"During a town hall in Iowa last night, Fox News’s Sean Hannity tossed Trump what ought to have been softball question. “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked. “Except for day one,” Trump replied.

This is a remarkable enough admission—practically every president abuses his power in some way, but few boast about it. What followed was even wilder.

“He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Trump riffed. “I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”

It’s not unusual for political candidates to accuse their opponents of being would-be fascists or authoritarians. Rivals of Franklin Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama, among many others, warned about these men’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. (Of course, none of those presidents mounted a months-long effort to steal an election, capped by inciting a violent assault on the Capitol.)

What is unusual, and in fact crazy, is for the rival to respond: Yeah, you bet I will.

Predicting the apologetics that anti-anti-Trumpers will employ here isn’t too hard. They’ll insist that this is just rhetorical flourish. They’ll say it’s fine, because he’s promising to limit his self-acknowledged abuse of powers to the noble causes of energy independence and border security. They’ve been using these excuses for years now.

But the people to heed here are Trump and his close allies, who are deliberately employing inflammatory rhetoric. In the same interview, Hannity gave the former president another chance to make a simple, bland statement of respect for laws, and Trump refused. (This is not the first time Hannity has tried to toss Trump a life buoy, only for Trump to fling it away with glee.)
“Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if reelected president, to abuse power? To break the law? To use the government to go after people?” Hannity asked. Trump’s response: “You mean like they’re using right now?”

The turnabout onto President Biden is dubious but typical. What’s missing is the easy addendum: And of course I reject these excesses and will get the country back on track. The problem is that everyone knows the former president would abuse his power, even the anti-anti-Trump apologists. And for his diehard supporters, that’s the real sell this time around.. He is promising them that he’ll throw out the rulebook and exact revenge on his opponents."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:23:55 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> "During a town hall in Iowa last night, Fox News’s Sean Hannity tossed Trump what ought to have been softball question. “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked. “Except for day one,” Trump replied.
>
> This is a remarkable enough admission—practically every president abuses his power in some way, but few boast about it. What followed was even wilder.
>
> “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Trump riffed. “I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
>
> It’s not unusual for political candidates to accuse their opponents of being would-be fascists or authoritarians. Rivals of Franklin Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama, among many others, warned about these men’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. (Of course, none of those presidents mounted a months-long effort to steal an election, capped by inciting a violent assault on the Capitol.)
>
> What is unusual, and in fact crazy, is for the rival to respond: Yeah, you bet I will.
>
> Predicting the apologetics that anti-anti-Trumpers will employ here isn’t too hard. They’ll insist that this is just rhetorical flourish. They’ll say it’s fine, because he’s promising to limit his self-acknowledged abuse of powers to the noble causes of energy independence and border security. They’ve been using these excuses for years now.
>
> But the people to heed here are Trump and his close allies, who are deliberately employing inflammatory rhetoric. In the same interview, Hannity gave the former president another chance to make a simple, bland statement of respect for laws, and Trump refused. (This is not the first time Hannity has tried to toss Trump a life buoy, only for Trump to fling it away with glee.)
> “Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if reelected president, to abuse power? To break the law? To use the government to go after people?” Hannity asked. Trump’s response: “You mean like they’re using right now?”
>
> The turnabout onto President Biden is dubious but typical. What’s missing is the easy addendum: And of course I reject these excesses and will get the country back on track. The problem is that everyone knows the former president would abuse his power, even the anti-anti-Trump apologists. And for his diehard supporters, that’s the real sell this time around. He is promising them that he’ll throw out the rulebook and exact revenge on his opponents."
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/

"In the last spring of the Obama administration, Michelle Obama was delivering her final commencement address
as first lady, at City College of New York. Then, as now, the specter of Donald Trump had become the inescapable
backdrop to everything. He’d spent the past year smashing every precept of restraint, every dignified tradition of the
supposedly kindhearted nation he was seeking to lead. Obama couldn’t help but lob some barely cloaked denunciations
of Trump’s wrecking-ball presidential campaign—the one that would soon be ratified with the Republican nomination.
“That is not who we are,” the first lady assured the graduates. “That is not what this country stands for, no.”

The promise did not age well. Not that November, and not since.

“This is not who we are”: The would-be guardians of America’s better angels have been scolding us with this line for years.
Or maybe they mean it as an affirmation. Either way, the axiom prompts a question: Who is “we” anyway? Because it sure
seems like a lot of this “we” keeps voting for Trump. Today the dictum sounds more like a liberal wish than any true
assessment of our national character.
....
Here we remain, amazingly enough, ready to do this all again. Trump might be the ultimate con man, but his essential nature
has never been a mystery. Yet he appears to be gliding to his third straight Republican nomination and is running strong in a
likely rematch with an unpopular incumbent.
....
You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this: They’re every bit as American as any idealized vision of the
place. "

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-win-american-identity/676143/

After all, the people will determine whether their government is really democratic or autocratic. Not
the so called "liberal democratic institutions." If the people are unhappy and they want a dictator, they
will get what they want.

