a banana republic.

Are you a canadian?

Are you incapable of figuring that out for yourself? Are you that lazy and stupid?

A simple yes or no will do

 

[berg80]

Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality. Consider the financial markets this week, which, having tanked overnight, rebounded following the Clinton and Obama speeches. Confronted with political volatility, the markets become suckers for calming rhetoric from authority figures. So do people. Panic can be neutralized by falsely reassuring words about how the world as we know it has not ended. It is a fact that the world did not end on November 8 nor at any previous time in history. Yet history has seen many catastrophes, and most of them unfolded over time. That time included periods of relative calm. One of my favorite thinkers, the Jewish historian Simon Dubnow, breathed a sigh of relief in early October 1939: he had moved from Berlin to Latvia, and he wrote to his friends that he was certain that the tiny country wedged between two tyrannies would retain its sovereignty and Dubnow himself would be safe. Shortly after that, Latvia was occupied by the Soviets, then by the Germans, then by the Soviets again—but by that time Dubnow had been killed. Dubnow was well aware that he was living through a catastrophic period in history—it’s just that he thought he had managed to find a pocket of normality within it.

 

[berg80]

Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.

Of course, the United States has much stronger institutions than Germany did in the 1930s, or Russia does today. Both Clinton and Obama in their speeches stressed the importance and strength of these institutions. The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

The national press is likely to be among the first institutional victims of Trumpism. There is no law that requires the presidential administration to hold daily briefings, none that guarantees media access to the White House. Many journalists may soon face a dilemma long familiar to those of us who have worked under autocracies: fall in line or forfeit access. There is no good solution (even if there is a right answer), for journalism is difficult and sometimes impossible without access to information.

The power of the investigative press—whose adherence to fact has already been severely challenged by the conspiracy-minded, lie-spinning Trump campaign—will grow weaker. The world will grow murkier. Even in the unlikely event that some mainstream media outlets decide to declare themselves in opposition to the current government, or even simply to report its abuses and failings, the president will get to frame many issues. Coverage, and thinking, will drift in a Trumpian direction, just as it did during the campaign—when, for example, the candidates argued, in essence, whether Muslim Americans bear collective responsibility for acts of terrorism or can redeem themselves by becoming the “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. Thus was xenophobia further normalized, paving the way for Trump to make good on his promises to track American Muslims and ban Muslims from entering the United States.

 

[berg80]

The Case for the President’s Unilateral Authority to Conclude the Impending Iran Deal is Easy Because it Will (Likely) be a Nonbinding Agreement Under International Law
The Case for the President’s Unilateral Authority to Conclude the Impending Iran Deal is Easy Because it Will (Likely) be a Nonbinding Agreement Under International Law

In Marty’s post yesterday about the letter that 47 Senators sent to “the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he briefly addressed the question of “whether the President has the constitutional authority to complete the agreement in question without further congressional involvement.” The answer to that legal question depends, he wrote, “largely on what specific obligations the agreement will impose upon the United States — something that virtually no one in this public debate has any knowledge of, by the way — and on how the agreement comports with historical sole-executive-agreement practice.”

That answer was right, as far as it goes, but it was incomplete. Marty’s response to the constitutional question—like most other analysis on legal blogs—was based on the assumption that the deal being negotiated by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany and Iran would be an agreement that imposes obligations on the parties that are binding as a matter of international law. That is certainly what the Senators’ letter itself suggested (it discusses “the [constitutional] power to make binding international agreements”). And the response of Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to the Senators was designed to leave the same impression: Zarif referred to “international obligations undertaken by [the Obama Administration] in a possible agreement about Iran`s peaceful nuclear program,” and stated that “if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as [the Senators suggest it might], it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.”

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

Hmmmm, it was YOUR hero, the obummer who spied on reporters, and violated the civil Rights of political groups who opposed him.

And you claim Trump is the autocrat?

Go piss up a rope you looney!

