6 ms·

Could you describe with specific examples what qualifies the USA today as a "dictatorship"?

yibg 1y ago
Executive orders to ban something explicitly deemed legal under the constitution by the supreme court? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/trump-flag-burning-executive-order https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/trump-flag-b...
- engineeringwoke 1y ago
  Yeah, it's politics. He assumes it will get appealed to the supreme court who will take his side. I personally don't like the Texas v Johnson decision. Burning flags is un-American and should be illegal. How is that dictatorial?
  - shazbotter 1y ago
    It's an executive order that contravenes existing legislative and judicial precedent, sets penalties, and is expected to be unchallenged. It limits free speech by fiat because a single man wants it to be so. It's clearly dictatorial, you'll have to demonstrate why it's not an act of a single person dictating policy.
    - engineeringwoke 1y ago
      Burning American flags is free speech? It's definitely an interpretation... and one that many legal scholars disagree with, similar to Roe v Wade. Not that repealing Roe v Wade was a good thing, but it didn't have a solid legal foundation. It's not all about getting your way... well maybe the better way to say it is that the left got their way, for sixty years. And some of those wins from that period for the left were built on shaky ground. There has to be give and take in any healthy political system.
      - shazbotter 1y ago
        Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Texas v Johnson. It is an act that expresses a political view through a symbolic act. It might be offensive to you, but "I find it offensive" is not sufficient defense to stop political speech. And the left did not get their way for sixty years. The left is predominantly socialist, communist, anarchist. Democrats are not a leftist party. The left hasn't held many political positions in the US. But we on the left hate the democrats as much (or more) than folks on the right. We also tend to be broadly supportive of individual freedoms (most of my leftist colleagues are anti gun control, for instance.)
        engineeringwoke 1y ago
        [flagged]
        shazbotter 1y ago
        Yes. Of course it failed. It also succeeded several times. I'm not a communist, though. (I do have communist friends, however.) Most of my communist friends are not authoritarian communists (aka tankies). A tankie is a very specific type of communist who believes in central autocratic power and a single party. I think you'll find most modern communists tend to prefer a worker led democratic government. And people like myself prefer a syndicalist democracy without a central government. I consider tankies my opponents, just like I consider all authoritarians my opponents.
        engineeringwoke 1y ago
        Without some kind of coherent post-Marxist revolutionary understanding of what communism is, this is just pure delusion. Most people don't have the ability to synthesize grand ideas for the direction of society, no offense. There's like dozens of people in the world that can do these things, and they need to want to use their intellect for such a thing. Unfortunately, communism is just philosophically derelict, until another great thinker comes along.
- ToDougie 1y ago
  A better example might be the treatment of whistleblowers?
  - engineeringwoke 1y ago
    Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning were both pursued aggressively during the Obama administration. Next, please. I can go all day
    - shazbotter 1y ago
      Obama also engaged in dictatorial policy... Just because two people have done it does not make it "not dictatorial". Or, using logical constructs - "A therefore B" is not made invalid by "C therefore B".
