Honest Question: How is Trump a 'threat to Democracy'?

[Will B Good]

Check your calendar and ask the t'interweb.......

 

"What important events in history have occurred on the 6th January"

 

You might get a shock.

[Lacessit]

38 minutes ago, itsari said:

Was it not designed for giving smaller states a greater say in the presidential elections?

The system was began in 1787 which is a long time ago yet one can say the original reasons ofthe system still apply .

I see. So the Founding Fathers could foresee muskets would be replaced by weapons, which at Las Vegas killed 60 people and injured hundreds, wielded by a single person.
 

Perhaps Americans don't realize some of their cherished traditions are no longer fit for purpose.

[mdr224]

42 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

If you think Harris is the best pick for the next 4 years then kiss USA goodbye.

Glad I'm not American

Indeed, im kissing it goodbye. A country ruled by the media

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, thesetat2013 said:

To do all you say, he would need approval of many committees. You Democratic use anything to make it seem like he will be a dictator and be able to shut the whole Democratic system down when really that is a load of horse nonsense used as a scare tactic by the Dems themselves. He can recommend.. He can suggest. But he is unable to do all you say because those decisions are not made by one man alone. So you really need to think about that. Trump is only a threat to Democracy because the Dems say he is so they can continue to get rich controlling the governments. 

How many committees did Trump need to appoint Bill Barr AG? How many committees did he need to appoint an oil industry executive as Secretary for the Environment?

How many committees did it take for Trump to fire James Comey from the FBI?

 

BTW, the Trump organisation billed the American taxpayer $240 million for the 300 times he played golf while President.

 

Your post is arrant nonsense.

[Hanaguma]

The obvious answer is that he is NOT a threat to democracy.

 

IF Trump were the new Hitler, the fascist, the genuine threat....then Democrats would not be against his assassination. They would not send messages of support when he survived. I mean, who would cheer if Hitler survived an attempted bombing attack? 

 

It is obvious political hype.  You can't simultaneously call a man an "existential threat" and out of the other side of your mouth be happy that he is still alive. 

[Will B Good]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

The obvious answer is that he is NOT a threat to democracy.

 

IF Trump were the new Hitler, the fascist, the genuine threat....then Democrats would not be against his assassination. They would not send messages of support when he survived. I mean, who would cheer if Hitler survived an attempted bombing attack? 

 

It is obvious political hype.  You can't simultaneously call a man an "existential threat" and out of the other side of your mouth be happy that he is still alive. 

 

 

I take it you know it was JD Vance who called him America's Hitler?

 

 

[thesetat2013]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

How many committees did Trump need to appoint Bill Barr AG? How many committees did he need to appoint an oil industry executive as Secretary for the Environment?

How many committees did it take for Trump to fire James Comey from the FBI?

 

BTW, the Trump organisation billed the American taxpayer $240 million for the 300 times he played golf while President.

 

Your post is arrant nonsense.

appointing people does not change democracy. so your point is invalid. Why shouldn't the President be allowed to have some free time?

Show links proving he spent 300M playing golf using taxpayer money. I found nothing to support your nonsense

s

[Cory1848]

18 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The obvious answer is that he is NOT a threat to democracy.

 

IF Trump were the new Hitler, the fascist, the genuine threat....then Democrats would not be against his assassination. They would not send messages of support when he survived. I mean, who would cheer if Hitler survived an attempted bombing attack? 

 

It is obvious political hype.  You can't simultaneously call a man an "existential threat" and out of the other side of your mouth be happy that he is still alive. 

I don’t disagree (with your second and third paragraphs), and it rubs me the wrong way when Harris and other Democrats express such concern for Trump’s safety. But I’m pretty sure they’re taking the high-road approach so as to appear (at least) civilized, in the expectation that this will help them win the election fair and square.

 

Should Trump somehow legitimately win the election (and the possibility of that happening is rapidly vanishing), all bets are off, especially during the period of time between the election and inauguration.

[AboutThaim]

[itsari]

59 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I see. So the Founding Fathers could foresee muskets would be replaced by weapons, which at Las Vegas killed 60 people and injured hundreds, wielded by a single person.
 

Perhaps Americans don't realize some of their cherished traditions are no longer fit for purpose.

The system survived the American cival war from 1861 to 1865 where over 600,000 soldiers lost there lives .

I am not seeing your point of 60 killed in Las Vegas 

[thesetat2013]

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Trump is a threat to "democracy" IMO because of the following:

- He and the Republican Party continually strive to limit the number of people who are allowed to vote;

- He and the Republican Party are guilty of reformatting the districts within a state in favor of their party (gerrymandering) ;

- He continually spreads false information, which wrongly influences how people vote;

- If elected, he will continue to strive to become a dictator;

- If elected, I am sure he will try to remove the limitations that would prohibit him from running for president again so he could remain president indefinitely. (Of course, he is now 78, so, thankfully, that wouldn't be for too much longer).

