| ▲ | andsoitis 11 hours ago |
| Do you truly believe the US is currently a dictatorship? |
|
| ▲ | culi 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| A man who tried to overturn an election is in power and is disappearing people on the streets without due process. The other day there was news about some ICE members who blew up the door to a family's home in order to detain a man. The man was a citizen. They knew that. They came to intimidate him because a few days earlier he tried filming their cars on a public street. That's just one example but these cases are only becoming more common. One thing that's clear is that if he tries to overturn an election again, he is way better positioned to succeed this time. ICE is now the 5th most heavily funded military in the world and the whole point of DOGE[0] was to centralize the government and fill only with loyalists. [0] NYT investigation recently proved there were little savings https://archive.ph/y5guv |
|
| ▲ | vunderba 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a dictatorship, but it’s definitely trending toward authoritarianism. Wasn't too hard to put together a quick graph of the past decade for the U.S. using the World Press Freedom Index (relative ranking and score) - an annual ranking of 180 countries published by Reporters Without Borders that measures the level of press freedom. https://imgur.com/a/4liEqqi |
|
| ▲ | bdangubic 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| what is the US exactly currently if not dictatorship? is there a single
thing “President” cannot do right now and if so who would be stopping him? so perhaps on paper US is not dictatorship much like Russia and China are not… We spend decades trying to fight these regimes and lost so much that now we are worse than them :) |
| |
| ▲ | chocoboaus3 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The supreme court did just stop him for the moment putting the national guard into chicago | | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | bookmark this for a few days and then come back to it… the story is “… for now” :-) | |
| ▲ | jibal 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "rare setback" | | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | it is not a setback, they have to play a little game now and again to entertain the masses. scotus as it was before doesn’t exist anymore and won’t for decades, it now just rubberstamps | | |
| ▲ | jibal 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I quoted the media. The main point in this context is the "rare" part. I'm well aware of the nature of the GOP operatives on the SCOTUS. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all voted in Trump's favor. That Beerhead, Ms. IDreamOfGilead, and "Citizens United/I hate the VRA/worst chief justice since Taney" voted to temporarily uphold the stay actually surprised me (Bart O' said he would have given Trump more leeway) but yes, it's theater. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nothrabannosir 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > is there a single thing “President” cannot do right now Stand in the middle of fifth Avenue and shoot someone :) Have political enemies executed Get his face on Mount Rushmore Disband congress Disband the Supreme Court Keep Jimmy Kimmel off air Get Jon Stuart to shut up Get James comey indicted Get a national holiday named after him Etc. Even when we focus on things he tried to do, there is a lot he couldn’t. Let alone when you look at things he didn’t try to do. | | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | we are 11 months in, please be patient while the process is taking place, be right with you with your list :) lots of these are of course also just a distraction to discuss at Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner vs you know, other things | | |
| ▲ | nothrabannosir 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | You said "right now". If you want to change to "will be able to do in the near future, before the end of his second term", that's a (slightly?) different list. But it's also a different comment. You said "anything", in the context of dictatorship. I only used items in this list which IMO you can reasonably say Putin, an actual dictator, can do. Right now. Except the first one! Because that was a joke, a reference to something he himself said he could do. If you want to change to "anything which has backroom deal importance, not just bread and games for the masses, but the real things, if you know you know", that's a (slightly) different list. But, it's also a different comment. |
| |
| ▲ | h33t-l4x0r 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well he did get Ellen Degeneris to self-deport | |
| ▲ | exasperaited an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | He has functionally neutered Congress. It is almost completely meaningless and it is operating without an independent Speaker. I think he could succeed in principle re: Mount Rushmore, to be honest. I think eventually people will cave in and agree to do it, and then they will just pray to cholesterol that they can wait it out. |
| |
| ▲ | billy99k 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | | |
| ▲ | hattmall 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's pretty clear he can barely do anything policy wise. Limited tariffs and immigration / border stuff is pretty much all that he is getting done. | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And killing so many sailors in South American waters. | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | you don’t need policy, policy is what his predecessors were doing and are now going “wait, we could have done whatever the F we wanted??! damn!!” :) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | idle_zealot 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not so simple a binary. We're definitely much less democratic than a year ago, and the bar was low then. |
|
| ▲ | Loughla 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I truly believe we're headed that direction. I've lived long enough to have seen a wide variety of presidents, both good and bad. This one is easily the worst one, in terms of bare naked power grabs. I believe Trump will manufacture a crisis before he's out of office in a bid to maintain control. I believe he will have learned from Bush Jr. that a simple war isn't good enough, and it needs to be a genuine emergency. I believe he'll do whatever he can to make that happen. Native born terrorist, or war with a close country, or absolutely over the top financial crash. Something awful that lets him invoke some obscure rule that lets him stay in power with congressional approval - he'll just skip the congressional approval part like he already does. |