America still has high per capita GDP. But inequality makes many of them UNHAPPY. Relatively happy
citizens means democracy. Relatively unhappy citizens would lead to DICTATORSHIP.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:24:11 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:23:55 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "During a town hall in Iowa last night, Fox News’s Sean Hannity tossed Trump what ought to have been softball question. “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked. “Except for day one,” Trump replied.
> >
> > This is a remarkable enough admission—practically every president abuses his power in some way, but few boast about it. What followed was even wilder.
> >
> > “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Trump riffed. “I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
> >
> > It’s not unusual for political candidates to accuse their opponents of being would-be fascists or authoritarians. Rivals of Franklin Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama, among many others, warned about these men’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. (Of course, none of those presidents mounted a months-long effort to steal an election, capped by inciting a violent assault on the Capitol.)
> >
> > What is unusual, and in fact crazy, is for the rival to respond: Yeah, you bet I will.
> >
> > Predicting the apologetics that anti-anti-Trumpers will employ here isn’t too hard. They’ll insist that this is just rhetorical flourish. They’ll say it’s fine, because he’s promising to limit his self-acknowledged abuse of powers to the noble causes of energy independence and border security. They’ve been using these excuses for years now.
> >
> > But the people to heed here are Trump and his close allies, who are deliberately employing inflammatory rhetoric. In the same interview, Hannity gave the former president another chance to make a simple, bland statement of respect for laws, and Trump refused. (This is not the first time Hannity has tried to toss Trump a life buoy, only for Trump to fling it away with glee.)
> > “Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if reelected president, to abuse power? To break the law? To use the government to go after people?” Hannity asked. Trump’s response: “You mean like they’re using right now?”
> >
> > The turnabout onto President Biden is dubious but typical. What’s missing is the easy addendum: And of course I reject these excesses and will get the country back on track. The problem is that everyone knows the former president would abuse his power, even the anti-anti-Trump apologists. And for his diehard supporters, that’s the real sell this time around. He is promising them that he’ll throw out the rulebook and exact revenge on his opponents."
> >
> > https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/
> "In the last spring of the Obama administration, Michelle Obama was delivering her final commencement address
> as first lady, at City College of New York. Then, as now, the specter of Donald Trump had become the inescapable
> backdrop to everything. He’d spent the past year smashing every precept of restraint, every dignified tradition of the
> supposedly kindhearted nation he was seeking to lead. Obama couldn’t help but lob some barely cloaked denunciations
> of Trump’s wrecking-ball presidential campaign—the one that would soon be ratified with the Republican nomination.
> “That is not who we are,” the first lady assured the graduates. “That is not what this country stands for, no.”
>
> The promise did not age well. Not that November, and not since.
>
> “This is not who we are”: The would-be guardians of America’s better angels have been scolding us with this line for years.
> Or maybe they mean it as an affirmation. Either way, the axiom prompts a question: Who is “we” anyway? Because it sure
> seems like a lot of this “we” keeps voting for Trump. Today the dictum sounds more like a liberal wish than any true
> assessment of our national character.
> ...
> Here we remain, amazingly enough, ready to do this all again. Trump might be the ultimate con man, but his essential nature
> has never been a mystery. Yet he appears to be gliding to his third straight Republican nomination and is running strong in a
> likely rematch with an unpopular incumbent.
> ...
> You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this: They’re every bit as American as any idealized vision of the
> place. "
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-win-american-identity/676143/
>
> After all, the people will determine whether their government is really democratic or autocratic. Not
> the so called "liberal democratic institutions." If the people are unhappy and they want a dictator, they
> will get what they want.
>
> America still has high per capita GDP. But inequality makes many of them UNHAPPY. Relatively happy
> citizens means democracy. Relatively unhappy citizens would lead to DICTATORSHIP.

Ferdinand Mount, the author of "Big Caesars and Little Caesars: How They Rise and How They Fall -
From Julius Caesar to Boris Johnson" is more blunt on democracy transforming itself into authoritarian
regimes led by Buffoons.

"Mount offers three critical insights on how Caesars come to power. First, he points out that the risk of
authoritarian takeover is inherent to democracy since electoral politics provides a ladder to the top for
demagogues who can selectively magnify the grievances of the electorate. Second, Mount highlights that
the very qualities that make Caesars attractive to their supporters — their narcissism, rule-breaking, and
lack of empathy — make them liabilities in ordinary life. Buffoons in the every day, they become national
heroes when elevated to power. ..."

