Do Americans want a dictatorship?

[NelmarksGhost]

I think most Americans would be happy with their chosen political party completely defeating, and permanently marginalizing the other.

 

[lfd0311]

4. President who does nothing is perceived as weak and is not re-elected; party suffers by association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#President

 

[BVG]

You're comparing a government system with an economic system, which certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm comparing oligarchy with dictatorship. While not run by 1 entity, right now America is probably ran by just a hand full of corporations.

With the exception of Bernie Sanders, you have an ILLUSION of choice between red and blue.

 

[Rod1]

Everyone wants a dictator when it aligns with their interests.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Republicans want a corporate oligarchy, (or at least they fight with all their might for one) neither side atm would be comfortable with a dictatorship. Although the cult of military worship is concerning.

Trump supporters are also concerning in that area.

Generally, no one opposes freedom and democracy in the abstract, but a lot of people oppose it in reality. There was a thread on Campaign Zero, recently, where people responded to the suggestion that things like disturbing the peace, loitering, and spitting should be decriminalized or deprioritized (not *allowed*, mind you) with outrage. "Those people should be playing less loud music, not fighting to have cops let it go!!" Likewise, people are supportive of things like McConnell's blanket refusal to allow a vote on any Obama nominee to the SCOTUS. They don't think that kind of undemocratic action is OK in the abstract; they just want to make sure that the SCOTUS is composed of people they agree with. But that's how freedom and democracy die.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

No one wants this. Disagreement is what we want. That is democracy.

 

[Serana]

It depends on the dictator.

 

[Jose Aldo]

1. Voters want candidates who will not compromise
2. Congress is divided and neither side will compromise to make deals and pass laws
3. President is faced with either doing nothing or expanding executive powers in order to fulfill campaign promises to voters that put him into office
4. President who does nothing is perceived as weak and is not re-elected; party suffers by association
5. President who uses executive action delights supporters and dismays detractors
6. Detractor resentment (or supporter delight) starts cycle back at 1

All this leads to our situation today where congress is gridlocked and the president is forced to move around them in order to make progress. I have to question the direction of the government; are we moving towards a more dictatorial form of republic, and are we doing so by necessity and voter incentive?
Is there anyway to halt the direction? Are Democracies/Republics inherently flawed and are dictatorships and revolutions part of a cycle to normalize societies?

It seems like they do

 

[Gutter Chris]

Bernie Sanders will never be President.

Oh its gonna happen. Theres things I dont agree with him on but overall I think hes the best choice

 

[The ScorpioN]

Trump supporters are also concerning in that area.

Generally, no one opposes freedom and democracy in the abstract, but a lot of people oppose it in reality. There was a thread on Campaign Zero, recently, where people responded to the suggestion that things like disturbing the peace, loitering, and spitting should be decriminalized or deprioritized (not *allowed*, mind you) with outrage. "Those people should be playing less loud music, not fighting to have cops let it go!!" Likewise, people are supportive of things like McConnell's blanket refusal to allow a vote on any Obama nominee to the SCOTUS. They don't think that kind of undemocratic action is OK in the abstract; they just want to make sure that the SCOTUS is composed of people they agree with. But that's how freedom and democracy die.

Most people in that threat were focusing on things that infringe on other people's freedom. Like the thing you left off your list - trespassing. Also loitering, disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct all affect other people around you. No one was arguing for arresting people for spitting.

Or another brilliant idea (straight from the website):

Prohibit police officers from:
- shooting at moving vehicles
- moving in front of moving vehicles
- high-speed chases of people who have not and are not about to commit a violent felony (what?)

I don't think that's a good example of the right wing trying to oppose freedom.

 

[HomeRun916]

I do not. I only represent myself, but I am an American citizen.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Many do and this election really highlighted this to me. The crazed antics of Trump and some of his fans talking about how Trump will force/get whatever he wants done. To the even more crazed Bernie Bros/bots I've encountered. I'd say there is a trend among some of the fans of "non-establishment" candidates who favor a leader who is authoritarian. In fact I can think of a few posters or two who is so filled with anger and desire for "revolution" that they have covined themselves that 99% of elected officials in America are against Bernie and apart of the "system". And only Bernie can save us.

