US could be under rightwing dictator by 2030, Canadian professor warns

you're still making me go back and read that post:

if this ^ is what your're talking about I don't know what he's talking about

this is pretty much where I stopped reading, if this poster can be so wrong on something like this I have to assume he's wrong about everything else in this post as well

 

Do you believe at any point during that our federal government was in any real danger at all?

 

For the first time in my life, the possibility that the institutions of our government could be overthrown happened on that day. It never was even a remote discussion in real time before that day, and nothing of the sort has happened in hundreds of years in the USA like happened on that day. The sitting President of the USA claimed the election was stolen, requested his VP not certify and riled up a group of supporters (that had been planned ahead) that attempted to prevent the certification and enter the halls looking for Senators.

Is it the same as what happened in Russia in the Fall of 1917? No, they were not successful.... but they tried, and were supported by the sitting President who had just lost an election - it is a big deal in a very stable democracy like the USA. The fact that the man that supported the effort is a viable candidate, and may well win re-election speaks to how big a deal it was and is.... and to the fact that it wasn't a fluke but representative to a sizable amount of the USA.

 

Umm yes. All it would take would be Pence deciding that he shouldn't certify the election and then the process goes to the partisan state legislatures...

Dan Quayle of all people literally saved democracy.

Also do even know what the largest fear of concern is over the state voting bills by GOP state legislatures that were passed throughout the year? It wasn't the specific parts that did things like limit hours for early voting, limiting drop boxes etc. The biggest fearwhere those state legislatures added a part to those bills that allows said state legislatures to remove the decision to certify elections by non-partisan election board committees and give it to themselves when they claim to see "causes for concern". Basically heavily partisan state legislatures now have control in certifying state results. If this was allowed in 2020 in Georgia for example, Trump probably would have successfully overturned Georgia at the very least.

I think you need to hear this from someone you see as moderate and not me because this is serious and too many moderates like yourself think that this **** just can't happen to us. Maybe @Nook would be better at convincing you that it's a severe concern as he usually is pretty moderate in his views.

 

AOC no... but I think Castro is a good example of a Leftist strongman. I think you are likely to see someone with more of a militarized tough guy persona but one where the Left thinks that this is the only option they have because they no longer have any say so.

I think if a Joe Rogan type ran for office after a Trump takeover sanctioned by the GOP and their coy voters, that's the type of macho persona that has Bernie like views of socialism but his brand is... well... kind of violent (see how he got his career started yelling on PPV watching men beat the living sh$t out of each other).

If things are bad enough and we no longer had a democracy, I know for a fact that the left will 100% back someone willing to get their hands dirty to fight fire with fire. Especially someone like Rogan who believes in socialist policies like Medicare for All like he's been open about. I know Rogan isn't a perfect example because I'm sure he's Mr. Anti government mandates with Covid etc. but you hopefully catch my drift.

I also think about Rage Against the Machine when I think of an American Leftist response to Democracy getting overthrown by the right. The spirit of that bands message certainly could get caricatured in an American political figure. Rage Against the Machine's persona isn't AOC or really any current figures in the Democratic Party. What I'm talking about has been seen many times in history outside of the US (and sometimes in our pop culture... see Che, Rage, etc.) but it is very very familiar when you see it.

 

Another point is that once those laws are on the books, they can be abused by either side in the future. It is like the democrats in the Senate supporting the filibuster 15-20 years ago because it served them well, and now the shoe is on the other foot and they are against it........... or the incredible expansion of executive power by GW Bush post 911.... the republicans were fine with it until B Obama came into power and exercised the same authority and expanded it.

Political expediency tends to get in the way as politics in the USA is by it's nature a short term creature..... but the erosion of checks and balances, and the purposeful attack on institutions like the ballot box and the validity of courts ultimately undermine EVERYONE that wants some level of security. Most recently it has been Trump using the rhetoric for purely selfish reasons....... but in 5-10 years it may be someone on the left that picks up the firebrand and uses it, that door has been kicked open and it isn't likely to close.

 

For those GOP state legislatures, I think they rightfully see their position of power controlling said legislature well cemented. There are certain state legislatures that will always be red or always be blue.

 

That's true of every election where the sitting VP of the party in power is transitioning power. You're representing to me American democracy hinges on the whim of that one man every four years?