      - engineeringwoke 1y ago
        But it's obvious when people say "dictatorship" or "fascism" today in the USA it is just a dog whistle for not liking Trump. Nobody called Obama a fascist for how Chelsea Manning was treated.
        yibg 1y ago
        A few things are different. 1. Degrees / magnitude. How many cases of dictatorial behavior were there with Obama vs Trump? Every president signs executive orders, but trump signs a lot more of them. 2. Defiance to checks in power. The current administration seems uniquely defiant of both the legislative and the judicial branches, both in rhetoric and act.
        ToDougie 1y ago
        The Obama administration wielded the power of the executive branch against its political opponents. And then the media ran cover for them -- "the Obama administration had no scandals!" Using the IRS to target your political opponents should have been disqualifying. Running guns to the cartels should have been impeachable.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- kryogen1c 1y ago
  Boy if you think non-constitutional executive orders are new or a trump thing, you're in for quite a surprise.
- xyzzyz 1y ago
  Just for context, what Trump tries to (illegally) ban in US, flag desecration, is already a crime in most of Europe. You can get 3 years for burning the flag in Germany, 2 years in Portugal, 3 years in Switzerland, or 1 year in Poland. Worth keeping in mind when comparing democracy and individual liberty between Europe and US.
- laughing_man 1y ago
  It's a little more subtle than that. His executive order doesn't ban flag burning as an expression of speech. It only bans flag burning as part of an incitement to violence. I expect the courts will strike it down, but even if they don't it won't be something you get arrested for. It'll be something you get extra time for, like hate speech.
kjkjadksj 1y ago
Militarizing law enforcement to go after entire classes of people who aren’t politically aligned.
- engineeringwoke 1y ago
  The executive branch has that right. It's happened many many times in the past. I recommend reading a history book and not MSM or social media
  - tensor 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
    - engineeringwoke 1y ago
      Ever heard of the Little Rock Nine?
      - kjkjadksj 1y ago
        Notably, Eisenhower did not militarize the national guard to go after groups of people who are not politically aligned. He militarized them to protect groups of people. Quite the opposite and a poor choice of an equivocal example.
fknorangesite 1y ago
Today? No, maybe not yet. But you'd be a fool to look at the actions of the current admin and not see that that's where they're headed. But here's something from today: "A lot of people are saying maybe we'd like a dictator." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koruWF1cfyc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koruWF1cfyc
tensor 1y ago
Texas gerrymandering with an overt publicly stated goal to bias the election is enough evidence. But if you want more: sending the military to intimidate politicians (Newsom), deporting and arresting people with permanent residency or other forms of legal immigration, arresting citizens without cause, intimidating law firms, journalists, and news companies by using the power of the executive branch to punish individuals and organizations, illegally dismantling congressionally established governmental organizations and branches. This is just a small summary. Foreigners are not visiting the US, not because they don't want to or don't like the US, but because they are afraid of visiting a non-free country. It's not worth the risk of getting detained because you posted a negative comment online about a government official.