So you don't think Trump, paranoid as hell of the press as he is, isn't having some reporters spied on?
What political group's civil right were violated?
I love the way you gasbags come on here and fart and then your fellow goons take it as fact.
No questions asked.

.

 

[westwall]

Hmmmm, it was YOUR hero, the obummer who spied on reporters, and violated the civil Rights of political groups who opposed him.

And you claim Trump is the autocrat?

Go piss up a rope you looney!

So you don't think Trump, paranoid as hell of the press as he is, isn't having some reporters spied on?
What political group's civil right were violated?
I love the way you gasbags come on here and fart and then your fellow goons take it as fact.
No questions asked.

.

When you have evidence he is doing so present it. So far the only wannabe dictator we know of is your hero, the obummer.

 

[Lesh]

The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

Trump is actually following the Putin playbook...and his followers have no problem with that

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“Thank you, my friends. Thank you. Thank you. We have lost. We have lost, and this is the last day of my political career, so I will say what must be said. We are standing at the edge of the abyss. Our political system, our society, our country itself are in greater danger than at any time in the last century and a half. The president-elect has made his intentions clear, and it would be immoral to pretend otherwise. We must band together right now to defend the laws, the institutions, and the ideals on which our country is based.”

That, or something like that, is what Hillary Clinton should have said on Wednesday. Instead, she said, resignedly,

We must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power. We don’t just respect that. We cherish it. It also enshrines the rule of law; the principle [that] we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values, too, and we must defend them.

Similar refrains were heard from various members of the liberal commentariat, with Tom Friedman vowing, “I am not going to try to make my president fail,” to Nick Kristof calling on “the approximately 52 percent majority of voters who supported someone other than Donald Trump” to “give president Trump a chance.” Even the politicians who have in the past appealed to the less-establishment part of the Democratic electorate sounded the conciliatory note. Senator Elizabeth Warren promised to “put aside our differences.” Senator Bernie Sanders was only slightly more cautious, vowing to try to find the good in Trump: “To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.”

However well-intentioned, this talk assumes that Trump is prepared to find common ground with his many opponents, respect the institutions of government, and repudiate almost everything he has stood for during the campaign. In short, it is treating him as a “normal” politician. There has until now been little evidence that he can be one.
Autocracy: Rules for Survival
.....................................................................................................................................
The author goes on to list 6 rules to keep in mind during this rise of an autocrat. Progressives should read them. They'll come in handy. Cuz, the cavalry isn't coming any time soon. Your fellow Americans who have joined the Trump cult are becoming more devoted. Enamored with every institutional norm that gets washed away. The more we point it out to them the more they hate us.

Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says. Whenever you find yourself thinking, or hear others claiming, that he is exaggerating, that is our innate tendency to reach for a rationalization. This will happen often: humans seem to have evolved to practice denial when confronted publicly with the unacceptable. Back in the 1930s, The New York Times assured its readers that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was all posture. More recently, the same newspaper made a telling choice between two statements made by Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov following a police crackdown on protesters in Moscow: “The police acted mildly—I would have liked them to act more harshly” rather than those protesters’ “liver should have been spread all over the pavement.” Perhaps the journalists could not believe their ears. But they should—both in the Russian case, and in the American one. For all the admiration Trump has expressed for Putin, the two men are very different; if anything, there is even more reason to listen to everything Trump has said. He has no political establishment into which to fold himself following the campaign, and therefore no reason to shed his campaign rhetoric. On the contrary: it is now the establishment that is rushing to accommodate him—from the president, who met with him at the White House on Thursday, to the leaders of the Republican Party, who are discarding their long-held scruples to embrace his radical positions.

He has received the support he needed to win, and the adulation he craves, precisely because of his outrageous threats. Trump rally crowds have chanted “Lock her up!” They, and he, meant every word. If Trump does not go after Hillary Clinton on his first day in office, if he instead focuses, as his acceptance speech indicated he might, on the unifying project of investing in infrastructure (which, not coincidentally, would provide an instant opportunity to reward his cronies and himself), it will be foolish to breathe a sigh of relief. Trump has made his plans clear, and he has made a compact with his voters to carry them out. These plans include not only dismantling legislation such as Obamacare but also doing away with judicial restraint—and, yes, punishing opponents.

