Comment by chasd00

5 years ago

very very far from reality. i heard the same thing from liberal friends about GWB and i heard the same thing from conservative friends about Obama.

26 comments

chasd00

Reply
paiute  5 years ago

During his 'The president has total power' gaffe he at one point said something along "I am president, the president isn't a person, but the office. I have the office now. Then the next guy will have the office..." You know, the kind of thing a dictator would say. Sometimes I feel like defending him due to people's over reactions when I wouldn't otherwise.

  • mattbk1  5 years ago

    The context for this is also that although Democrats wanted Obama to use executive orders to advance their agenda, Obama understood that future presidents would use his use of executive orders as precedent for their own--regardless of to what party they belong.

  • zapita  5 years ago

    > Sometimes I feel like defending him due to people's over reactions when I wouldn't otherwise.

    You feel the urge to defend someone whose actions are indefensible. Why is that? If I had to guess, I would say it's because you feel the urge to always be the contrarian. Whatever you feel the majority opinion is, there is an urge to go against it. This is probably because your feeling of self-worth is attached to the notion of being a contrarian. Going against the majority opinion makes you feel special, and in a way, it makes you feel superior. In my experience, it is a symptom of deeper issues - insecurity, fear of the unknown. The risk, if you don't address this issue, is that you will find yourself defending more and more extreme positions, and even seeking out more extreme positions to defend. This will cause social isolation, as people with more maintstream opinions such as "dangerous criminals should not be elected president" start avoiding you, and are replaced by other "contrarians".

    • tc313  5 years ago

      That’s awfully ungenerous to your fellow HNer. Maybe it would be better to wait for his response to your question (“Why is that?”) rather than answering it yourself.

    • thatguy0900  5 years ago

      If I had to guess you're the kind of person who always thinks you're the smartest guy around. You know absolutely nothing about this person, just went on this rant against a strawman to feel intelligent.

      1 reply →

  • pavlov  5 years ago

    Vladimir Putin talks about his office in a similar way. Yet he's managed to hold it for 20 years even though the Russian constitution was supposed to limit him to two four-year terms.

    At least since Augustus, dictators have been diligent in paying lip service to law and established tradition while trampling over both.

bambataa  5 years ago

Out of interest, what public statements from Obama did your conservative friends use to justify those beliefs?

zapita  5 years ago

The opinions of your friends on subjects they don't understand are irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of actual experts on the topic of autocracy. There is strong consensus among those experts that the Trump administration is, in fact, implementing a transition to autocracy. Specifically a kleptocratic autocracy following the Russian model.

You are free to ignore the scientific consensus about the rise of autocracy in the US. Just like you are free to ignore the scientific consensus about global heating. But the facts remain the facts.

magna7  5 years ago

Comparing GWB to Trump is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Trump is an actual wannabe autocrat, as opposed to GWB and Obama.

  • wernercd  5 years ago

    And yet Obama jailed journalists and worked towards instituting Socialist ideas - which include a ruling class.

    Meanwhile, Trumps only "autocrat" proof is words? He talks snit... What has he done to become a King? Nothing he's done so far isn't powers used by previous Presidents - including Obama.

    What actual has Trump taken to expand Presidential powers? And what steps has Trump taken to become a King?

    Because until actual actions are taken... words are just Trump talking shit. Which he's allowed to do...

    • JoeJonathan  5 years ago

      Obama jailed a journalist? Who?

      What do you mean by socialism? What socialist ideas did Obama institute? What is the "ruling class" within socialism?

      Regarding Trump: what do you make of him removing the inspector general who had opened an investigation against Pompeo? What do you make of him pushing out Jeff Sessions because Sessions recused himself from the Muller investigation?

      Put another way: what would count as stepping toward autocracy, other than an explicit suspension of Congress or the like? Barring outright coups, these things happen incrementally. See Hungary, Brazil, etc.

      1 reply →

disease  5 years ago

I did too, but the funny thing about "this time is different", is that sometimes it is true. Consider the fact that Trump is the only president that said he would not respect the results of an election if he lost. Also consider the dramatic backsliding in democracy we've seen in other countries throughout the world in the last decade. Vladimir Putin never explicitly called himself Emperor for Life, but for all practical purposes, he is just that.

At the end of the day there is no such thing as "the law". They are just words written on paper.

api  5 years ago

I heard those things too. This is the first time I've considered it even slightly plausible. I'd give it a 20% chance that he calls on his most fanatical base to march armed on DC if he loses the election.

Go check into the Qanon cult and similar circles. There are conservatively probably a few hundred thousand people in this country that would take up arms against the (literal) baby eating pedophile illuminati. All he has to do is say "the storm is upon us" and provide instructions. "Where we go one we go all."

Can any constitutional scholars comment on what happens then? What if he as commander in chief orders the military to stand down? Would they obey him or protect the constitution? What about the national guard? Local police? What would any of these agencies do if removing Trump required opening fire on tens of thousands of Americans?

Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were much more broadly popular than Trump, but the thought of them attempting this and having any chance of success is laughable. I don't even think Bush II could have pulled it off right after 9/11 at the peak of his popularity and with his powerful religious right base.

Trump on the other hand has a fan base unlike any I've ever seen. If you don't believe me research Qanon. There's a shockingly large group of people who worship him as something almost akin to a prophet. I'm sure there's some percentage who would die for him. It's a bit disturbing.

I agree that it's unlikely, but it is plausible.

Personally I think he will leave office, but what he has accomplished is to pave the way for an actual future dictator.

If the COVID recession plus unlimited QE results in further divergence between the real economy and the financial economy I could definitely see real fascism or totalitarian socialism winning some day. As I've been saying for a while, which one we get probably depends on which side is able to field the most compelling demagogue. I don't think people will care about left or right as long as there are pitchforks being handed out.

  • cmurf  5 years ago

    I think it's impossible to predict whether he makes such a call, it's the realm of psychology. What's the trigger? Let's say he loses the election. Does his decompensation happen so fast and so hard that he turns into Jell-O? Or does he rage tweet (or go on Facebook or TV or all of the above) that the election is rigged, illegal, invalid, and must be challenged with violence, before it's too late?

    shrug

    At that moment it is less about law than it is about character of other leaders. Does the Vice President, who is still the VP following his own election loss, contradict the POTUS' election fraud claims and call for violence? Necessarily on the table is 25th amendment and/or impeachment. A call for violent revolution to achieve the dissolution of constitutional order is unquestionably a violation of oath of office for any elected official.

    People are conditioned to think that an impeachment would take a week or more. If Congresscritters actually get scared? They can follow strict rules of order and still get it done very quickly. Hours. The real impediments to speed are physical presence in the chamber. Not opposition. They will not wait for TV cameras, spectator chairs or tickets to get printed. If they really believe the POTUS is trying to incite an overthrow of the government, which is what autocracy means, they know full well they are inside the blast radius of imploding power.