yibg 1y ago

Executive orders to ban something explicitly deemed legal under the constitution by the supreme court? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/trump-flag-burning-executive-order https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/trump-flag-b...

engineeringwoke 1y ago
Yeah, it's politics. He assumes it will get appealed to the supreme court who will take his side. I personally don't like the Texas v Johnson decision. Burning flags is un-American and should be illegal. How is that dictatorial?
- shazbotter 1y ago
  It's an executive order that contravenes existing legislative and judicial precedent, sets penalties, and is expected to be unchallenged. It limits free speech by fiat because a single man wants it to be so. It's clearly dictatorial, you'll have to demonstrate why it's not an act of a single person dictating policy.
  - engineeringwoke 1y ago
    Burning American flags is free speech? It's definitely an interpretation... and one that many legal scholars disagree with, similar to Roe v Wade. Not that repealing Roe v Wade was a good thing, but it didn't have a solid legal foundation. It's not all about getting your way... well maybe the better way to say it is that the left got their way, for sixty years. And some of those wins from that period for the left were built on shaky ground. There has to be give and take in any healthy political system.
    - shazbotter 1y ago
      Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Texas v Johnson. It is an act that expresses a political view through a symbolic act. It might be offensive to you, but "I find it offensive" is not sufficient defense to stop political speech. And the left did not get their way for sixty years. The left is predominantly socialist, communist, anarchist. Democrats are not a leftist party. The left hasn't held many political positions in the US. But we on the left hate the democrats as much (or more) than folks on the right. We also tend to be broadly supportive of individual freedoms (most of my leftist colleagues are anti gun control, for instance.)
      - engineeringwoke 1y ago
        [flagged]
        shazbotter 1y ago
        Yes. Of course it failed. It also succeeded several times. I'm not a communist, though. (I do have communist friends, however.) Most of my communist friends are not authoritarian communists (aka tankies). A tankie is a very specific type of communist who believes in central autocratic power and a single party. I think you'll find most modern communists tend to prefer a worker led democratic government. And people like myself prefer a syndicalist democracy without a central government. I consider tankies my opponents, just like I consider all authoritarians my opponents.
        engineeringwoke 1y ago
        Without some kind of coherent post-Marxist revolutionary understanding of what communism is, this is just pure delusion. Most people don't have the ability to synthesize grand ideas for the direction of society, no offense. There's like dozens of people in the world that can do these things, and they need to want to use their intellect for such a thing. Unfortunately, communism is just philosophically derelict, until another great thinker comes along.
ToDougie 1y ago
A better example might be the treatment of whistleblowers?
- engineeringwoke 1y ago
  Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning were both pursued aggressively during the Obama administration. Next, please. I can go all day
  - shazbotter 1y ago
    Obama also engaged in dictatorial policy... Just because two people have done it does not make it "not dictatorial". Or, using logical constructs - "A therefore B" is not made invalid by "C therefore B".
    - engineeringwoke 1y ago
      But it's obvious when people say "dictatorship" or "fascism" today in the USA it is just a dog whistle for not liking Trump. Nobody called Obama a fascist for how Chelsea Manning was treated.
      - yibg 1y ago
        A few things are different. 1. Degrees / magnitude. How many cases of dictatorial behavior were there with Obama vs Trump? Every president signs executive orders, but trump signs a lot more of them. 2. Defiance to checks in power. The current administration seems uniquely defiant of both the legislative and the judicial branches, both in rhetoric and act.
        ToDougie 1y ago
        The Obama administration wielded the power of the executive branch against its political opponents. And then the media ran cover for them -- "the Obama administration had no scandals!" Using the IRS to target your political opponents should have been disqualifying. Running guns to the cartels should have been impeachable.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kryogen1c 1y ago
Boy if you think non-constitutional executive orders are new or a trump thing, you're in for quite a surprise.
xyzzyz 1y ago
Just for context, what Trump tries to (illegally) ban in US, flag desecration, is already a crime in most of Europe. You can get 3 years for burning the flag in Germany, 2 years in Portugal, 3 years in Switzerland, or 1 year in Poland. Worth keeping in mind when comparing democracy and individual liberty between Europe and US.
laughing_man 1y ago
It's a little more subtle than that. His executive order doesn't ban flag burning as an expression of speech. It only bans flag burning as part of an incitement to violence. I expect the courts will strike it down, but even if they don't it won't be something you get arrested for. It'll be something you get extra time for, like hate speech.

kjkjadksj 1y ago

Militarizing law enforcement to go after entire classes of people who aren’t politically aligned.

engineeringwoke 1y ago
The executive branch has that right. It's happened many many times in the past. I recommend reading a history book and not MSM or social media
- tensor 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
  - engineeringwoke 1y ago
    Ever heard of the Little Rock Nine?
    - kjkjadksj 1y ago
      Notably, Eisenhower did not militarize the national guard to go after groups of people who are not politically aligned. He militarized them to protect groups of people. Quite the opposite and a poor choice of an equivocal example.

fknorangesite 1y ago

Today? No, maybe not yet. But you'd be a fool to look at the actions of the current admin and not see that that's where they're headed. But here's something from today: "A lot of people are saying maybe we'd like a dictator." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koruWF1cfyc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koruWF1cfyc

tensor 1y ago

Texas gerrymandering with an overt publicly stated goal to bias the election is enough evidence. But if you want more: sending the military to intimidate politicians (Newsom), deporting and arresting people with permanent residency or other forms of legal immigration, arresting citizens without cause, intimidating law firms, journalists, and news companies by using the power of the executive branch to punish individuals and organizations, illegally dismantling congressionally established governmental organizations and branches. This is just a small summary. Foreigners are not visiting the US, not because they don't want to or don't like the US, but because they are afraid of visiting a non-free country. It's not worth the risk of getting detained because you posted a negative comment online about a government official.