Donald Trump has said that he will not become a dictator if he becomes US president again except “on day one”, after warnings from Democrats and some Republicans that the US was in danger of becoming an autocracy if he wins the 2024 election. Fuck, well at least he’s honest on this statement

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      112
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yup, and Trump doesn’t have a choice. It’s looking more and more likely that he’s going to lose a lot of money and potentially face jail time. His only way out is to seize power. Since he’s backed himself into a corner, he’ll try everything to steal the next election, including another coup attempt.

      I don’t personally think it’ll work, but on the slim chance it does many of us will be facing an existential threat which will require swift action. He’s already publicly stated that he sees leftists as vermin which need to be eradicated, and I, for one, don’t want to give him the chance to act on that threat.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah and Donnie’s definition of leftist is anyone that isn’t actively deep throating his boot

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Of course he has a choice.

        He can choose facing the consequences of his actions.

        If that’s unappealing, he can also choose to, let’s say, “pull an Epstein”.

        Let’s not give him the benefit of saying this is the only “strategy” he has left, because that implies you can’t blame him for trying. Like any reasonable person in his position would do the same thing.

        And that’s complete nonsense. He’s not an animal stuck in a bear trap, he’s a human being, who has been very open about his penchant for fascism long before he was charged.

      • DogWater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The leftists need to learn how to use guns and own them. SocialistRA and liberalgunowners are communities that welcome leftist gun enthusiasts and new comers who want to learn for whatever reason.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are plenty of “leftists” who own guns in the US.

          They just don’t flaunt it around like the rightards do.

          • DogWater@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            As evident by the 2 orgs I Listed in my comment. I’m aware, but most of the left aren’t gun owners, like 70%. I’m obviously not talking about the ones who already are.

      • kpw@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hard to say what would have happened, but I feel like I was pretty much unaffected as an European the last time.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is difficult to say because you do not observe the counterfactual. I would definitely say we would have progressed more on climate action if HRC had become president. Also, the culture war issues would have definitely played out differently. The Trump presidency also emboldened Putin, which may have affected the situation in Ukraine. But again, in foreign policy so many things happen simultaneously that it’s often difficult to pinpoint direct causes.

        • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I live in europe currently, and there’s been a hard right turn here since trump seriously got on the scene. In france Macron only beat the female french trump by a small margin. In Italy, they’ve elected a hard right person as their leader, In switzerland, the right wing party is in power. Trump was the first domino to fall and now we’re going to be seeing shit like that all over.

          but yeah, I was pretty much not directly affected by any of that shit that happened stateside.

        • K[r]ukenberg@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If that is the objective truth, then count yourself lucky for being a white, ethno-european, climate denier.

          • kpw@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, probably wasn’t great for climate action, but that’s true for all conservative politicians not just the crazy ones. How did Trump affect whites and non-whites living in Europe differently?

            • rambaroo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Stuff and reasons, basically. But actually the worst thing he could do is try to leave or undermine NATO, and ditch Ukraine

    • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the “best” America can push forward, we are already fucked. We were fucked 24 years ago.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The right wing in America has been sliding further right for a long time, and tending to drag the left along with it. (Nobody is under the impression that the US “left” isn’t actually center-right.) In the last decade, that rightward silde has accelerated. Trump, being the presumptive Republican nominee for president, is the “best” that the lunatic far right - not America - can push forward.

        The Democratic party, representing the left center-right, is no longer allowing itself to be dragged further right. And there remains a fairly large proportion of people who still call themselves Republicans who oppose the burgeoning fascism. Those are the people who feel politically homeless right now; they just need someplace to go and someone to vote for. Liz Cheney is floating a third party run, and I think she’s easily able to consolidate “sane conservative” support.

        I was predicting that the Republican party would split back in 2015. I had no idea they would drag on like this for so long.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The right wing in America has been sliding further right for a long time, and tending to drag the left along with it.

          See: Overton Window

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We were fucked 24 years ago.

        Exactly: that’s when the first coup (the Brooks Brothers Riot) succeeded.