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:53:08 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:24:11 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:23:55 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "During a town hall in Iowa last night, Fox News’s Sean Hannity tossed Trump what ought to have been softball question. “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked. “Except for day one,” Trump replied.
> > >
> > > This is a remarkable enough admission—practically every president abuses his power in some way, but few boast about it. What followed was even wilder.
> > >
> > > “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Trump riffed. “I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
> > >
> > > It’s not unusual for political candidates to accuse their opponents of being would-be fascists or authoritarians. Rivals of Franklin Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama, among many others, warned about these men’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. (Of course, none of those presidents mounted a months-long effort to steal an election, capped by inciting a violent assault on the Capitol.)
> > >
> > > What is unusual, and in fact crazy, is for the rival to respond: Yeah, you bet I will.
> > >
> > > Predicting the apologetics that anti-anti-Trumpers will employ here isn’t too hard. They’ll insist that this is just rhetorical flourish. They’ll say it’s fine, because he’s promising to limit his self-acknowledged abuse of powers to the noble causes of energy independence and border security. They’ve been using these excuses for years now.
> > >
> > > But the people to heed here are Trump and his close allies, who are deliberately employing inflammatory rhetoric. In the same interview, Hannity gave the former president another chance to make a simple, bland statement of respect for laws, and Trump refused. (This is not the first time Hannity has tried to toss Trump a life buoy, only for Trump to fling it away with glee.)
> > > “Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if reelected president, to abuse power? To break the law? To use the government to go after people?” Hannity asked. Trump’s response: “You mean like they’re using right now?”
> > >
> > > The turnabout onto President Biden is dubious but typical. What’s missing is the easy addendum: And of course I reject these excesses and will get the country back on track. The problem is that everyone knows the former president would abuse his power, even the anti-anti-Trump apologists. And for his diehard supporters, that’s the real sell this time around. He is promising them that he’ll throw out the rulebook and exact revenge on his opponents."
> > >
> > > https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/
> > "In the last spring of the Obama administration, Michelle Obama was delivering her final commencement address
> > as first lady, at City College of New York. Then, as now, the specter of Donald Trump had become the inescapable
> > backdrop to everything. He’d spent the past year smashing every precept of restraint, every dignified tradition of the
> > supposedly kindhearted nation he was seeking to lead. Obama couldn’t help but lob some barely cloaked denunciations
> > of Trump’s wrecking-ball presidential campaign—the one that would soon be ratified with the Republican nomination.
> > “That is not who we are,” the first lady assured the graduates. “That is not what this country stands for, no.”
> >
> > The promise did not age well. Not that November, and not since.
> >
> > “This is not who we are”: The would-be guardians of America’s better angels have been scolding us with this line for years..
> > Or maybe they mean it as an affirmation. Either way, the axiom prompts a question: Who is “we” anyway? Because it sure
> > seems like a lot of this “we” keeps voting for Trump. Today the dictum sounds more like a liberal wish than any true
> > assessment of our national character.
> > ...
> > Here we remain, amazingly enough, ready to do this all again. Trump might be the ultimate con man, but his essential nature
> > has never been a mystery. Yet he appears to be gliding to his third straight Republican nomination and is running strong in a
> > likely rematch with an unpopular incumbent.
> > ...
> > You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this: They’re every bit as American as any idealized vision of the
> > place. "
> >
> > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-win-american-identity/676143/
> >
> > After all, the people will determine whether their government is really democratic or autocratic. Not
> > the so called "liberal democratic institutions." If the people are unhappy and they want a dictator, they
> > will get what they want.
> >
> > America still has high per capita GDP. But inequality makes many of them UNHAPPY. Relatively happy
> > citizens means democracy. Relatively unhappy citizens would lead to DICTATORSHIP.
> Ferdinand Mount, the author of "Big Caesars and Little Caesars: How They Rise and How They Fall -
> From Julius Caesar to Boris Johnson" is more blunt on democracy transforming itself into authoritarian
> regimes led by Buffoons.
>
> "Mount offers three critical insights on how Caesars come to power. First, he points out that the risk of
> authoritarian takeover is inherent to democracy since electoral politics provides a ladder to the top for
> demagogues who can selectively magnify the grievances of the electorate. Second, Mount highlights that
> the very qualities that make Caesars attractive to their supporters — their narcissism, rule-breaking, and
> lack of empathy — make them liabilities in ordinary life. Buffoons in the every day, they become national
> heroes when elevated to power. ..."