Trump is only trying to stop the Non-Americans from voting. What rubbish you post. 

The Democrats place other Dems in key positions as soon as they take office as well. More rubbish you post. 

He has never strived to become a dictator. This is a tactic used by the Democrats to turn the Republican votes to their party. More utter rubbish you post. 

He can not remove limitations set by the constitution. Maybe you can learn something if reading it. It also tells you he can never become a dictator using the laws in the constitution. It takes many other people to do all the things you accuse Trump of doing. So your reasons are now turned to garbage.  Try posting things with facts to support what you say. 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

 

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

[Wrwest]

19 hours ago, diceman said:

I'm not here to be 'convinced' of anything. I would like hear truth and facts from both sides. You have given an argument for what is so bad about trump, would you like to add some negatives about the Democrats?

The question was about Trump not a question of comparison. Stay on topic.

[Taco]

Democracy is one equal vote for each citizen. When Trump lost and tried to create votes in Georgia and when he lied and denied loosing that is a the opposite of democracy. So there ya go

[Wrwest]

19 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Hmmm . . . "new" member, posting a very loaded question of a topic, trying to change the parameters of the argument mid-stream?

 

Yeah . . . nope, not gonna take this bait.

I had wondered about the number of newcomers arriving at the same time as we see documentation as to foreign/domestic plants to continue the attacks on each other as we approach a most critical clear and present danger to my country. I agree with you, most do not deserve our time and attention.

[Will B Good]

6 minutes ago, Taco said:

Democracy is one equal vote for each citizen. When Trump lost and tried to create votes in Georgia and when he lied and denied loosing that is a the opposite of democracy. So there ya go

 

 

If only those b*****y communist, single cat ladies didn't have a vote.......and those without any kids.....Trump could have walked it.

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

I had wondered about the number of newcomers arriving at the same time as we see documentation as to foreign/domestic plants to continue the attacks on each other as we approach a most critical clear and present danger to my country. I agree with you, most do not deserve our time and attention.

 

 

 

Initially I totally agreed.....but living in Isaan, having a bot to argue with gets me through the day without self harming.

 

 

 

[Thingamabob]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

How many committees did Trump need to appoint Bill Barr AG? How many committees did he need to appoint an oil industry executive as Secretary for the Environment?

How many committees did it take for Trump to fire James Comey from the FBI?

 

BTW, the Trump organisation billed the American taxpayer $240 million for the 300 times he played golf while President.

 

Your post is arrant nonsense.

Arrant nonsense ? Really ?

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

I take it you know it was JD Vance who called him America's Hitler?

 

 

Yes, he did. And he also took it back when he saw Trump's performance as president.  Now, have the major players in the Democratic party "taken back" their overheated and dangerous rhetoric about Trump? Or do they still call him a threat to 'our democracy' and a dictator from day one? Because unless their actions and words align, they are just hypocrites. 

[Will B Good]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

And he also took it back

 

 

That seriously calls into question his judgement, don't you think?........from America's Hitler to the best president we ever had.......deary me!!!

[Hanaguma]

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

That seriously calls into question his judgement, don't you think?........from America's Hitler to the best president we ever had.......deary me!!!

Possibly, but that is a topic that has been done to death elsewhere, don't you think?

So, back to THIS topic, why don't Democratic party leaders try a little honesty when discussing Trump? Their pearl clutching screeching is making things worse for everyone.  

[Cameroni]

12 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

This is sarcasm, right?

 

When he says something clearly... he is clearly lying... otherwise he speaks in a most disorganized manner.

 

Have you even read the Agenda 2025? Do you seriously think a guy like Donald Trump would outlaw pornography?

 

What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy, he couldn't even implement that if he wanted to.

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Possibly, but that is a topic that has been done to death elsewhere, don't you think?

So, back to THIS topic, why don't Democratic party leaders try a little honesty when discussing Trump? Their pearl clutching screeching is making things worse for everyone.  

 

 

 

...or at heart they might just be decent human beings......no, what am I thinking.

 

 

 

[gamb00ler]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

Do you seriously think a guy like Donald Trump would outlaw pornography?

Trump is up for anything that will get him into power.  He could care less about any policy unless it clearly costs him more votes than it gains.  

[Will B Good]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Have you even read the Agenda 2025? Do you seriously think a guy like Donald Trump would outlaw pornography?

