• Donald Trump's GOP civil war
    42 replies, posted
Tbh we should add legislation to prevent (close) relatives from succeeding each other into the presidency within 20-30 years. If we seriously go Bush > Clinton > Bush > Obama > Clinton > Bush I'll go insane.
[QUOTE=gufu;51194597]Hilary is not going to do anything drastic in anti-gun department. She's just going to be following the usual heavy rhetoric without any actual actions or results.[/QUOTE] I suuuuure hope you're right :worried: [editline]13th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=soulharvester;51196753]Tbh we should add legislation to prevent (close) relatives from succeeding each other into the presidency within 20-30 years. If we seriously go Bush > Clinton > Bush > Obama > Clinton > Bush I'll go insane.[/QUOTE] And after that, Chelsea Clinton ought to be old enough...
Sometimes i think Trump ran for the novelty of it but got serious somewhere along the way. I mean, he's pretty much world infamous by now, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in business.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51196753]Tbh we should add legislation to prevent (close) relatives from succeeding each other into the presidency within 20-30 years. If we seriously go Bush > Clinton > Bush > Obama > Clinton > Bush I'll go insane.[/QUOTE] Why? I don't see the problem with that other than it's quite bizarre. Think about it this way; with those types of laws, Franklin D. Roosevelt would not have become President in 1934, since Teddy Roosevelt had been president about 30 years ago. Would that really be a good thing?
Im not a politician so i cant claim this is how politicians best handle it, but if i get stabbed in the back like that i will go to town... he will wreck the republican party, if not destroy he will break its spine and make it a shadow of itself for this and next election. He's the hero the republican party deserves, but not the one it needs right now. [editline]13th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51196873]Why? I don't see the problem with that other than it's quite bizarre. Think about it this way; with those types of laws, Franklin D. Roosevelt would not have become President in 1934, since Teddy Roosevelt had been president about 30 years ago. Would that really be a good thing?[/QUOTE] Is Franklin D not getting into office worth having a real chance 2 or 3 political families swap presidency over and over in a political plutocratic monarchy? fact is, Franklin D already GOT into office, so we can make a rule against it AND keep history as history... 1 strike 2 flies. I mean lets take a cue out of history... all it takes is a big political event (lets say ww2) and a leader standing up (lets say franklin d) and kicking ass to such an amount that people will become willing to abolish parts of the constitution and instate a monarchy. But currently for this to happen the US does not even need to abolish anything, all they need to do is swap the presidency around a bit like Putin does. yes like putin does... also hitler did it too also the fall of rome was probably either sped up or just caused by stuff like this... they went from a republic to a pseudo-monarchy so yea... even if it allows us a chance at getting a really good leader instated twice or have a family we really like follow up each other in a gilden age of 'the people love this' chances are far more likely it will be abused to keep some retarded inbred son in power like during the european monarchies hay-day.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51196952] and a leader standing up (lets say franklin d) and kicking ass [/QUOTE] unlikely [editline]13th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51196952] also hitler did it too[/QUOTE] I don't think he did, he was a chancellor who used an ineffective president and a badly-written constitution to grant him de facto dictatorship powers, which he then used to give himself de jure dictatorship powers he was never a president
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51197238]unlikely[/QUOTE] I meant it as figure of speech.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51197246]I meant it as figure of speech.[/QUOTE] i was joking my friend
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51197238]I don't think he did, he was a chancellor who used an ineffective president and a badly-written constitution to grant him de facto dictatorship powers, which he then used to give himself de jure dictatorship powers he was never a president[/QUOTE] My point was more that the people let it happen that he pulled all this power towards himself, he could not have done it if he had not been as popular as he was at that time. A constitution is only as strong as the people are willing to close an eye on leaders misinterpreting it for their own gains. [editline]13th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51197249]i was joking my friend[/QUOTE] Im not very good with jokes, im a functioning autist and that stuff goes right above my head, especially in forums.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51197252]My point was more that the people let it happen that he pulled all this power towards himself, he could not have done it if he had not been as popular as he was at that time. A constitution is only as strong as the people are willing to close an eye on leaders misinterpreting it for their own gains.[/quote] If the Wiemar republic had had an electoral system that didn't essentially make majority government impossible, necessitating the president use article 48 powers to get anything done, or even if the republic had had a president that wasn't at his best when he was asleep, hitler's rise to power would have had to have come via violent revolution as the expression of the people's will, which he tried in 1923. hitler's consolidation of power was a direct result of a president that wasn't doing his job properly and a political climate that meant there couldn't be a majority party. The US doesn't have that problem - for a start, FPTP means there will always be a majority party that doesn't require cooperation from other parties, and the president is both head of state and head of government. An American hitler would have to be the nominee of either the republicans or democrats, and have the backing of congress. In germany, hitler was able to command a big enough majority by intimidating and criminalising his political opponents and manipulate a senile old man to grant himself more power - he didn't have anyone checking up on him, whereas congress is specifically there to make sure the president can't do anything without the people's backing, as vested in their chamber [quote]Im not very good with jokes, im a functioning autist and that stuff goes right above my head, especially in forums.[/QUOTE] no sweat my guy
