Another crazed extremist argument is the claim that Trump, if elected, will become Dictator and our democracy will come to an end. Nonsense. Even skeptic Michael Shermer can’t resist knocking this one down. For an American president to have any chance of becoming dictator, at the very least, he/she would need the entire, unwavering support of the federal bureaucracy (the “deep state”). No outsider (like Trump) has a chance.
Of course, there is a way to determine that the Left is actually lying about this danger Trump poses. If they truly believed their own rhetoric about Trump, they would become huge champions of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. Since the Left is still going about about the need for gun control, we can clearly see they are not the least bit afraid of Trump becoming dictator. Why would they so willingly try to disarm themselves in the face of a Trump dictatorship?
Shadow To Light 
A wise rule of thumb regarding the assertions of Democrats and other leftists is that they *always* accuse non-leftists of doing (or wishing to do) what they themselves are doing (or wish to do).
Didn’t they say the same thing about George Dubya Bush back in the day?
Donald Trump is clearly not a godly man, but can any of his opponents name anything he’s actually done that’s worse than any other sleazy businessman or politician?
Note carefully: it’s not “this will end democracy,” it’s always “this will end our democracy.” Our Democracy; not democracy in the abstract. Think about who is making that claim and what the boundaries of that second person plural ownership might be. It’s a second person which implies a third person, I think: an “us/them” distinction. Trump is clearly “them” and so are his supporters.
Personally, I’d like to see Trump end their democracy, but I doubt he can deliver the goods. Their democracy has shown itself to be very well entrenched.
<blockquote>Donald Trump is clearly not a godly man, but can any of his opponents name anything he’s actually done that’s worse than any other sleazy businessman or politician?</blockquote>
He orders his steak well-done and puts ketchup on it.
“Didn’t they say the same thing about George Dubya Bush back in the day?“
Trump became “evil” only once he announced his presidential bid as a Republican running to keep Hillary out of the office.
EstablishmentGOP critters never seem to learn — or don’t care to factor it in — that no matter who the Republican is, he will always be the Second Coming of Hitler. And the typical/normie GOP voter acts just as clueless: “Oh! If only [X] weren’t ‘our candidate’, then all this divisiveness and controversy would go away!” as though the “divisiveness and controversy” comes from the GOP’s candidate, rather than from the leftists.
Personally, I think there is some validity to Ilion’s assertion. Specifically:
I voted “Constitution Party” in 2016, because I figured that Trump was just a 1980s NYC Democrat. Plus his use of local governments using “eminent domain” to take property from “little people” so that he could “develop” it without the hassle of getting the more stubborn of the “little people” to agree to sell to him has always added to my despise of him.
This year, a Mitt Romney-esque Republican would secure my vote with no issue. Trump will not. So I’m voting Democratic.
I’ve been wanting to ask pennywit to elaborate on his rationale for the voting preferences he described above, but I can’t figure out a sufficiently tactful way to do it. Instead, I’ll say that the end of Democracy is a consummation devoutly to be wished—or would be but for the “what dreams may come” which immediately follows.
TFBW, I am willing to provideh rationale, but I have no interest in justifying or debating. On these matters, we are dealing in postulates. Neither of us will convince the other, and I have no interest in tilting at windmills. Others have their beliefs. I have mine.
To set the table. I bear no fealty toward either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. I am most interested in preserving America’s character as a democracy.
I am also something of an institutionalist. When change happens, I prefer stability and incremental change.
And I prefer politicians who respect the nor s we have built in this countryans who pledge their efforts to something bigger than themselves.
From where I sit, Trump does not embody any of that. He embodies radical change. From what I can tell, he also prioritizes is own interests over all others’. He has also forged a political alliance with America’a far right, a group with stances that are antithetical to my own.
Moreoverz I am deeply concerned about the accumulation od power in the executive branch. This has been building for centuries, but has accelerated in the last two decades. Trump would accelerate it further.
Trump is a radical, and he is pressing causes with which I disagree. I cannot vote for that.
However, I also do not believe that Biden and his team are governing in the best possible manner. Inflation remains an issue, and I do not believe that Biden are taking a needed leadership role in a world that is growing more dangerous by the day.
I also am disappointed that the Biden administration has not made the effort to develop a new generation of leaders.
