Bond slashed to 175 million while Trump appeals

[Dill]

(03-28-2024, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say it did.  I was responding to one of pally's criteria.  That being "a Lack of respect for the Constitution and law".  A turn to authoritarianism is not required to illustrate the Democrat's disdain for either.  You're equating my showing the Dems disdain for both as evidence that they have the same, supposed, objectives as Trump.  I am merely illustrating their obvious lack of respect for both.

No.  Am not.

Pally's "criteria" were listed in service of the larger point that Trump and the GOP have become a serious threat to US democracy. 
I.e., Trump's turn to authoritarianism, bringing his willing party along, is the threat under discussion.

You quoted these lines together:
How does Trump turn this country into a Totalitarian government...It is easier than we thing
-a Lack of respect for the Constitution and law

I was treating your "showing the Dems disdain for both" as part of an argument that both parties are therefore equal threats to democracy, not that they have the same "objectives," because you placed that "equal disdain" claim in opposition to these two statements, offered as part of the same argument. 

It would be an incredible deflation of Trump's real threat to suggest some progressive DAs in California's selective prosecutions place the national Dem party on a similar level of lack of respect for the Constitution and law as a party led by someone who actually attempted an autogolpe which would vitiate rule of law and the Constitution altogether--an act which then only increased his support from the GOP and EXPANDED his control over it.   And you threw in a reference to the 2nd Amendment too?

But now you are just saying you meant that rule-of-law-Constitution point as just a side comment about supposedly equal lack of "respect"? 

(03-28-2024, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How large?  How easy is this to achieve?

This post is honestly quite silly.  You post examples of "easily achievable" goals, none of which are easily achievable, that will enable the overthrow of the longest contiguous democracy in modern history.  It's fear mongering at its most generic.  If Trump does win, which is becoming increasingly possible, then we'll almost certainly get another four years identical to his first term.  Then Trump can "retire" and claim he's the only POTUS to win his position back after being defrauded of his reelection the first time, proving him right all along (in his mind).  Then we'll see what lame candidates the two parties can vomit up for us to agonize over in 2028.

I don't believe Pally was around in the summer of 2020, when you dismissed my concerns that Trump was signaling he would not go quietly if he lost the election, You thought that "fear mongering" was "honestly quite silly" as well. "Put a bow on it," you siad; not worthy of forum discussion. Outside the pale. Seriously, what could he do?

And here we are again.

Now you are predicting that an angry, vengeful and increasing impaired Trump, sans guardrails like Mattis and Kelly and with greater control over his party, will "almost certainly" pose no more danger than "another four years identical to his first term." Like we weathered that one just fine. 

The issue is not whether Trump will convert the US to a totalitarian government. The issue is the kind of damage which will result--is resulting--from his conversion of a major political party into his primary personal support in bid for autocratic control, stronger and more focused now after the failed attempt. Even if he is unsuccessful in the long term, it means mass Constitutional/democratic crisis and instability. Serious damage to our polity and institutions. Ukraine gifted to Russia with the predictable consequences to the system of alliances the US has led since 1949.  And no return to normalcy in 2028, for us or the world. 

But the 2nd Amendment will remain safe through it all, to the advantage of an authoritarian leader.