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/review/2023/08/04/big-caesars-and-little-caesars-a-warning-from-history/

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 4:53:08 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:24:11 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:23:55 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "During a town hall in Iowa last night, Fox News’s Sean Hannity tossed Trump what ought to have been softball question. “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked. “Except for day one,” Trump replied.
> > >
> > > This is a remarkable enough admission—practically every president abuses his power in some way, but few boast about it. What followed was even wilder.
> > >
> > > “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Trump riffed. “I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
> > >
> > > It’s not unusual for political candidates to accuse their opponents of being would-be fascists or authoritarians. Rivals of Franklin Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama, among many others, warned about these men’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. (Of course, none of those presidents mounted a months-long effort to steal an election, capped by inciting a violent assault on the Capitol.)
> > >
> > > What is unusual, and in fact crazy, is for the rival to respond: Yeah, you bet I will.
> > >
> > > Predicting the apologetics that anti-anti-Trumpers will employ here isn’t too hard. They’ll insist that this is just rhetorical flourish. They’ll say it’s fine, because he’s promising to limit his self-acknowledged abuse of powers to the noble causes of energy independence and border security. They’ve been using these excuses for years now.
> > >
> > > But the people to heed here are Trump and his close allies, who are deliberately employing inflammatory rhetoric. In the same interview, Hannity gave the former president another chance to make a simple, bland statement of respect for laws, and Trump refused. (This is not the first time Hannity has tried to toss Trump a life buoy, only for Trump to fling it away with glee.)
> > > “Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if reelected president, to abuse power? To break the law? To use the government to go after people?” Hannity asked. Trump’s response: “You mean like they’re using right now?”
> > >
> > > The turnabout onto President Biden is dubious but typical. What’s missing is the easy addendum: And of course I reject these excesses and will get the country back on track. The problem is that everyone knows the former president would abuse his power, even the anti-anti-Trump apologists. And for his diehard supporters, that’s the real sell this time around. He is promising them that he’ll throw out the rulebook and exact revenge on his opponents."
> > >
> > > https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/
> > "In the last spring of the Obama administration, Michelle Obama was delivering her final commencement address
> > as first lady, at City College of New York. Then, as now, the specter of Donald Trump had become the inescapable
> > backdrop to everything. He’d spent the past year smashing every precept of restraint, every dignified tradition of the
> > supposedly kindhearted nation he was seeking to lead. Obama couldn’t help but lob some barely cloaked denunciations
> > of Trump’s wrecking-ball presidential campaign—the one that would soon be ratified with the Republican nomination.
> > “That is not who we are,” the first lady assured the graduates. “That is not what this country stands for, no.”
> >
> > The promise did not age well. Not that November, and not since.
> >
> > “This is not who we are”: The would-be guardians of America’s better angels have been scolding us with this line for years..
> > Or maybe they mean it as an affirmation. Either way, the axiom prompts a question: Who is “we” anyway? Because it sure
> > seems like a lot of this “we” keeps voting for Trump. Today the dictum sounds more like a liberal wish than any true
> > assessment of our national character.
> > ...
> > Here we remain, amazingly enough, ready to do this all again. Trump might be the ultimate con man, but his essential nature
> > has never been a mystery. Yet he appears to be gliding to his third straight Republican nomination and is running strong in a
> > likely rematch with an unpopular incumbent.
> > ...
> > You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this: They’re every bit as American as any idealized vision of the
> > place. "
> >
> > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-win-american-identity/676143/
> >
> > After all, the people will determine whether their government is really democratic or autocratic. Not
> > the so called "liberal democratic institutions." If the people are unhappy and they want a dictator, they
> > will get what they want.
> >
> > America still has high per capita GDP. But inequality makes many of them UNHAPPY. Relatively happy
> > citizens means democracy. Relatively unhappy citizens would lead to DICTATORSHIP.
> Ferdinand Mount, the author of "Big Caesars and Little Caesars: How They Rise and How They Fall -
> From Julius Caesar to Boris Johnson" is more blunt on democracy transforming itself into authoritarian
> regimes led by Buffoons.
>
> "Mount offers three critical insights on how Caesars come to power. First, he points out that the risk of
> authoritarian takeover is inherent to democracy since electoral politics provides a ladder to the top for
> demagogues who can selectively magnify the grievances of the electorate. Second, Mount highlights that
> the very qualities that make Caesars attractive to their supporters — their narcissism, rule-breaking, and
> lack of empathy — make them liabilities in ordinary life. Buffoons in the every day, they become national
> heroes when elevated to power. ..."

All forms of government are prone to the risk of authoritarian takeover.