I am presented with a choice. If we regard the United States as a machine, Biden is a imperfect caretaker. I believe a Republican in the mold of Romney would be more competent. Trump, meanwhile, would completely demolish the machine and rebuild it in his image.
I do not consider this optimal.
So I will take the imperfect caretaker.
Also, I do not consider the ending of democracy devoutly to be wished in any sense. The undiscovered country, in my opinion, is quite evident in India, where the Hindu nationalist BJP is in power and has been for some time. They are using gheblse to crack down on dissent.
I am an atheist. And I have heterodox political opinions that do not align me nearly with either dominant political party. The ending of democracy qouldblikely be the ending of me.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, but my faith in democracy remains at a low ebb.
Who exactly are America’s “far right”? Genuine question. I don’t know who these people are or what they’re supposed to have done. Are they as violent as the far left?
TFBW: “… but my faith in democracy remains at a low ebb.“
The American Founders — which number includes vastly more people than the handsful of men who signed the DoI and/or attended the Constitutional Convention — had, in general, a very low opinion of democracy.
N2C: “Who exactly are America’s “far right”?“
Considering that the defining difference between “”right” and “left” can be bumper-stickered as ‘individualism’ vs ‘collectivism’, the “far right” would be those people who turn ‘individualism’ into a metaphysical first principle, and them take it to an absurd extreme, i.e. “libertarians”. Ironically, the “libertarians” *always* break for “the left” when push comes to shove; probably because “the right” believes-and-asserts that we have moral obligations, and moral obligations are precisely what both leftists and “libertarians” most desire to escape.
When establishment actors use the term “far right” in the USA, they refer to Trump supporters. In the UK, it refers to the kind of people who voted for Brexit. It’s a deliberate attempt to portray one half of the political spectrum as toxic extremism. The same people who speak in ominous tones of the “far right” never even mention a “far left”.
Re democracy, I saw this hot take from Auron MacIntyre today: “The ruling class will always use its institutional advantage to retain power so mass democracy, rather than restrict state power, simply creates an incentive for the ruling elite to drown the people in a sea of propaganda in order to properly condition their votes.”
No errors detected.
Makes sense. I always people who they actually mean by “far right”, as in which specific groups or organisations. I am aware there are extreme nationalist groups out there but as far as I know they have little to no real influence or following.
The only “far right” atrocity anyone seems to be able to point to is Jan 6th, but as far as I know, almost nothing actually happened on Jan 6th. A bunch of idiots wandered round the Capitol building for a while. Nobody seems to question the fact that a supposed far-right uprising in America didn’t feature any guns – literally the one thing a right-wing American militia would have coming out of their ears.
Some of the “far right” activity you see is completely artificial. Every now and then you’ll see a group called “Patriot Front” of 100% males—mostly very mid-looking—with khaki uniforms and face coverings trotted out. They get bussed in and out via U-Haul vans, and somehow mysteriously always get official permission to do whatever demonstration they want to do. As far as anyone can tell, it’s a total psyop: 100% wall-to-wall feds; not a single genuine article anywhere. This is what happens when demand for “far right” threats vastly outstrips supply.
The genuine article does exist, but it contrasts starkly with this. Nick Fuentes is a perfectly genuine “far right” agitator, but he’s nothing more than a social media influencer with a following who targets most of his ire at other nominally right-wing operators that he considers controlled opposition, such as Turning Point USA. He’s never engaged in any violence, but he’s on one of the secret government no-fly lists.
The world will make much more sense if you understand that “journalism” is almost completely dead, and has been replaced, invasion-of-the-body-snatchers style, with “activism”. All this “far right” talk from the government and news media is thought control: ignore your lying eyes and ears which will tell you that the people who actively burn down cities are far left actors like BLM and Antifa; no, the real threat is “Ultra MAGA”, and J6 was 9/11 to the power of infinity.
It seems outrageous, but it works. The evidence is right here on this page.
N2C: “… extreme nationalist groups …“
But those sort would be leftists, for they are collectivists.
“The world will make much more sense if you understand that “journalism” is almost completely dead, and has been replaced, invasion-of-the-body-snatchers style, with “activism”.“
Or: “What is called ‘Journalism’ is now just a skin-suit worn by leftist ‘activists’.“