 

What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy, he couldn't even implement that if he wanted to.

 

 

"What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy"

 

 

Project 2025 takes a strongly pro-life position on abortion, advocating for significant restrictions on abortion at the federal and state levels. 

 

 

....and Trump is diametrically opposed to this?

[harryviking]

20 hours ago, johng said:

Easy answer  he is not a threat to democracy  he is a threat to his opponents   who have done everything undemocratically  possible to try and stop him regaining the presidency.

The problem with Trump is he is dumb as a rock and have no clue about much! He also admire the worst people on earth like Putin, Xi, and Kim Jung! If that is not enough, I do not know what is! The Dems? Never liked them, never will! But this time it is about more than that. Look at the situation in the world! Now we need someone with a more clear mind, not a barking mad dog named Trump! 

[DustyShoes]

19 hours ago, Lacessit said:

7 million more votes for democracy.

 

Trump would have no chance at all if it was not for an undemocratic Electoral College.

You are correct: the EC is undemocratic, which is why it is absolutely necessary for the survival of the USA.

 

A majority of people are ignorant to the fact that the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The latter is governed by law, the former by popularity. If no EC, democrats would win every time simply from CA and NY; the votes of people in lessor populated states would be rendered useless.

 

The reason -- and beauty -- of the EC is to give equal weight (and representation) to ALL votes in ALL states, which is where the powers are "supposed" to remain. Hence, the United States of America.

 

Democrats would love to abolish the EC and shift the powers to the Fed Govt, as they try to do every day; bullies on a good day, mafia on other days.

 

Oh... And that pesky constitution. How they scheme every day to render it, too, useless and insignificant, their finger on the shredder button every waking minute, to establish their bully pulpit.

 

When teaching the U.S. constitution is mandatory in all schools from elementary through college, the USA will perhaps have a chance to reverse course.

 

 

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

"What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy"

 

 

Project 2025 takes a strongly pro-life position on abortion, advocating for significant restrictions on abortion at the federal and state levels. 

 

 

....and Trump is diametrically opposed to this?

 

"Project 2025's proponents maintain that life begins at conception. The Mandate says that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should "return to being known as the Department of Life"

 

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thereby leaving it to the states to create their own legislation on the matter, but Project 2025 encourages the next president "to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support".[116] The Project also says, "The Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives ... should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America."

 

Severino says that the HHS should require that "every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method"."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

 

None of this is workable as Trump has done the exact opposite, he has devolved to the states how abortion is handled. States decide how abortions are tracked, if at all. The way the laws work now there is no way in hell any president could do what Project 2025 wants.

 

They also want to criminalise sending abortion pills via mail, which the Supreme Court has already decided against.

 

Trump has always made clear he will hand the decision on abortion to the states, he can't be bothered with it. So he is actually diametrically opposed to what Project 2025 wants, a concerted presidential push to achieve maximal pro-Life policies, criminalising abortion pills in the mail etc.

[Kwaibill]

Just my observation but I have yet to see anything published where Ms Harris has insulted her opponent or demonized entire subsets of completely legal members of US society.

Kindly post any remotely believable, i.e. NOT right wing rags, counter examples.

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

"Project 2025's proponents maintain that life begins at conception. The Mandate says that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should "return to being known as the Department of Life"

 

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thereby leaving it to the states to create their own legislation on the matter, but Project 2025 encourages the next president "to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support".[116] The Project also says, "The Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives ... should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America."

 

Severino says that the HHS should require that "every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method"."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

 

None of this is workable as Trump has done the exact opposite, he has devolved to the states how abortion is handled. States decide how abortions are tracked, if at all. The way the laws work now there is no way in hell any president could do what Project 2025 wants.

 

They also want to criminalise sending abortion pills via mail, which the Supreme Court has already decided against.

 

Trump has always made clear he will hand the decision on abortion to the states, he can't be bothered with it. So he is actually diametrically opposed to what Project 2025 wants, a concerted presidential push to achieve maximal pro-Life policies, criminalising abortion pills in the mail etc.

 

 

"Trump has always made clear he will hand the decision on abortion to the states, he can't be bothered with it".

 

A total abdication of responsibility. Having loaded the SCOTUS, then pushed for and claimed victory for overturning Roe v Wade..... he walks away from it all.

 

Not only is it despicable, it shows a total lack of moral leadership....... leaving the States to decide they can murder babies after birth to demand no abortions whatsoever is atrocious.

[Hanaguma]

23 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

 

...or at heart they might just be decent human beings......no, what am I thinking.

 

 

 

Yeah, give your head a shake.  Now, back to the topic if possible...