    • cannache@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s not demonize Trump man, he really brought what a lot of people thought would be a culture war into an economic war, which you may think is bad, but it’s actually brought a more muted epiphany for many across both sides that for many people jobs are very important to their lives, unlike in EU where places like Scandinavia, Spain or Greece see culture wars as mud to be stepped on and brushed off but economic sanction is a more realistic declaration of conflict of interest

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the American people would ever let a Dictator get that far. If Trump gets nominated by the GOP you’ll see so much violence that by election day the entire course of history in the United States will be forever changed. I personally believe the GOP will not let him be nominated and will reject him. Trump will run third party and split the vote and give the Democrats a huge win.

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wished I could be so optimistic. They have had endless chances to reject him and haven’t. It’s almost like Putin has some leverage on a bunch of em lol.

        He will get nominated, but hopefully my fellow Americans will not let him return to the white house.

      • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wish that were true, but I suspect that the American people have become too passive to resist a dictator. He won’t take over by force, but cloaked in legitimacy, just like Hitler and Mussolini did. Heck, you don’t even have to go back that far. That’s Putin’s playbook, too. A Republican President also has a Supreme Court that favors very strong presidential powers and a permanently divided and largely impotent Congress. No real resistance there.

        So, what’s left? The police? American police would love having more power under a dictator. The public hates cops these days, and a dictator would restore their “rightful place” as respected and feared enforcers who will “clean up the streets”.

        The military? Well, that’s a wild card. They may not support a dictator, but they also don’t want to start a civil war. I think a US dictator will give himself enough legal cover and legitimacy to convince the military to hang back from interfering in politics.

        The most likely source of resistance is from individual states. However, I’m not sure what they can do, realistically. Secession would certainly start a civil war, which would play right into the dictator’s hands, giving him the perfect excuse to suspend rights and use the military for domestic purposes.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          The military? Well, that’s a wild card.

          Just want to mention Tommy Tuberville holding up military appointments. Unrelated I’m sure.

          Despite claiming he will stop blocking such appointments, he is still going to continue blocking the appointments of 3 and 4 star generals.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        They literally had the chance to stop him during his second impeachment after the attempted insurrection. Anyone who didn’t do it then, sure as hell isn’t going to do anything now.

        The last thing the GOP wants to do is piss off his supporters right before the next presidential election. The electoral college could have ousted him during the 2016 election (as people had floated around) too. There’s just not enough people are willing or have the desire to reject him. Many would love to have him as a dictator, they just need the right pieces in the SCOTUS to say it’s in the constitution.

        He’s 100% going to be the nominee now. Even if he goes to jail, he’s still going to be the nominee. The time for anything different is LONG past.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why do you think there will be violence before the election, but after Trump’s nomination? In this scenario, in your mind, who are the ones that kick off this violence?

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Historical evidence on the rise of Dictators. You have to opress your opposition through violence to look strong. I foresee Kent State style responses from Trump loyalists in law enforcement.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Before the election? Why would they do it before the election? I don’t really understand what you’re saying.

            • Mirshe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you prosecute violence against your opposition, publicly and with great force, you run a good chance of terrifying large portions of your opposition’s voting base into not voting for fear of implied violence.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, and Jan 6 happened after the election…

                They will be fine (as fine as these nutjobs can be) until the results are announced. If Trump loses, then they go crazy. If he wins, they’ll be very happy (but also go crazy because these people are insane).

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can only become a dictator one time, after that you are a dictator.
    So he’ll only “become” a dictator on day one, the rest of his life hell just be a dictator.
    And let’s not entertain the fantasy that his heath will catch up to him sooner rather than later, remember he has access to better healthcare than 99% of the population and it’s entirely state funded.
    We’ll be stuck with him for at least a decade, but I wonder who will inherit the throne when he’s gone?

  • vitamin@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Has there ever been a dictator who relinquished power after “fixing” things? Yeah guys, I’m going to need some extra judicial powers and have the military become my personal army, but it’s just temporary, I swear.

    • DaveDavesen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, the original roman ones. This is the origin of the word. They were appointed for emergencies with a lot of power.

      They all gave up their position after a while except for Caesar. When Caesar was appointed as a lifelong dictator, he was shortly after assassinated by most members of the senate. But the turmoil led to the Roman Empire not being “democratic” anyway.

      • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Slight correction, he wasn’t assassinated by most of the senate. There were about 60 conspirators out of 200-300, and only a dozen or so actually participated in the assassination (and only 5 actually confirmed to have stabbed him while still alive). Regardless, it’s still true that they came to that conclusion after Caesar was declared dictator for life and started taking away senate power

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          (and only 5 actually confirmed to have stabbed him while still alive)

          It’s medically pretty unlikely you can be stabbed 60 times and not die till the last guy gets his turn.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Funny thing is apparently only one of the wounds was lethal, we were literally one dude getting sick off from Caesar just going Palps mode

    • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Despite his relatively old age, [Cincinnatus] worked his own small farm until an invasion prompted his fellow citizens to call for his leadership. He came from his plough to assume complete control over the state but, upon achieving a swift victory in only 16 days, relinquished his power and its perquisites and returned to his farm.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The original office of dictator as defined in the Roman Republic was exactly that,

      It was literally the office of “we have tried literally everything else and still have a problem, you there, you seem like a not idiot person, you can do basically anything you want for the next six months or until you solve the problem, after that we’ll make cool statues of you if you do a good job.”

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Given how the reality can get modified over long periods of history, I have to wonder how much those old dictators stepping down were motivated by threats of stabbing if they didn’t.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Honestly it’d probably work better than our current system.

        Just give one random guy carte blanche to run everything. Get immortalized if you do a good job. Get executed if you don’t.

        And I’m sure lots of people would take it up, and think that they’d do a good job. And more than likely, they wouldn’t.

    • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve heard the term ‘benevolent dictator’ before, but it might be philosophical. It doesn’t seem to me that anyone capable of assuming the role could remain benevolent long.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Cincinnatus is always the classical example, as a senator who was named dictator twice and in both cases relinquished his power as soon as the crisis was resolved.

        What’s less often mentioned is that the second “crisis” was just a prominent plebeian undermining the prestige of the Senate by providing cheap grain to the poor during a famine—Cincinnatus presided over the plebeian’s extrajudicial murder, and it’s that as much as his subsequent resignation that made him an eternal hero to the Senate.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be fair until Augustus there was a particular taboo in Rome of coming off as kinglike, being one guy and making a point of stepping on the Senate’s toes was a VERY fast way to get yourself killed, see also The Gracchi Brothers and Marius.

          Romans hated anything to do with royal aspiration so much that one of their most sadistic pleasures was to watch the former royals of newly conquered lands be forced to march in the victory parade of the lead general of the conquest before being ritually strangled. It took being a literal child for the Roman public to hold back from gleefully jeering you for having been a monarch, nevermind being willing to ask for you to be spared from being killed.

          Basically just imagine a several centuries long stretch of peak Robespierre paranoia about anything to do with potential plots on kingly aspirations and you can see why some guy deciding to take state business on himself, especially state business that can earn a lot of public support, would be seen as a dictatorship worthy crisis to the Roman Senate.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Washington was elected in 1788 and re-elected in 1792. However both were unanimous, unopposed, and done solely by the electoral college. Adams/Jefferson in 1796 was the first proper election, after Washington set the 2-term precedent and relinquished power. That precedent was maintained until FDR served four terms during the First World War sequel, which led to the drafting of the 22nd Amendment to the US constitution limiting presidents to two terms in 1947. It was ratified by 36 of the 48 states in 1951.

        Also while trying to remember the dates I read Section IV of the 20th amendment. What the fuck is this word salad? Is this the original “Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??”

        The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

          Commas were expensive back then.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        He was facing heavy domestic and international pressure as well as sanctions on the country. He didn’t do it out of honor.

  • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    1 year ago

    “It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!

    –Chancellor Palpatine

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why wouldn’t they be fine with it? A dictatorship is exactly what those traitors genuinely want.

        • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No one who cheers for a dictator thinks that they’ll be ever targeted. There is a large number of minorities for Trump to obliterate before turning to white cis-het neurotypical Republican voters.

    • Kleinbonum@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s because they like the idea of a Trump dictatorship. They simply assume they’d be on the side that’s going to do the dictating.

      • ElleChaise@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can’t dictate from a burnt down house. Can’t dictate with a bullet rattling around your head. I don’t know about the rest of you’se, but I’m not going to be dictated by any rat fuck righties. They can have, and lose, their second civil war.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The scary thing is they literally don’t even hear it. It doesn’t get played on Fox News, and hearing it from any other source will make them prejudge it and ignore it as liberal propaganda.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know your country is a failure when the perpetrator of a previous coup attempt is allowed to run for office again like nothing happened.

