So Donald Trump has dictator inclinations to the extremes relative to his peers(other presidents like Biden or Obama or Bush) but he was a president of a country that has strong institutions that prevent a dictator's rise to power in a effective manner relative to other nations that don't have those strong institutions? Is that a fair statement?
You made the claim that people who support Biden would hypothetically support a dictator. The thing is I'd sincerely make that claim about Trump as there is more evidence that is the case.
I said that people who support dictatorial actions as long as their goals are aligned support dictators.
Do that is the implication right? So I'm correct in your framing? You claim Biden did a dictatorial action and therefore people who support it support dictators.
I also said that a single occurrence of a dictatorial action does not make a dictator. If a president frequently acted beyond his authority, wouldn't agree that would make him a dictator?
Sure. Again it's entirely context dependent and again, we are discussing something that is a spectrum. But I would say one of the most obvious signals of someone who wants to be a dictator is ignoring election results and creating a mass media campaign that convinced a third of a nation that our voting system is fake news. I believe something like that is a very obvious tell of a wannabe authoritarian.
That's fine but it seems like you are making this claim while just completely ignoring the points we are making. You can disagree with the points but address them and explain. You keep on saying that Trump "conceded" in a bad faith manner I believe. We keep telling you his "concession" has to do with his failure in convincing those who have the monopoly on violence to go along with his narratives about fake ballots, fraud etc. In a country that has weaker institutions, Trump would have a higher chance of convincing those that needed to be convinced. So it's rather an empty point that "he conceded". Yes, he didn't sincerely strongly believe in his claims enough to go out guns blazing refusing to leave the office. So if that is what you mean by "concede" than whatever. This is a meaningless conversation.
Just wanted to point out that when Republicans make these condescending remarks about “lesbian” dance theory that they are alienating a growing portion of the electorate. They need to understand their base is old and dying off. If they want to engage new voters they need to realize Millennials and Gen Z are more likely to be gay, trans, etc than prior generations. They are also much more likely to not be Christian, support progressive ideas like student loan cancellation and single payer healthcare, and are accustomed to a country of diversity that they value. GOP if you don’t want to go the way of the Neanderthal then you need to see the writing on the wall.
I've explained my position repeatedly. A bad faith concession is still a concession. And of course this is a meaningless conversation. Some posters have become fixated on words and ignored actions.
There are two issues here. The fact that Trump isn’t in the White House now or that they didn’t have to drag him out show that he did concede technically. That he still continues to claim that he is the rightful winner shows that at least rhetorically he hasn’t conceded. Given where are politics are that is very corrosive to the principles of the rule of law and basic democracy. The nature or our country has been a peaceful and orderly transfer of power with the loser in most cases not only accepting defeat but willing to work with the winner for the good of the country. See how Al Gore pledged to work with GW Bush in 2000. With Trump we have none of those.
I haven't given it that much thought. On top of my head... In the context of being a dictator... it's an action benefiting a dictator. By that definition, no president has ever done a dictatorial action. In the context of political power.. it's an action (might even be legal) that is extremely oppressive or overbearing toward others who have almost zero recourse for escape. By that definition, some presidents have done dictatorial actions. Japanese Interment for perceived security is one example. Intentional harming of immigrant children to slow the inflow of illegal immigration is another example. In the context of a POTUS trying to become a dictator.. it's an action that tries to overturn an election result (even through legal means) via unethical, against norms, or violent actions. Trump's saying out loud that he wants to be president for life, and insistence that the election was stolen and schemed to hold onto power is one example (and the only example in US history). In the context of the US becoming a dictatorial state.. it's a lawful or unlawful system that places almost unlimited power on a branch of government. Barr's unitary executive theory of unlimited power over the executive branch (the DoJ or anyone in the executive branch cannot hold the POTUS accountable) is an example. Another example is the Independent State Legislature theory that gives state legislative unchecked power over election (courts have no oversight power over election policy set by state legislatures).
We are talking about political concession. This is exactly the right context to talk about, not some "concede" definition. This is what I posted. From this definition of political concession, Trump never conceded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concession_(politics) In modern U.S. elections (presidential or otherwise), a concession is usually a two-step process: first, the losing candidate makes a concession phone call to the winning candidate and congratulates them personally.[1] Second, the losing candidate makes a televised public speech, known as a concession speech, to their supporters, on an (improvised) podium surrounded by the candidate for the vice presidency, their spouses or other important relatives and friends.[9] The concession speech consists of four elements: The statement of defeat: an admission that the candidate has lost the election to their opponent, who is congratulated on their victory.[6] The call to unite: an expression of support for the victor's upcoming term in office, and a call for unity under their leadership, necessary after an often divisive and polarizing election campaign.[6] The celebration of democracy: a reflection on why democracy and the participation of millions of voters in the electoral process is important, and that their choice should be respected.[6] The vow to continue the fight: a reminder of the importance of the issues the candidate has raised during the campaign, and the policies their party advocates for. The candidate says that these remain important goals to strive toward, promises to continue fighting for them, and urges their supporters to do the same.[6]
Common sense tells everyone that he never conceded. The norm of political concession shows that he never conceded. He only "conceded" in a very narrow new definition of political concession - so, yes, technically, one can argue that but it's a bunch of BS.
