The Tyrant Test

[BackAgain]

Facts.

You misspelled “idiotic delusion.”

It’s an easy mistake to make especially for someone who isn’t too bright. You know: You.

 

[MarathonMike]

The one thing a tyrant exercises more than anything else is intimidation.

And America has never seen anything like this. Not even close.

It's called "wielding power". You and your "Liberal" friends got used to America being the worlds' patsy and our Presidents being pantywaists.

 

[BackAgain]

The one thing a tyrant exercises more than anything else is intimidation.

And America has never seen anything like this. Not even close.

 

[el midgetron]

You can’t pass a ******* drug test.

I’m pretty sure if he drank one he would piss it out.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is a tyrant, folks? We have seen people get called tyrants for making people stay inside during a pandemic. We saw people being called tyrants for making people get vaccinated to not spread a deadly virus. People have complained about tyranny because of an attempt to enforce equal rights and opportunities. Today, we have a president snatching people off the street, putting them in jails, or shipping them away without due process. To me, that's a tyrant, yet we see people defending this.

The Tyrant Test​

A leader who uses military force to suppress his political opposition ought to lose the right to govern.

For as long as I’ve been alive, American presidents have defined tyrants by their willingness to use military force against their own people in reprisal for political opposition. This was a staple of Cold War presidential rhetoric, and it survived long into the War on Terror era.

Ronald Reagan declared in 1981 that “it is dictatorships, not democracies, that need militarism to control their own people and impose their system on others.” His successor, George H. W. Bush, did the same in 1992, talking about American presidents confronting the Warsaw Pact, which had been “lashed together by occupation troops and quisling governments and, when all else failed, the use of tanks against its own people.” Bill Clinton, when justifying strikes against the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 1998, emphasized that Hussein had used his arsenal “against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.” George W. Bush repeated that justification when invading Iraq in 2003, saying that Hussein’s government “practices terror against its own people.” Barack Obama, when intervening in Libya on behalf of rebels fighting Muammar Qaddafi, warned that Qaddafi had said “he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people.”

It would be absurd to say that American presidents have always been principled defenders of freedom and democracy, but their long-shared, bipartisan definition of tyrant is one who oppresses his own. So it’s striking that these warnings about tyrants in distant lands, who were supposedly the opposite of the kind of legitimate, democratic leaders elected in the United States of America, now apply to the sitting U.S. president, Donald Trump. It is a simple but morally powerful formulation: A leader who uses military force to suppress their political opposition forfeits the right to govern. You could call this the “tyrant test,” and Trump is already failing it.

The Tyrant Test

A leader who uses military force to suppress his political opposition ought to lose the right to govern.

www.theatlantic.com

^ Toady supports the KKK democrat Party killing Qaddafi, one of the greatest leaders in the world

 

[konradv]

What is a tyrant, folks? We have seen people get called tyrants for making people stay inside during a pandemic. We saw people being called tyrants for making people get vaccinated to not spread a deadly virus. People have complained about tyranny because of an attempt to enforce equal rights and opportunities. Today, we have a president snatching people off the street, putting them in jails, or shipping them away without due process. To me, that's a tyrant, yet we see people defending this.

The Tyrant Test​

A leader who uses military force to suppress his political opposition ought to lose the right to govern.

For as long as I’ve been alive, American presidents have defined tyrants by their willingness to use military force against their own people in reprisal for political opposition. This was a staple of Cold War presidential rhetoric, and it survived long into the War on Terror era.

Ronald Reagan declared in 1981 that “it is dictatorships, not democracies, that need militarism to control their own people and impose their system on others.” His successor, George H. W. Bush, did the same in 1992, talking about American presidents confronting the Warsaw Pact, which had been “lashed together by occupation troops and quisling governments and, when all else failed, the use of tanks against its own people.” Bill Clinton, when justifying strikes against the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 1998, emphasized that Hussein had used his arsenal “against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.” George W. Bush repeated that justification when invading Iraq in 2003, saying that Hussein’s government “practices terror against its own people.” Barack Obama, when intervening in Libya on behalf of rebels fighting Muammar Qaddafi, warned that Qaddafi had said “he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people.”

It would be absurd to say that American presidents have always been principled defenders of freedom and democracy, but their long-shared, bipartisan definition of tyrant is one who oppresses his own. So it’s striking that these warnings about tyrants in distant lands, who were supposedly the opposite of the kind of legitimate, democratic leaders elected in the United States of America, now apply to the sitting U.S. president, Donald Trump. It is a simple but morally powerful formulation: A leader who uses military force to suppress their political opposition forfeits the right to govern. You could call this the “tyrant test,” and Trump is already failing it.

The Tyrant Test

A leader who uses military force to suppress his political opposition ought to lose the right to govern.

www.theatlantic.com

Sometimes I feel like it’s ‘chickens coming home to roost’. How often in the past have we supported military strongmen, just because they said they were anti-Communist? Apparently the administration likes that part of history, as we see with Trump’s dealings in El Salvador.