    Can you use those 2A rights to defend against tyranny anytime soon or does that only cover school shootings and gang violence?

    • Pat_Riot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is exactly what the Second is intended to take care of, but no part of the constitution will have any meaning if Trump installs himself as a dictator. Unfortunately the average right winger doesn’t seem to understand that. This is literally the moment they have claimed to be waiting for but they’re on the enemy’s side. He’s going to cancel their gun rights and they’re going to cheer for it.

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is exactly what the Second is intended to take care of

        Not it isn’t. The idea that the 2a is supposed to prevent government overreach is revisionist history.

        The intention of the 2a was to make a standing federal army unnecessary. Madison didn’t want a federal army, but knew the nation would need some form of military, so he wrote militias into the constitution.

        (He changed his tune when the War of 1812 showed him how necessary a true military was.)

        It’s laughable to think that people in power wanted others to be able to overthrow them with guns. In fact, rebellions were attempted with guns in the years after the revolutionary war. And they were put down. Never did George Washington say, “Ah, these men with guns seem to think we are being tyrannical. We should reconsider.” No, he said, “Pay your fucking taxes.”

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a bit of both. In the 18th century, it was abundantly obvious a country needed to be able to defend itself against both foreign powers and internal threats. But it was also very clear that if you paid a group of people to be professional soldiers, you basically always lived under the threat of those people going “That’s a nice country/state you have there” and launching a coup.

          Hence the well-regulated militia, because then you don’t need a proffesional military, and there’s nobody to launch a coup, and also no way for the federal government to take over individual states. So in a way, it WAS to prevent government overreach, but not in the wat it’s usually said.

          • TechyDad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            And, in any case, it’s laughable to think that a group of armed Americans could stand up to the US military if an American dictator ordered them to attack US citizens and they obeyed such an order.

            The citizens would be charging in with guns blazing, but the military would send in a few drones and wipe them out. The whole “guns would let us stand against a dictatorship wielding the might of the US military” idea is a fantasy.

            The fact that the right is that one that parrots this line while supporting someone who is actively saying he’ll be a dictator and send the military against US citizens blows past ironic and lands in Downright Scary territory.

    • nicetriangle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah the fact that he doesn’t have a lawful reelection to consider is concerning. Also concerning when you think about the fact that he clearly thinks being the president shields him from a lot of legal ramifications.

      So he doesn’t have to temper his behavior to get reelected in any way. He has a shitload of grudges. Pursuing those grudges would likely be various shades of illegal. He thinks staying in office will protect him from the consequences of his actions. That is a recipe for a constitutional crisis if I ever saw one.

        • TrejoPhD@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          He won’t have one.

          Biden sucks, but isn’t a dictator and anyone claiming as such is acting in bad faith.

          • Marighost@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please explain how Biden controls the gas prices, and how him controlling the gas prices constitutes a dictatorship.

                • cannache@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The reality is that the states that control the supply are in between a rock and hard place, and I truly feel bad, don’t envy them one bit . Saudi, Iran and even Israel to a degree are simultaneously fighting to maintain their state power beyond being an old glorified oil/gas refinery plant, towards becoming a productive collective, staying relevant in the 21st century and also playing their cards well by selectively withholding oil for purposes beyond tanks and rockets is tough and puts pressure on them to innovate in ways that not only threatens the status quo but also the usual backwater terrorist types who they’ve been battling the last decade or so

              • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                What about bad education?
                Well, that must’ve happened before Biden if it now makes people think the global gas prices are a sign of US president dictatorship.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    The guy who says he should be allowed to serve three terms because the Democrats supposedly obstructed his agenda? The guy who says we should re-do the 2020 election after losing? That’s the guy you’re going to trust to be a 1-day dictator, huh?

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      He’ll only be a dictator for one day. In completely unrelated news, Dictator Trump has proclaimed that every day is his first day in office. Since his second day in office never officially arrives, he can remain a dictator and not have to worry about his term ending. /s

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Vote Biden, let the judicial system come to its own conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence against Trump, without political interference.