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:48:57 AM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 4:53:08 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:24:11 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:23:55 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > "During a town hall in Iowa last night, Fox News’s Sean Hannity tossed Trump what ought to have been softball question. “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked. “Except for day one,” Trump replied.
> > > >
> > > > This is a remarkable enough admission—practically every president abuses his power in some way, but few boast about it. What followed was even wilder.
> > > >
> > > > “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Trump riffed. “I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
> > > >
> > > > It’s not unusual for political candidates to accuse their opponents of being would-be fascists or authoritarians. Rivals of Franklin Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama, among many others, warned about these men’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. (Of course, none of those presidents mounted a months-long effort to steal an election, capped by inciting a violent assault on the Capitol.)
> > > >
> > > > What is unusual, and in fact crazy, is for the rival to respond: Yeah, you bet I will.
> > > >
> > > > Predicting the apologetics that anti-anti-Trumpers will employ here isn’t too hard. They’ll insist that this is just rhetorical flourish. They’ll say it’s fine, because he’s promising to limit his self-acknowledged abuse of powers to the noble causes of energy independence and border security. They’ve been using these excuses for years now.
> > > >
> > > > But the people to heed here are Trump and his close allies, who are deliberately employing inflammatory rhetoric. In the same interview, Hannity gave the former president another chance to make a simple, bland statement of respect for laws, and Trump refused. (This is not the first time Hannity has tried to toss Trump a life buoy, only for Trump to fling it away with glee.)
> > > > “Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if reelected president, to abuse power? To break the law? To use the government to go after people?” Hannity asked. Trump’s response: “You mean like they’re using right now?”
> > > >
> > > > The turnabout onto President Biden is dubious but typical. What’s missing is the easy addendum: And of course I reject these excesses and will get the country back on track. The problem is that everyone knows the former president would abuse his power, even the anti-anti-Trump apologists. And for his diehard supporters, that’s the real sell this time around. He is promising them that he’ll throw out the rulebook and exact revenge on his opponents."
> > > >
> > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/
> > > "In the last spring of the Obama administration, Michelle Obama was delivering her final commencement address
> > > as first lady, at City College of New York. Then, as now, the specter of Donald Trump had become the inescapable
> > > backdrop to everything. He’d spent the past year smashing every precept of restraint, every dignified tradition of the
> > > supposedly kindhearted nation he was seeking to lead. Obama couldn’t help but lob some barely cloaked denunciations
> > > of Trump’s wrecking-ball presidential campaign—the one that would soon be ratified with the Republican nomination.
> > > “That is not who we are,” the first lady assured the graduates. “That is not what this country stands for, no.”
> > >
> > > The promise did not age well. Not that November, and not since.
> > >
> > > “This is not who we are”: The would-be guardians of America’s better angels have been scolding us with this line for years.
> > > Or maybe they mean it as an affirmation. Either way, the axiom prompts a question: Who is “we” anyway? Because it sure
> > > seems like a lot of this “we” keeps voting for Trump. Today the dictum sounds more like a liberal wish than any true
> > > assessment of our national character.
> > > ...
> > > Here we remain, amazingly enough, ready to do this all again. Trump might be the ultimate con man, but his essential nature
> > > has never been a mystery. Yet he appears to be gliding to his third straight Republican nomination and is running strong in a
> > > likely rematch with an unpopular incumbent.
> > > ...
> > > You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this: They’re every bit as American as any idealized vision of the
> > > place. "
> > >
> > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-win-american-identity/676143/
> > >
> > > After all, the people will determine whether their government is really democratic or autocratic. Not
> > > the so called "liberal democratic institutions." If the people are unhappy and they want a dictator, they
> > > will get what they want.
> > >
> > > America still has high per capita GDP. But inequality makes many of them UNHAPPY. Relatively happy
> > > citizens means democracy. Relatively unhappy citizens would lead to DICTATORSHIP.

> > Ferdinand Mount, the author of "Big Caesars and Little Caesars: How They Rise and How They Fall -
> > From Julius Caesar to Boris Johnson" is more blunt on democracy transforming itself into authoritarian
> > regimes led by Buffoons.
> >
> > "Mount offers three critical insights on how Caesars come to power. First, he points out that the risk of
> > authoritarian takeover is inherent to democracy since electoral politics provides a ladder to the top for
> > demagogues who can selectively magnify the grievances of the electorate.. Second, Mount highlights that
> > the very qualities that make Caesars attractive to their supporters — their narcissism, rule-breaking, and
> > lack of empathy — make them liabilities in ordinary life. Buffoons in the every day, they become national
> > heroes when elevated to power. ..."
>
All forms of government are prone to the risk of authoritarian takeover.