That wouldn't be a situation unique to Trump.

 

when was the last election where the sitting vice president was debating on whether to not certify the election because his boss told him that he shouldn't because the election was fraudulent and then had to confide in a former vice president on whether he should overturn it?

I guess it should be a wake up call that most of our peaceful transitions of power only happen from the good will of a very few. So that in itself is scary.

 

Agreed, but there is more evidence of the ability to mobilize that spirit with Americans than one might think. It's been part of our pop culture really for years. I should have been more clear that a Left response to Republicans overthrowing Democracy wouldn't come from the Democratic party. It's already evident that alot of Democratic voters think the party is too weak, and their normal tactics of in the weeds governing (that never works) isn't strong enough to deal with what is coming.

All indications are a response would be coming out of left field, and the general public would have disdain for career Democrats who seemingly did nothing except blame the filibuster.

 

The problem with this country is we have a status quo party(DNC) and a "move back in time" party (RNC). Most other countries have a "move forward" party also. Instead America has some individual politicians who embody that mindset but are washed out by the status quo party.

 

Bold is non-responsive and irrelevant to my question but nice vent I suppose.

Not sure I trust your representation of events that the VP has the sole and exclusive power you're saying he does.

I imagine if I start looking deeper into this I will find the VP does not have that power. Do you want to adjust your position before I do that or is that what you're going with.... the VP has the ability to destroy American Democracy every four years and we merely are reliant upon his good nature?

 

I used AOC because she is charismatic and more to the left than the vast majority of high profile democrats. I agree that she isn't likely Castro or Lenin. However, I would say in the case of Castro; a lot of people didn't view him as an extremist at the time either.

Desperation from people that feel owed, or losing power or not important...... that leads embracing a superman (warts and all), and the left and right can fall for it..... Chavez is an example, he clothed himself in helping the common man, but really it was always about him and his small group of close supporters.

Yup, a Mussolini type of personality, that doesn't really conform to a political party platform but can get enough support to be dangerous and then pull a country to the left or right. People forget, Mussolini wasn't clearly viewed as right wing early in his rise to power.

Yes I understand what you are saying.... someone magnetic that supports enough important political positions that people will over look less savory positions on other issues.

It takes the right rhetoric, at the right time and with the right cult of personality for the time period.

 

So you do not understand Newton's 3rd law of Physics??

 

I don't see in anyway how our institutions of government could have been overthrown that day. You haven't explained that process. You have merely asserted it. Would someone please explain to me what that looks like exactly? I'll start with 2,000 idiots sitting inside the capital building.. now take me throw the process whereby our government is toppled. I'll hang up and listen.

 

Pence says "okay Trump you convinced me". Decides to not certify. It goes to the state legislatures for the states that are contested such as Georgia, Penn, Michigan, Arizona etc most of which have GOP state legislatures. Those partisan state legislatures decide to give the state's electoral votes to Trump.

Democracy subverted.

The process is there. It's always has been there. The question is whether there is will power to do such a thing and seeing has 35% of the county believes a illegal usurper is currently in the white house, that will power is at near threshold level where a vice president would say "okay, let's not certify".

 

President Trump and his legal team took the position that under the law the VP had the ability to not certify the election results and send it back to the states.

"The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors" Trump tweeted on 1/5/21


Pence took the position that he could not legally do what the President asked him to do under the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Who would ultimately decide? In theory the SCOTUS had Pence done as requested by Trump.

 

In this last response, you just demonstrated that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

If you had bothered to inform yourself, you’d understand that the chaos caused by the Trump instigated riot was meant to disrupt the normal democratic process of confirming the election results. That in turn would open the door to a series of false, bad-faith challenges to the election results.

much of this has been shared in the press in the past few weeks. Do us a favor and do your reading and in the meantime, shut the **** up.

 

This is not a cogent legal position and would take yet another institution of government, the SCOTUS, deciding on Trump's behalf and willfully overthrowing the results of the election. Which 1. Doesn't actually get Pence the power represented and 2. Is even further of a stretch... Yes, I suppose if you could get all of these thing lined up its possible to overthrow the government but that's a lot easier said then done and there's no real reason to believe this was ever in question.

 

lol what a child.