 

[MisterBeale]

He's enjoyed every PRIVILEGE of being an American citizen, has retired and has time to sit on his ass all day and hurl his hatred for America, Trump and White people.

I was thinking much the same.
. .. constantly whines about how he is entitled to "reparations," while wasting money on such a toxic and awful information source.

https://archive.ph/sZrSm

Most reasonable folks know, if there are no riots, there is no heavy handed response.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

FDR was the closest we've ever come to a tyrant and even he was elected. So IM2 continues on his bitterness tour with orange man consuming his every second. Its such poetic justice.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I don't have to live in Iran, white child, because I've seen plenty of tyranny here. Our government is snatching people off the streets nd putting them in jail for writing editorials, and our president is violating the law.

So stop dodging the issue chump, because this is tyranny.

Get your FAKE "vaccine", boosters, and wear a mask OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!
There"s YOUR tyranny.
The "good" news is with your OP, you've passed the RETARD TEST.
Congrats.

 

[BackAgain]

Facts.

Neither of you two assclowns is capable of perceiving facts.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem with calling Trump a "tyrant" is that there is a disconnect between the person and the usual connotation of the term.

When you think of a "tyrant", you think of a strong man. This is a weak and insecure child who PLAYS a strong man, trying to cover his inadequacies. The problem is, while he pretends to be strong, he simultaneously wears those inadequacies on his sleeve like a badge for all to see.

A different term might work better. A new one may need to be created.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Um...when did trump use military force against his political opposition?

Trump is using the government against his political and personal enemies...........Close enough.

 

[konradv]

The problem with calling Trump a "tyrant" is that there is a disconnect between the person and the usual connotation of the term.

When you think of a "tyrant", you think of a strong man. This is a weak and insecure child who PLAYS a strong man, trying to cover his inadequacies. The problem is, while he pretends to be strong, he simultaneously wears those inadequacies on his sleeve like a badge for all to see.

A different term might work better. A new one may need to be created.

MAGA thinks Trump is Hulk Hogan, when he’s really Pee Wee Herman.

 

[DonGlock26]

What is a tyrant, folks? We have seen people get called tyrants for making people stay inside during a pandemic. We saw people being called tyrants for making people get vaccinated to not spread a deadly virus. People have complained about tyranny because of an attempt to enforce equal rights and opportunities. Today, we have a president snatching people off the street, putting them in jails, or shipping them away without due process. To me, that's a tyrant, yet we see people defending this.

The Tyrant Test​

A leader who uses military force to suppress his political opposition ought to lose the right to govern.

For as long as I’ve been alive, American presidents have defined tyrants by their willingness to use military force against their own people in reprisal for political opposition. This was a staple of Cold War presidential rhetoric, and it survived long into the War on Terror era.

Ronald Reagan declared in 1981 that “it is dictatorships, not democracies, that need militarism to control their own people and impose their system on others.” His successor, George H. W. Bush, did the same in 1992, talking about American presidents confronting the Warsaw Pact, which had been “lashed together by occupation troops and quisling governments and, when all else failed, the use of tanks against its own people.” Bill Clinton, when justifying strikes against the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 1998, emphasized that Hussein had used his arsenal “against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.” George W. Bush repeated that justification when invading Iraq in 2003, saying that Hussein’s government “practices terror against its own people.” Barack Obama, when intervening in Libya on behalf of rebels fighting Muammar Qaddafi, warned that Qaddafi had said “he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people.”

It would be absurd to say that American presidents have always been principled defenders of freedom and democracy, but their long-shared, bipartisan definition of tyrant is one who oppresses his own. So it’s striking that these warnings about tyrants in distant lands, who were supposedly the opposite of the kind of legitimate, democratic leaders elected in the United States of America, now apply to the sitting U.S. president, Donald Trump. It is a simple but morally powerful formulation: A leader who uses military force to suppress their political opposition forfeits the right to govern. You could call this the “tyrant test,” and Trump is already failing it.

The Tyrant Test

A leader who uses military force to suppress his political opposition ought to lose the right to govern.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[DonGlock26]

Palaces and golf courses

Making prosecutors go away...

 

[DonGlock26]

You can’t pass a ******* drug test.

Drug tests are racist!!

 

[DonGlock26]

MAGA thinks Trump is Hulk Hogan, when he’s really Pee Wee Herman.

 

[DonGlock26]

Trump is using the government against his political and personal enemies...........Close enough.

Where were you when the Democrats were trying to put Trump in prison? Cheering it on?

 

[SeaMajor7]

The problem with calling Trump a "tyrant" is that there is a disconnect between the person and the usual connotation of the term.

When you think of a "tyrant", you think of a strong man. This is a weak and insecure child who PLAYS a strong man, trying to cover his inadequacies. The problem is, while he pretends to be strong, he simultaneously wears those inadequacies on his sleeve like a badge for all to see.

A different term might work better. A new one may need to be created.

Cool NARRATIVE, brah.
How you manage to post here while hiding under your bed is amazing.

 

[Delldude]

Should we wait until he gets that bad?

Mind seeing what's happening on the roof?