I won’t deny that Trump was considerably more authoritarian than say Biden or Clinton, but I’m not aware of him trying to declare martial law and arrest Democrats.
I mean the fear was always there, but I’m not aware of Mr. Trump actually endorsing the idea. The closest was, ‘in the old days they would hang (shoot?) traitors’.
~Max
Do you remember chants of “Lock her up!”?
Okay, I see what you mean. That wasn’t good either.
I had in mind a more thorough roundup of Democrats, as in ‘Declare a state of emergency because reasons, and then they arrest Democrats who resist.’
~Max
If 1/6 had been a successful insurrection, we may well have seen things play out in just that way. I mean, once you can annul election results, you have carte blanche.
You do see the the difference between some rando on a message board and people in the public eye that are close advisors to the President of The United States, right?
Have you ever visited a right-wing message board? There are thousands of conservative randos on those board advocating for the declaration of martial law. They also advocate for the violent torture murder of everyone that voted for Joe Biden, which is why I can’t take the conservatives that whine about being “vehemently opposed” on this board seriously.
Now, Trump has never specifically advocated for using martial law to overthrow the government using those exact words. Instead, as he has throughout his barely legitimate career, he relied on the people around him to signal that message - and that signaling was effective enough that it caused tens of thousands of people to actually attempt to overthrow the government.
I believe that Trump really, really, really wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, put US troops on the ground, and shoot protesters during the BLM marches. I think he qualifies.
@asahi - don’t be Trump. It was a horrible thing to say.
Which makes me feel super warm and fuzzy about all of the state election laws they’re trying to pass right now.
Eh, @asahi will be sober in the morning.
Trump will still be Trump.
In addition to that and the efforts to overturn the election, let’s not forget Trump flirted with the idea of deploying troops in response to BLM protests.
…so while I don’t know how serious @asahi was, let’s not forget that Trump, who remains the darling of conservatives and reactionaries throughout the US and elsewhere, actually was a fascist and was completely serious about his efforts to subvert democracy through all manner of authoritarian tactics.
Personally, I don’t think democracy will survive the next 10 years - at least not liberal democracy in the U.S. And within 20 years from now, liberal democracy might very be extinguished most places on the planet. It might be time to consider how we can transition from liberal, multi-party democracy to an authoritarian state that has competent, civic-minded rulers. A constitutionalist one-party state, perhaps. I’m brainstorming here.
Go back to bed, asahi. You’re still drunk.
Since you’re doubling down, I must say that I reject your hypothesis and your solution. While liberalism has its shortcomings and “liberal democracy” may well tend towards self-destruction, we can do away with the “liberal” while still keeping the “democracy.”
We will welcome the rise of our robot overlords.
If you want an authoritarian state that has a competent, civic-minded ruler, put me in charge of everything.
If you don’t want to do that, then I think we should go with democracy, it has its flaws, but it’s better than any of the alternatives. (Other than of course, my own benevolent dictatorship.)
I’m speaking in hypothetical terms about a controlled descent into authoritarianism, as opposed to an uncontrolled, chaotic one. It’s likely a moot issue because the left and centrists still believe in pluralistic liberal democracy and are going to defend it until it is stripped from them – which seems certain. The reality is that it is the right wing that will win this competition by force, and we will be subjected to a dystopian illiberalism initially before eventually descending into right wing plutocratic rule. And in the end, when the shit really hits the fan, we’ll end up with military rule anyway.
I’d rather see some level of restructuring of government, making the whims of the people less influential, but still leaving them ultimately in charge of the fate of their own society.
Democracy has its flaws, but all other systems have the flaw that any flaws cannot be addressed by the people.
I’d rather have flaws that can be fixed than flaws that are set in stone.
So, speaking in hypothetical terms, your solution is that we do it to “them” before they do it to “us”. Kind of like the argument that since we can’t seem to agree on much, the world is better off with an American hegemony than a Chinese one. That can only go well, I’m sure of it.
Did you say “overlords”? You meant “protectors”.
Actually, I meant “Friends.”
To serve man
Tell me about it, as a minority that wanted to get a loan (Based on equity, and I have lots here in Arizona and living in a good neighborhood) I do think that I’m getting railroaded by AI that the banks are using (this was reported in the news recently) to deny it, looks as if they want to force me to sell, but as John Oliver reported, minorities are getting their homes assessed with less value when they sell. 
Yes, but do you get criticized for expressing odious opinions and engaging in disingenuous debate tactics on an internet messageboard? That’s the real meaning of a minority.