The polls are suggesting a huge shift in the electorate. Are they right? | Politico
The polls are suggesting a huge shift in the electorate. Are they right? | Politico
It’s a significant reversal from recent history: President Joe Biden is struggling with young voters but performing better than most Democrats with older ones.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Genocide AND human decency VS an end to democracy and just not caring about anyone outside the border short of a migrant caravan.
I think you left off the part of the second candidate encouraging more genocide along with ending democracy.
Not encouraging, just not standing in the way of it happening.
no one is promising to end democracy
no one is promising to end democracy
Didn't one candidate say they would literally be a dictator..."but only on day one." I find it hard to trust anyone who ways they'd be a dictator any amount of time, and then stop. Dictatorship and democracy are polar opposites.
with the rise of executive power from executive orders, every president is a dictator say one, rolling back previous administration policy and implementing their own.
every president is a dictator day one, rolling back previous administration policy and implementing their own.
That's not what a dictatorship is. A dictatorship is where one person (the dictator) has almost complete control over the government with few, if any, restrictions. Executive orders can only be within the President's authority, and can also be overturned by Congress or the Supreme Court. To link executive orders to a dictatorship shows a misunderstanding of executive orders, dictatorships, or both.
Also, in the quote of being a "dictator for just one day," executive orders were not mentioned, if I remember correctly. And no democratic President should ever think of themselves as a dictator or wish they were one.
To link executive orders to a dictatorship shows a misunderstanding of executive orders, dictatorships, or both.
Also, in the quote of being a “dictator for just one day,” executive orders were not mentioned
no one is accusing trump of being a knowledgeable statesman.
no one is accusing trump of being a knowledgeable statesman.
That was actually you who linked them, not him. And they shouldn't be linked. Executive orders are not a dictatorship. But let's say he meant, even though he's famous for saying what he means with no filter.
Even after campaigning for it, holding the office for 4 years, presumably keeping an eye on his successor for 4 years, and now campaigning for it again? You'd think he'd know the basics of what is a democracy, what is a dictatorship, what executive orders do, and what do the different branches of government roughly do...you know, the basics that were taught in middle school, and elaborated on in high school. These aren't niche laws or obscure cases we're talking about, but what should be common sense to the common man...much more so for someone who's running for the job. Willful ignorance is not an excuse, especially at that level...if that's what this is.
i think he's a dummy, and he may be operating on my folksy definition of "dictator". my assumption is just as valid as yours.
so it's dumb to say it that way, but i don't believe he ever said he's planning to "end democracy" or even meant to imply that.
That’s not what a dictatorship is. A dictatorship is where one person (the dictator) has almost complete control over the government with few, if any, restrictions.
they are literally creating policy by dictate. your pet definition seems crafted to exclude this obvious use of dictate.
they are literally creating policy by dictate. your pet definition seems crafted to exclude this obvious use of dictate.
Someone who "dictates" is not necessarily a dictator. These are not my "pet definitions" but accepted definitions of what a dictator/dictatorship is in the political sphere. It's called context.
No one in the government should say "I'm going to dictate policy that I have control over, but this policy can be overturned by the other two branches. Thus, I'm a dictator." That's not what that word means. You are trying to use a nonspecific definition out of context to justify defending a wannabe dictator.
No one in the government should say “I’m going to dictate policy that I have control over, but this policy can be overturned by the other two branches. Thus, I’m a dictator.” That’s not what that word means. You are trying to use a nonspecific definition out of context to justify defending a wannabe dictator.
i'm not defending a wannabe dictator. i'm explicitly saying i think trump's stupid, and i don't believe he meant "dictator" in the same sense that you insist he must have meant it.
These are not my “pet definitions” but accepted definitions of what a dictator/dictatorship is in the political sphere. It’s called context.
can you substantiate this claim, that governing by dictate is not an accepted definition"in the political sphere". while we're on it, what do you define as "the political sphere"?
can you substantiate this claim, that governing by dictate is not an accepted definition"in the political sphere".
Because it's context. No, I don't think there's an official "when talking about X, only this definition of this word can mean this" book. But I honestly feel like you're arguing in bad faith or being obtuse on purpose. For example, I feel like you're arguing "a bad story came out about republicans...how do we know they meant members of the GOP? One definition is "favoring, supporting, or advocating a republic," so just maybe they're talking about people who like the game (or characters in) Star Wars: The Old Republic... that's about republics, and they never mentioned party...now that we're on about parties, maybe they meant a rave?"
If you're not doing that on purpose, let me assure you that when people are talking about a leader of a government (as the President is) and the word "dictator" comes up about them, no one ever means merely someone who dictates. They always mean leader of a dictatorship.
while we're on it, what do you define as "the political sphere"?
Relating to politics, especially members of/in charge of politics.
Insurrecting against a country because they voted for someone else is a pretty solid promise on its own.
he disputes that accusation
Yes, along with hundreds of other facts.
it's my reading that you think facts are incontrivertible, but, actually, they are claims that can be proven or disproven. therefore some facts are false.
"All the evidence is fake" only works on you far right guys.
baby, i'm an anarchist
Nah
i would know.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/dictionary/true-facts-and-false-facts/
i hope this helps you
right. i have no reason to believe he believes he was trying to overthrow the government nor that he was planning to end democracy.
He literally told you he would not accept the election results unless he won. You have every reason to believe he was and is trying to overthrow the government, but you are deliberately ignoring them.
You have every reason to believe he was and is trying to overthrow the government, but you are deliberately ignoring them.
your interpretation of his intentions cannot supercede his authority over his intentions. he solely knows what he meant and what he believes, and no evidence can subvert his own claims.
consider: what evidence can you produce about whether he thought he was trying to over throw the government that, if disputed by him, would not immediately fall flat? even if you could produce a letter signed by him at the moment claiming exactly what you do, if he made a claim now disavowing it and saying he nevermeant it, that letter would not prove his intention.
You are a clown if you will take a proven liar's posthoc word that he didn't mean the literal denotation of what he previously said before he committed a crime. No it doesn't fall flat. You are just a willfully deluded far-right cultist. Good luck with all that.
i'm not far right at all.