To begin jailing his political opponents, or just one opponent, Trump will begin by trying to capture members of the judicial system. Observers and even activists functioning in the normal-election mode are fixated on the Supreme Court as the site of the highest-risk impending Trump appointment. There is little doubt that Trump will appoint someone who will cause the Court to veer to the right; there is also the risk that it might be someone who will wreak havoc with the very culture of the high court. And since Trump plans to use the judicial system to carry out his political vendettas, his pick for attorney general will be no less important. Imagine former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie going after Hillary Clinton on orders from President Trump; quite aside from their approach to issues such as the Geneva Conventions, the use of police powers, criminal justice reforms, and other urgent concerns.

My number one rule
NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

Trump is actually following the Putin playbook...and his followers have no problem with that

You give Putin way to much living space in your mind.

 

[sparky]

I'd ask you to defend those remarks with some factual substantiation

Easy

Patriot Act - Wikipedia

We don’t just respect that. We cherish it. It also enshrines the rule of law; the principle [that] we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values, too, and we must defend them.

But she voted FOR the PA

so you see, America turned the corner into autocracy almost 2 decades ago

none of these people, absolutely zero of them 'respect' or 'cherish' a d*mn thing except gaining your vote & finding some globalist sugar daddy to grease their rides.....

~S~

 

[Lesh]

The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

Trump is actually following the Putin playbook...and his followers have no problem with that

You give Putin way to much living space in your mind.

You give him far too little.
He’s a murderous dictator running a criminal enterprise that happens to have one of the biggest nuclear arsenals on the planet... and just happened to hack out most recent presidential election

 

[bripat9643]

Take a breath chicken little the ski is not falling.

You can't imagine how much I wish it wasn't. But it is. Because to me, it doesn't matter if this is just a one time fall from the founding ideals in to flirting with autocracy. The fact that it happened at all, in this country, absolutely crushes me.

No one is flirting with autocracy other than the Dims and their deep state minions. Spying on an opposition political candidate is what autocrats do.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

Trump is actually following the Putin playbook...and his followers have no problem with that

You give Putin way to much living space in your mind.

You give him far too little.
He’s a murderous dictator running a criminal enterprise that happens to have one of the biggest nuclear arsenals on the planet... and just happened to hack out most recent presidential election

Who has he murdered?

Do you TDS douchebags experience the slightest bit of shame when spouting the most preposterous lies imaginable?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

Trump is actually following the Putin playbook...and his followers have no problem with that

You give Putin way to much living space in your mind.

You give him far too little.
He’s a murderous dictator running a criminal enterprise that happens to have one of the biggest nuclear arsenals on the planet... and just happened to hack out most recent presidential election

Seems obama didn't have a problem warming up to Putin because after the election obama would have more flexibility. Shortly after that didn't Russia take back some real estate from Ukraine?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hmmmm, it was YOUR hero, the obummer who spied on reporters, and violated the civil Rights of political groups who opposed him.

And you claim Trump is the autocrat?

Go piss up a rope you looney!

in fairness, Obama only spied on people who shared a different political ideology

Congress claimed the FBI spied on them but when the FBI spied on the Trump Campaign it wasn't sping

 

[cutter]

Take a breath chicken little the ski is not falling.

You can't imagine how much I wish it wasn't. But it is. Because to me, it doesn't matter if this is just a one time fall from the founding ideals in to flirting with autocracy. The fact that it happened at all, in this country, absolutely crushes me.

Just when did the democrats try to work with Trump or give him a chance to fulfill his campaign promises? Even pelosi said they have been working on impeachment for over 3yrs now. All the dems did was fight Trump in everything he tried to do. He has accomplished more in 3yrs than any president in recent history and the only president in the last hundred years to try to fulfill his campaign promises.