Of course, from 2016, when the Trump derangement hysteria was at its most apocalyptic maximum, before he spent four years as president... relatively uneventfully, constantly criticized by all sectors of the media and persistently, openly investigated by the very government beneath his administration, without being able to stop either in any meaningful way. Very repressive indeed, the very definition of tyranny.
>Democracies end
when they are too democratic
The implicit idea behind this being that people shouldn't be able to choose just anyone as their leader. That perhaps a group of informed social betters, possibly from among those, like the writer, who describe their sipping cocktails with other influential people in Washington while they watch the news with nausea, should have a firm say in how the majority can vote.
Visibly elitist pseudo philosophical hysterics posing as reasoned discourse. In 2016 it was especially notable. These people too can easily slip into authoritarian ideations.
And it was an authoritarian tyranny in any way at all how? Yes, he incited the idiotic disaster of a half baked protest/"coup" attempt (interpreting it very generously as far as that goes) on January 6th right near the end of his presidency, but aside from that, uneventful in the sense of turning into anything resembling a dictatorship does describe it. If you beg to differ, name something that differs if you like.
Also, read this article or at least part of its long winded rant. It goes to absurd, apocalyptic levels of hyperbole in anticipating the Trump presidency. Describes him as an "extinction event". Laughable. The centralization of executive power that has indeed been developing in the United States is a cumulative product of many administrations, their cabinets and, sadly, the tacit permissiveness of the other branches. Trump was nothing exceptional in its development and it will continue regardless of presidential officeholder long after he's in the ground. That's the wider point worth debating, instead of a pile of heavy handed anti-Trump hysterics.
3 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 17.7 ms ] thread>Democracies end when they are too democratic
The implicit idea behind this being that people shouldn't be able to choose just anyone as their leader. That perhaps a group of informed social betters, possibly from among those, like the writer, who describe their sipping cocktails with other influential people in Washington while they watch the news with nausea, should have a firm say in how the majority can vote.
Visibly elitist pseudo philosophical hysterics posing as reasoned discourse. In 2016 it was especially notable. These people too can easily slip into authoritarian ideations.
Also, read this article or at least part of its long winded rant. It goes to absurd, apocalyptic levels of hyperbole in anticipating the Trump presidency. Describes him as an "extinction event". Laughable. The centralization of executive power that has indeed been developing in the United States is a cumulative product of many administrations, their cabinets and, sadly, the tacit permissiveness of the other branches. Trump was nothing exceptional in its development and it will continue regardless of presidential officeholder long after he's in the ground. That's the wider point worth debating, instead of a pile of heavy handed anti-Trump hysterics.