This thinking is interesting and growing amongst my peers. A desire for a "superman" who brings order and promotes what they perceive as utopian equality and liberalism.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

No, and that's why we won't vote someone like Sanders into the highest office.

Inb4 a crazed Bernie bro goes on the attack against you. Calls you names and vows to bully you once Bernie wins. Oh and insults your intelligence and claims you are an idiot for not feeling the "Bern".

 

[spin]

I had another answer, but I want to say:

Not the ones worth being acknowledged or discussed.

 

[VivaRevolution]

1. Voters want candidates who will not compromise
2. Congress is divided and neither side will compromise to make deals and pass laws
3. President is faced with either doing nothing or expanding executive powers in order to fulfill campaign promises to voters that put him into office
4. President who does nothing is perceived as weak and is not re-elected; party suffers by association
5. President who uses executive action delights supporters and dismays detractors
6. Detractor resentment (or supporter delight) starts cycle back at 1

All this leads to our situation today where congress is gridlocked and the president is forced to move around them in order to make progress. I have to question the direction of the government; are we moving towards a more dictatorial form of republic, and are we doing so by necessity and voter incentive?
Is there anyway to halt the direction? Are Democracies/Republics inherently flawed and are dictatorships and revolutions part of a cycle to normalize societies?

No, but I think this shows the divide and conquer ploy is working well.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Stupidest post I've read in a long time. Congrats.

Here's a tip for you:

"Stupid" and "upsets me by criticizing 'my team'" aren't synonyms.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Since you've got no basis for refuting it, you could could just suffer silently, instead of blaming the messenger.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Trump supporters are also concerning in that area.

Generally, no one opposes freedom and democracy in the abstract, but a lot of people oppose it in reality. There was a thread on Campaign Zero, recently, where people responded to the suggestion that things like disturbing the peace, loitering, and spitting should be decriminalized or deprioritized (not *allowed*, mind you) with outrage. "Those people should be playing less loud music, not fighting to have cops let it go!!" Likewise, people are supportive of things like McConnell's blanket refusal to allow a vote on any Obama nominee to the SCOTUS. They don't think that kind of undemocratic action is OK in the abstract; they just want to make sure that the SCOTUS is composed of people they agree with. But that's how freedom and democracy die.

Well put.

Although there are many ways to kill a democracy.

I know you don't like Chomsky much but I felt this was relevant:

Chomsky went on to cite a 2013 essay by conservative Norm Ornstein and Brooking’s fellow Thomas Mann decrying the devolution of the Republican Party to a “radical insurgency”:

"You can tell that even by the votes. I mean, any issue of any complexity is going to have some diversity of opinion. But when you get a unanimous vote to kill the Iranian deal or the Affordable Care Act or whatever the next thing may be, you know you’re not dealing with a political party."

and

he Republicans went way off the spectrum. They became so dedicated to the interests of the extreme wealthy and powerful that they couldn’t get votes. So they had to turn to other constituencies which are there, but were never politically mobilized: the Christian evangelicals, the nativists who are afraid that ‘they’re taking our country away from us.'”

 

[Hallelujah]

If Andrew Jackson came back from the dead to be dictator I would happily support him.

 

[Diamond Jim]

Of course this is stupid. Nobody in America wants that. What they want is a party member who shares their exact beliefs to win. That's it.

This. Americans like the idea of democracy, but not when it's practiced. You can see this in the congressional approval ratings and the percentage of them reelected.

 

[DoomPatrol]

This. Americans like the idea of democracy, but not when it's practiced. You can see this in the congressional approval ratings and the percentage of them reelected.

Yeah morons think a dictatorship is cool until the dictator decides he wants to kill an entire group of people for no reason. He could decide all red heads are Satan incarnate and order them murdered. He could have your father tortured while he rapes your mother. Then he has your whole family killed for knowing what happened.

Or, as I discovered, he could have a few dozen dissidents murdered and buried in a mass grave in front of an elementary school, which is what Saddam did.