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51197271]If the Wiemar republic had had an electoral system that didn't essentially make majority government impossible, necessitating the president use article 48 powers to get anything done, or even if the republic had had a president that wasn't at his best when he was asleep, hitler's rise to power would have had to have come via violent revolution as the expression of the people's will, which he tried in 1923. hitler's consolidation of power was a direct result of a president that wasn't doing his job properly and a political climate that meant there couldn't be a majority party. The US doesn't have that problem - for a start, FPTP means there will always be a majority party that doesn't require cooperation from other parties, and the president is both head of state and head of government. An American hitler would have to be the nominee of either the republicans or democrats, and have the backing of congress. In germany, hitler was able to command a big enough majority by intimidating and criminalising his political opponents and manipulate a senile old man to grant himself more power - he didn't have anyone checking up on him, whereas congress is specifically there to make sure the president can't do anything without the people's backing, as vested in their chamber no sweat my guy[/QUOTE] I stand with my case that he could not have done it without his popularity... the reason that 'senile old man' gave him that power in the first place was because he wanted hitler to get the power he wanted and fuck up his own popularity... saying in hindsight he was deluded is easy when at the time, heck at current time its unthinkable any leader would get in power and do the things hitler got away with... that is still the current day idea, people think that if for some reason Hitler happened today somehow something would happen, but thats not how things work. and i want to bet people in general probably wouldn’t see the sign on the wall when its happening... This is why i like trump, people already think he is Hitler 1.9_ALPHA_[unstable, intelligence untested] s its a pretty safe bet he will be impeached the moment he does anything policy wise halfway out of line. And no matter how good a constitution is, it only takes one extremely popular leader and some corruption sprinkled over to fuck it all up... thinking you have 'the perfect system' is [B]ludicrous and dangerous. [/B]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51197296]I stand with my case that he could not have done it without his popularity... the reason that 'senile old man' gave him that power in the first place was because he wanted hitler to get the power he wanted and fuck up his own popularity... saying in hindsight he was deluded is easy when at the time, heck at current time its unthinkable any leader would get in power and do the things hitler got away with... that is still the current day idea, people think that if for some reason Hitler happened today somehow something would happen, but thats not how things work. and i want to bet people in general probably wouldn’t see the sign on the wall when its happening... This is why i like trump, people already think he is Hitler 1.9_ALPHA_[unstable, intelligence untested] s its a pretty safe bet he will be impeached the moment he does anything policy wise halfway out of line. And no matter how good a constitution is, it only takes one extremely popular leader and some corruption sprinkled over to fuck it all up... thinking you have 'the perfect system' is [B]ludicrous and dangerous. [/B][/QUOTE] Oh no i'm not saying the US is perfectly safe from dictatorship. just that it wouldn't happen in the same way that hitler was able to do it. it would have to be the result of, as you say, a demagogue who had the support of the people - in short, a dictatorship would have to grow out from the cracks in democracy. that's why the people either need to be well-educated and well-informed, or there needs to be a governmental system that makes dictatorship impossible, á la Montesquieu and his separation of powers. I'm more inclined to manage the government rather than try to manage the people, but that's a politico-philosophical view so you might disagree and that's a-ok hitler wasn't as popular as is thought - even when he was elected in 1932, he had 33% of the vote (which is why he called another one in january 1933 where he got 43%) - he never had the majority of the popular vote, and he only managed to get seats in the reichstag through intimidating the voters and campaigners, and outright banning his closest rivals in the KPD (who still, despite being banned and having its supporters violently attacked got like 13%). the majority of germany did not want the nazis in power. this was also at the time when people didn't know exactly what hitler was planning to do, and of course there was no way for him to be impeached after the 1933 election
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51196873]Why? I don't see the problem with that other than it's quite bizarre. Think about it this way; with those types of laws, Franklin D. Roosevelt would not have become President in 1934, since Teddy Roosevelt had been president about 30 years ago. Would that really be a good thing?[/QUOTE] To be fair, he said "close relatives" and FDR was 2nd cousin to Teddy; not what most would consider 'close'. Also hindsight is 20/20, there was no evidence that FDR would have done anything great when he was first elected, just as it is with every new president.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.