Western style democracy gets Buffoons becoming national heroes when elevated to power.
Short answer, too many competitive elections.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:00:35 AM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:48:57 AM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 4:53:08 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:24:11 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:23:55 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > "During a town hall in Iowa last night, Fox News’s Sean Hannity tossed Trump what ought to have been softball question. “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked. “Except for day one,” Trump replied.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a remarkable enough admission—practically every president abuses his power in some way, but few boast about it. What followed was even wilder.
> > > > >
> > > > > “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Trump riffed. “I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s not unusual for political candidates to accuse their opponents of being would-be fascists or authoritarians. Rivals of Franklin Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama, among many others, warned about these men’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. (Of course, none of those presidents mounted a months-long effort to steal an election, capped by inciting a violent assault on the Capitol.)
> > > > >
> > > > > What is unusual, and in fact crazy, is for the rival to respond: Yeah, you bet I will.
> > > > >
> > > > > Predicting the apologetics that anti-anti-Trumpers will employ here isn’t too hard. They’ll insist that this is just rhetorical flourish. They’ll say it’s fine, because he’s promising to limit his self-acknowledged abuse of powers to the noble causes of energy independence and border security. They’ve been using these excuses for years now.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the people to heed here are Trump and his close allies, who are deliberately employing inflammatory rhetoric. In the same interview, Hannity gave the former president another chance to make a simple, bland statement of respect for laws, and Trump refused. (This is not the first time Hannity has tried to toss Trump a life buoy, only for Trump to fling it away with glee.)
> > > > > “Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if reelected president, to abuse power? To break the law? To use the government to go after people?” Hannity asked. Trump’s response: “You mean like they’re using right now?”
> > > > >
> > > > > The turnabout onto President Biden is dubious but typical. What’s missing is the easy addendum: And of course I reject these excesses and will get the country back on track. The problem is that everyone knows the former president would abuse his power, even the anti-anti-Trump apologists. And for his diehard supporters, that’s the real sell this time around. He is promising them that he’ll throw out the rulebook and exact revenge on his opponents."
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/
> > > > "In the last spring of the Obama administration, Michelle Obama was delivering her final commencement address
> > > > as first lady, at City College of New York. Then, as now, the specter of Donald Trump had become the inescapable
> > > > backdrop to everything. He’d spent the past year smashing every precept of restraint, every dignified tradition of the
> > > > supposedly kindhearted nation he was seeking to lead. Obama couldn’t help but lob some barely cloaked denunciations
> > > > of Trump’s wrecking-ball presidential campaign—the one that would soon be ratified with the Republican nomination.
> > > > “That is not who we are,” the first lady assured the graduates. “That is not what this country stands for, no.”
> > > >
> > > > The promise did not age well. Not that November, and not since.
> > > >
> > > > “This is not who we are”: The would-be guardians of America’s better angels have been scolding us with this line for years.
> > > > Or maybe they mean it as an affirmation. Either way, the axiom prompts a question: Who is “we” anyway? Because it sure
> > > > seems like a lot of this “we” keeps voting for Trump. Today the dictum sounds more like a liberal wish than any true
> > > > assessment of our national character.
> > > > ...
> > > > Here we remain, amazingly enough, ready to do this all again. Trump might be the ultimate con man, but his essential nature
> > > > has never been a mystery. Yet he appears to be gliding to his third straight Republican nomination and is running strong in a
> > > > likely rematch with an unpopular incumbent.
> > > > ...
> > > > You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this: They’re every bit as American as any idealized vision of the
> > > > place. "
> > > >
> > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-win-american-identity/676143/
> > > >
> > > > After all, the people will determine whether their government is really democratic or autocratic. Not
> > > > the so called "liberal democratic institutions." If the people are unhappy and they want a dictator, they
> > > > will get what they want.
> > > >
> > > > America still has high per capita GDP. But inequality makes many of them UNHAPPY. Relatively happy
> > > > citizens means democracy. Relatively unhappy citizens would lead to DICTATORSHIP.
>
> > > Ferdinand Mount, the author of "Big Caesars and Little Caesars: How They Rise and How They Fall -
> > > From Julius Caesar to Boris Johnson" is more blunt on democracy transforming itself into authoritarian
> > > regimes led by Buffoons.
> > >
> > > "Mount offers three critical insights on how Caesars come to power. First, he points out that the risk of
> > > authoritarian takeover is inherent to democracy since electoral politics provides a ladder to the top for
> > > demagogues who can selectively magnify the grievances of the electorate. Second, Mount highlights that
> > > the very qualities that make Caesars attractive to their supporters — their narcissism, rule-breaking, and
> > > lack of empathy — make them liabilities in ordinary life. Buffoons in the every day, they become national
> > > heroes when elevated to power. ..."
> >
> All forms of government are prone to the risk of authoritarian takeover.
> Western style democracy gets Buffoons becoming national heroes when elevated to power.

Sometimes. But dictatorships get brutal autocrats. Putin, for example. There's no denying this.

> Short answer, too many competitive elections.