| |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is one of those instances where I with hn had some kind of remindMe feature. | | |
| ▲ | Loughla 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I hope I'm wrong, but I legit believe that will happen. See you in about 2 years. | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hopefully it is not an instance where you won't need it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | vkou 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How would the roadmap for turning a democracy into a one party dictatorship differ from the trajectory we are on? |
| |
| ▲ | rurban 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which democracy? The USA isn't one for decades already | | |
| ▲ | vkou 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I've no doubt that if we plopped you down in the middle of, say, modern-day Russia, you'd be able to observe a few important differences in the political organization of the two countries. Fewer than you would a year or nine ago, certainly, and a lot of people are working very hard on closing the gap. Democracy is a spectrum. There have always been significant flaws with American democracy, but you'd be mad to not observe significant, active regression and effort by the government to replace it with something else. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ourmandave 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The pendulum swings. It always does. And all the powers SCOTUS gave the executive branch will eventually be in the hands of the Loyal Opposition. If it swings as far back you might even see universal health care, sane gun laws, fair wages, campaign finance reform, reproductive freedom, science based policy making, reigning in billionaires, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | sdenton4 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have very little faith that scotus will have any consistency in their decisions going forward - they seem to be nakedly political, and backing trump. If the elections swing the other direction (despite their aid in gerrymandering), expect them to cry about the power of the presidency and start rolling it back as fast as they can push decisions through the shadow docket. | |
| ▲ | kergonath 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The pendulum swings. It always does. And all the powers SCOTUS gave the executive branch will eventually be in the hands of the Loyal Opposition. That sounds reinsuring, but it is completely false. The idea that the pendulum swings is just regression to the mean: sure, after a terrible president, the next one is likely to be less terrible. But there is nothing that implies that after a far-right regime will come a far-left one. In fact, if you look at History in various countries around the world, this seems very unlikely. > If it swings as far back you might even see universal health care, sane gun laws, fair wages, campaign finance reform, reproductive freedom, science based policy making, reigning in billionaires, etc. Don’t count on it. In all likelihood it will regress to the centre. The American culture hasn’t changed that much and American leftists did not suddenly become competent at getting popular support. | | |
| ▲ | Eisenstein 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But there is nothing that implies that after a far-right regime will come a far-left one. In fact, if you look at History in various countries around the world, this seems very unlikely. Looking at the history of left wing movements in countries post-WWII, can you think of a reason why they wouldn't be successful and far-right ones would? The Cold War may have been a factor. > Don’t count on it. In all likelihood it will regress to the centre. The center doesn't exist anymore. The right-wing has labeled the US Democratic Party as extreme left. There should be a term for 'forcing your opposition to materialize because you are unable to distinguish between propaganda and reality'. |
| |
| ▲ | watwut 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > And all the powers SCOTUS gave the executive branch will eventually be in the hands of the Loyal Opposition. They will find excuses to reverse. There will be some technicality, made up historical precense or some actually untrue fact about the world that wil totally make the situation different. Conservative heretage foundation group has outcome in mind ... and "opposition" is not their preffered outcome. | |
| ▲ | jliptzin 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh the horror! | |
| ▲ | DANmode 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tell us more about the sane (“common sense”?) gun laws! I love these. | | |
| ▲ | ourmandave 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I could cut-n-paste a bunch of them and you could copy back all the arguments against them, if you want to do that. Or post a link to a tiresome comment sections where it's been done countless times. But until 2A is amended there's nothing we can do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_... | |
| ▲ | cyberax 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'd love to limit the semi-auto rifles like the infamous AR-15. Useless for hunting, useless for self-defense. In exchange for country-wide reciprocity for concealed carry and firearm transportation. | | |
| ▲ | pppppiiiiiuuuuu 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Useless for hunting, useless for self-defense. I'm not a 1A guy, I think that for instance people with a history of domestic violence shouldn't be armed (that is what I would cite as "common sense"), but this statement really damages your credibility. Of course semiautomatic rifles are useful for both hunting and for self defense. They are effective weapons. That's the problem. | | |