Maybe, but certainly better than no elections at all.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:15:39 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:00:35 AM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:48:57 AM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 4:53:08 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:24:11 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:23:55 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > "During a town hall in Iowa last night, Fox News’s Sean Hannity tossed Trump what ought to have been softball question. “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked. “Except for day one,” Trump replied.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a remarkable enough admission—practically every president abuses his power in some way, but few boast about it. What followed was even wilder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’” Trump riffed. “I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It’s not unusual for political candidates to accuse their opponents of being would-be fascists or authoritarians. Rivals of Franklin Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama, among many others, warned about these men’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. (Of course, none of those presidents mounted a months-long effort to steal an election, capped by inciting a violent assault on the Capitol.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is unusual, and in fact crazy, is for the rival to respond: Yeah, you bet I will.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Predicting the apologetics that anti-anti-Trumpers will employ here isn’t too hard. They’ll insist that this is just rhetorical flourish. They’ll say it’s fine, because he’s promising to limit his self-acknowledged abuse of powers to the noble causes of energy independence and border security. They’ve been using these excuses for years now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the people to heed here are Trump and his close allies, who are deliberately employing inflammatory rhetoric. In the same interview, Hannity gave the former president another chance to make a simple, bland statement of respect for laws, and Trump refused. (This is not the first time Hannity has tried to toss Trump a life buoy, only for Trump to fling it away with glee.)
> > > > > > “Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever, if reelected president, to abuse power? To break the law? To use the government to go after people?” Hannity asked. Trump’s response: “You mean like they’re using right now?”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The turnabout onto President Biden is dubious but typical. What’s missing is the easy addendum: And of course I reject these excesses and will get the country back on track. The problem is that everyone knows the former president would abuse his power, even the anti-anti-Trump apologists. And for his diehard supporters, that’s the real sell this time around. He is promising them that he’ll throw out the rulebook and exact revenge on his opponents."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/
> > > > > "In the last spring of the Obama administration, Michelle Obama was delivering her final commencement address
> > > > > as first lady, at City College of New York. Then, as now, the specter of Donald Trump had become the inescapable
> > > > > backdrop to everything. He’d spent the past year smashing every precept of restraint, every dignified tradition of the
> > > > > supposedly kindhearted nation he was seeking to lead. Obama couldn’t help but lob some barely cloaked denunciations
> > > > > of Trump’s wrecking-ball presidential campaign—the one that would soon be ratified with the Republican nomination.
> > > > > “That is not who we are,” the first lady assured the graduates. “That is not what this country stands for, no.”
> > > > >
> > > > > The promise did not age well. Not that November, and not since.
> > > > >
> > > > > “This is not who we are”: The would-be guardians of America’s better angels have been scolding us with this line for years.
> > > > > Or maybe they mean it as an affirmation. Either way, the axiom prompts a question: Who is “we” anyway? Because it sure
> > > > > seems like a lot of this “we” keeps voting for Trump. Today the dictum sounds more like a liberal wish than any true
> > > > > assessment of our national character.
> > > > > ...
> > > > > Here we remain, amazingly enough, ready to do this all again. Trump might be the ultimate con man, but his essential nature
> > > > > has never been a mystery. Yet he appears to be gliding to his third straight Republican nomination and is running strong in a
> > > > > likely rematch with an unpopular incumbent.
> > > > > ...
> > > > > You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this: They’re every bit as American as any idealized vision of the
> > > > > place. "
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-win-american-identity/676143/
> > > > >
> > > > > After all, the people will determine whether their government is really democratic or autocratic. Not
> > > > > the so called "liberal democratic institutions." If the people are unhappy and they want a dictator, they
> > > > > will get what they want.
> > > > >
> > > > > America still has high per capita GDP. But inequality makes many of them UNHAPPY. Relatively happy
> > > > > citizens means democracy. Relatively unhappy citizens would lead to DICTATORSHIP.
> >
> > > > Ferdinand Mount, the author of "Big Caesars and Little Caesars: How They Rise and How They Fall -
> > > > From Julius Caesar to Boris Johnson" is more blunt on democracy transforming itself into authoritarian
> > > > regimes led by Buffoons.
> > > >
> > > > "Mount offers three critical insights on how Caesars come to power. First, he points out that the risk of
> > > > authoritarian takeover is inherent to democracy since electoral politics provides a ladder to the top for
> > > > demagogues who can selectively magnify the grievances of the electorate. Second, Mount highlights that
> > > > the very qualities that make Caesars attractive to their supporters — their narcissism, rule-breaking, and
> > > > lack of empathy — make them liabilities in ordinary life. Buffoons in the every day, they become national
> > > > heroes when elevated to power. ..."
> > >
> > All forms of government are prone to the risk of authoritarian takeover..
> > Western style democracy gets Buffoons becoming national heroes when elevated to power.
> Sometimes. But dictatorships get brutal autocrats. Putin, for example. There's no denying this.

Compare to whom?
As I had explained, Putin had more reasons to invade Ukraine than the US had reasons to invade
Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is history.

> > Short answer, too many competitive elections.
> Maybe, but certainly better than no elections at all.

Again, election is no more than a mean to an end. Real democracy has to be OUTCOME
based. Else getting Buffons for leaders is a matter of time.