| ▲ | cyberax 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I'm not a 1A guy, I think that for inference people with a history of domestic violence shouldn't be armed Whut? How the fuck did you make that jump? AR-15 rifles are useless for hunting. They are too small to reliably kill large game (deer) and too large for small game (rabbits). Sure, they're fine for coyotes, but if you're buying an AR-15 to hunt coyotes, then you should just stop. AR-15s are also useless for self-defense. They are too bulky for indoor use, and the bullets can penetrate multiple walls. A regular semi-auto handgun is far superior if you're looking to protect yourself against domestic violence. | | |
| ▲ | pppppiiiiiuuuuu 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The domestic violence thing was about a potential gun regulation, not a scenario. People with domestic violence convictions are overrepresented among murderers and mass shooters. So it would make sense to prevent them from obtaining guns. It's useless for hunting, but you identify circumstances it's useful in. You say it's useless for self defense because it's bulky, I've heard a hundred people say it's ideal because it's easier to be proficient with a rifle than with a pistol. Say whatever you want, but when you make absolute statements like that, it damages your credibility. That's my feedback for you. | | |
| ▲ | consz 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you may have very differing views of what "self-defense" situations you and the other poster are talking about. Could you describe a specific scenario one of those hundred people might be imagining? | | |
| ▲ | pppppiiiiiuuuuu 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't really care to have an in depth discussion of self defense scenarios because I don't think that helps us understand common sense gun regulation any better. I'm sure you can find people making that argument if you are curious. My point is not that the AR-15 is an appropriate self defense weapon but that there are better arguments you could have made, and that the one you did make lost someone who is already sympathetic to your position. | | |
| ▲ | consz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I did find someone making that argument, you. I don't think asking for one example out of a hundred is asking for an in depth discussion, but if you claim this is too much for you then I won't push the issue. | |
| ▲ | cyberax 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're a bot, likely. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "it's ideal because it's easier to be proficient with a rifle than with a pistol" So a shotgun then? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | DANmode 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > science based policy making One of my favorite trivia questions is: how long has it been since Congress has had staff scientists? | |
| ▲ | refurb 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You act like Trump’s policies don’t have broad support with a majority of voters. | | |
| ▲ | ourmandave an hour ago | parent [-] | | Polls can be capricious, but Trump's recent numbers with some groups have seen big drops. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rootusrootus 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The country as a whole, no. But within the regime? Yeah. |
|
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | sneak 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I’m still always surprised that there are adults who think it is not. The CIA, for example, is entirely above the law. |
| |
| ▲ | neutronicus 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's different from a dictatorship, though, especially if the CIA is not answerable to a supposed dictator. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's different from a dictatorship, Its exactly equivalent to a dictatorship by the head of the CIA, unless the CIA is effectively answerable to some other authority despite not being answerable to the law, and then it is equivalent to a dictatorship by that higher authority. | | |
| ▲ | neutronicus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The CIA can’t rule by edict. Being above the law is necessary but not sufficient to be a dictator. We also don’t know enough about the internal politics of the CIA to assert much about the head of the CIA. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Its exactly equivalent to a dictatorship by the head of the CIA No it's not. I can commit all manner of illegal acts in my home unnoticed, that doesn't make me a dictator. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, and if the hypothetical were that the CIA was effectively outside of control of the law for actions committed in private by CIA personnel in their homes, then the conclusion would be different (even though an agency the scale of the CIA would still have different implications than an individual even then), but that wasn't the hypothetical under discussion, which had much fewer—as in zero—qualifications on the CIA’s lack of accountability. Analogies don't work when they aren't analogous. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > if the hypothetical were that the CIA was effectively outside of control of the law for actions committed in private by CIA personnel in their homes My point is their actions are committed outside the law. They've just been able to avoid punishment by covering it up. What they are not is above the law, at least not in the long run. (There are absolutely short bouts where the CIA acts above the law overseas, and rare cases where it has done so domestically. But the fact that they're covering it up betrays that they're crafty bastards, not invincible ones.) |
| |
| ▲ | sneak 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The CIA ran torture prisons, got caught, then there was a congressional inquiry, and they hacked into the computers of the congresspeople to delete the evidence of torture. Then they got caught hacking congressional computers to delete evidence. Nothing happened to them. They are above the law. You are not. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > CIA ran torture prisons, got caught, then there was a congressional inquiry, and they hacked into the computers of the congresspeople to delete the evidence of torture One, source? Two, this above reproach. Not above the law. They deleted the evidence, they didn't just blow the scandal off. (Historically, our IC was popular. Right now, it's the deep state. You're seeing political appointees at the FBI and CIA exert control.) |
|
|
|
|
|