Actually, for a world power which leaders need to operate in complex global environment
with long time horizon, ritualistic election may not be a good thing. To the degree that one
believes an average citizen can do a job just as well as another, drawing lots like classical
Greeks may be better.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:05:08 PM UTC, David P. wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > As I had explained, Putin had more reasons to invade Ukraine than the US had reasons to invade
> > Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is history.
> ----------------------
> Putin is not the World's Policeman. He's a bad actor.
> --
> --

Please tell in what way Putin is a bad actor.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:05:08 AM UTC-8, David P. wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > As I had explained, Putin had more reasons to invade Ukraine than the US had reasons to invade
> > Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is history.
> ----------------------
> Putin is not the World's Policeman. He's a bad actor.

A tyrant.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:14:43 AM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:05:08 PM UTC, David P. wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > As I had explained, Putin had more reasons to invade Ukraine than the US had reasons to invade
> > > Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is history.
> > ----------------------
> > Putin is not the World's Policeman. He's a bad actor.
> > --
> > --
> Please tell in what way Putin is a bad actor.

You aren't aware of what he's done to stifle dissent in Russia?

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:21:06 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:14:43 AM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:05:08 PM UTC, David P. wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > As I had explained, Putin had more reasons to invade Ukraine than the US had reasons to invade
> > > > Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is history.
> > > ----------------------
> > > Putin is not the World's Policeman. He's a bad actor.
> > > --
> > > --
> > Please tell in what way Putin is a bad actor.
> You aren't aware of what he's done to stifle dissent in Russia?

I am aware of accusations. Not any kind of proven fact.
The US and Canada apparently have more solid information of Indian government
killing oversea dissidents. The Canadian as well as the US government informed the
Indian government but did not assume Modi was responsible.

According to the media, many also thought the US government was behind 9/11.. No?

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:21:06 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:14:43 AM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:05:08 PM UTC, David P. wrote:
> > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > As I had explained, Putin had more reasons to invade Ukraine than the US had reasons to invade
> > > > > Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is history.
> > > > ----------------------
> > > > Putin is not the World's Policeman. He's a bad actor.
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > Please tell in what way Putin is a bad actor.
> > You aren't aware of what he's done to stifle dissent in Russia?
> I am aware of accusations. Not any kind of proven fact.
> The US and Canada apparently have more solid information of Indian government
> killing oversea dissidents. The Canadian as well as the US government informed the
> Indian government but did not assume Modi was responsible.
>
> According to the media, many also thought the US government was behind 9/11. No?

I think the case against Vlad is quite compelling. The truthers, like the birthers, not so much.

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 5:43:56 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:21:06 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:14:43 AM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:05:08 PM UTC, David P. wrote:
> > > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > As I had explained, Putin had more reasons to invade Ukraine than the US had reasons to invade
> > > > > > Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is history.
> > > > > ----------------------
> > > > > Putin is not the World's Policeman. He's a bad actor.
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > Please tell in what way Putin is a bad actor.
> > > You aren't aware of what he's done to stifle dissent in Russia?
> > I am aware of accusations. Not any kind of proven fact.
> > The US and Canada apparently have more solid information of Indian government
> > killing oversea dissidents. The Canadian as well as the US government informed the
> > Indian government but did not assume Modi was responsible.
> >
> > According to the media, many also thought the US government was behind 9/11. No?
> I think the case against Vlad is quite compelling. The truthers, like the birthers, not so much.

Again, I will leave the Russian to determine things Russia.
And Americans to determine things American. No reason to think Russians would know America
more than Americans. Similarly, no reason to think Americans would know Russia than Russians.

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 12:02:29 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 5:43:56 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:21:06 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:14:43 AM UTC-8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:05:08 PM UTC, David P.. wrote:
> > > > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > As I had explained, Putin had more reasons to invade Ukraine than the US had reasons to invade
> > > > > > > Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest is history.
> > > > > > ----------------------
> > > > > > Putin is not the World's Policeman. He's a bad actor.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --
> > > > > Please tell in what way Putin is a bad actor.
> > > > You aren't aware of what he's done to stifle dissent in Russia?
> > > I am aware of accusations. Not any kind of proven fact.
> > > The US and Canada apparently have more solid information of Indian government
> > > killing oversea dissidents. The Canadian as well as the US government informed the
> > > Indian government but did not assume Modi was responsible.
> > >
> > > According to the media, many also thought the US government was behind 9/11. No?
> > I think the case against Vlad is quite compelling. The truthers, like the birthers, not so much.
> Again, I will leave the Russian to determine things Russia.
> And Americans to determine things American. No reason to think Russians would know America
> more than Americans. Similarly, no reason to think Americans would know Russia than Russians.

I don't believe that the brutality in one part of the world can't be observed by folks in another part of the world.