The histrionics don't help:

If this is the case, incepting everyone with the idea in advance subconsciously lowers resistance right now, when nothing can be done, because this is all hypothetical.

And if it isn't the case, you can't be taken seriously.

Simply respond to the moment, in the moment. That is already enough.

Plus remember: he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election. If anything, liberals should be focusing on how to avoid JD Vance simply winning in 2028.

It's not "histrionics"; they tried it last time and they'll try it again. This time they seem more organized, so I wouldn't be surprised if they succeed. If you care about the US remaining a functioning democracy, you should work in whatever way you can toward removing the current administration from power.

The people of the United States voted for handing this person the powers of the executive branch. And for once in decades that person is using the power to reform for better or worse a federal government that has become bloated and incompetent. Just look at the massive omnibus bills congress passes each year, or that the will of most Americans is not reflected in the actions of congress.

This _is_ a democratic attempt to salvage the federal government and our democracy from a failing oligarchy of “experts”, lest these problems continue to go unaddressed and we actually do lose our democratic process with some much more aggressive successor (from the left or right)

I would say serves my interests, and not just my interests but all of those who voted a certain way. That’s what elections should be

Except that anyone who has even basic knowledge of history understands that democracies fall to democratically elected leaders. Those leaders tend to share a number of personal attributes, and a style of rhetoric that remains similar with only the specific social group or identified problem changing. They often are supported only by small minorities of the population but control much of the apparatus of government. Consolidation of power, unwillingness to tolerate alternative views, legislative and court systems which abdicate their responsibilities, and dozens of other attributes. On a case by case basis its only taken a handful of those situations to install a dictator. The specific personality types who believe in their holy cause over the norms of following the rules and are willing to bend or break the rules to support it. It comes from the understanding that congress doesn't actually control the debt ceiling if the guy sitting in front of the treasury computer decides to press the button to raise it without congressional approval to "save the country" or whatever other rules need breaking in order to save us from a plausible sounding emergency. And Trump has again, shown he is willing to invent emergencies to win political battles.

So, relecting a person who has already shown a tendency to want to bend and break rules to stay in office, and is willing to simply ignore laws that aren't convenient is a problem. When that person starts installing sycophants into positions that actually control the military, financial and other fundamental levers of governing it becomes that persons choice, not the people or other democratically elected leaders whether to step down, or for that matter do anything else. The people who founded the USA understood that the president was just a step away from being a king and tried their best to counteract that. But, those people are a hundred and seventy years dead and the country has survived because the people elected to those positions were willing to adhere to the norms of governing, even if they didn't believe in the results.

So, I don't think anyone with any critical reasoning skills who has paid even the slightest attention over the past 12+ years believes that to be true of Trump or many of the people he is surrounding himself with this time. The McMasters who say "no you can't do that its illegal" are gone and daily any remaining resistance is being removed. Frankly at this point even if Trump steps down after 4 years. The Senators who have allowed it to progress this far have repeatedly abdicated their fundamental duty and are unfit for office (and that is putting it mildly).

If you can cut off funding to congressionally appropriate USAID programs, its just a likely you can cut off funding to the military unit that won't kiss the ring.

This is a give and take, both branches the congress and the executive are equal, and both are democratically elected. Some situations call for more of one.

Since WW2 we have had a growing unelected federal bureaucracy (staffed by college graduates more and more left-leaning), that is controlled by congress as you mentioned. Congress is run by seniority, most are re-elected every year and are elected along party lines without much thought. And most legislation is written by lobbyists and activists. People are apathetic about congress, there is not much democracy there. People care much more about the presidential election.

I think if you look at the actions of our federal government over past decades you will see it has not been very good for the health of the American people. I think any action by a president to take back some power from Congress to upend that order is a good thing. Throughout our history certain presidents have completely changed the federal government during their terms in office, and afterwards the title goes back to more complacent presidents. Over time systems decay and you may need to start with something new.

You're fooling yourself if you think they're not doing this for their own ends and that it's an attempt to end an oligarchy rather than have it persist.

The FBI and 51 Intelligence officials signed a document saying Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation 2-3 weeks before the last election, when in fact it was actually Hunter Biden's laptop.

Is this a true statement or not?

The FBI never made such a statement, and the 51 *former* intelligence officers made a statement that, in their opinion, the laptop contained hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and all of this occurred 2 weeks before the 2020 election for maximum political effect.

"They" are not any more organized now than they were then, they're simply better staffed. This is precisely why Trump has to use executive orders (many of which are rescinded instantly) and send Elon on dummy missions instead of just doing the durable thing: whipping Congress into passing law.

As it stands, the only durable policy win of his term so far was achieved on a bipartisan basis and mostly passed before he even took office: the Laken Riley Act. Why isn't the opposition party acting as opposition?

> If you care about the US remaining a functioning democracy, you should work in whatever way you can toward removing the current administration from power.

The U.S. is already not a functioning democracy (see 2016 and 2020), and removing the current administration from power (illegally?) will not change that.

This constant cycle of ineffective freakouts that America's liberal bloc find themselves in every 4 years is a large part of the reason why Trump won to begin with.

not disagreeing with anything you wrote, well, except that very last line.

he won because many groups of people were promised exactly what they wanted to hear. majority of america is very dumb. to the point it seems intentional. they reject any attempt to be informed about this subject. people routinely having abortions voted trump. people on SSI voted for trump. unemployed people voted for trump. disabled veterans voted for trump. literal nazis trump -- and i'm not saying HE is one, i'm saying that his campaign made sure they see him as one, and it absolutely worked ... over and over again against many of these groups whom are just frothing for fellow haters

i get really upset trying to figure out how to resolve this. but i can't even talk to the couple of relatives i have who are in this cult. if they detect you aren't praising the leader, things get hostile fast.

I think the way out is to offer an alternative vision for the future that speaks to their wants and needs. The problem is that it can't happen overnight -- attacking the cult leader just raises their hackles. People have to come to that conclusion themselves. The Democrats don't have the ability to raise an effective counter to Trump at the moment that isn't an attack on the man himself. There's no substantive positive vision for the future -- because part of mainstream liberal politics is the idea that things are mostly ok as they are, minus some egalitarian tweaks in terms of rights for certain minority groups, etc.

But people have the sense -- in some cases rightfully and in some not -- that their lives aren't going great. So they look to someone to offer an opportunity for change. And they're willing -- really primed, by all of American society -- to throw under the bus whatever boogeyman is necessary as dictated by the Fox News monster of the week™

>majority of america is very dumb

This attitude is another reason he won.

Doesn't change the facts on the ground. He loves the uneducated, and is doing everything he can to make sure future generations are less educated than their parents were.

> Plus remember: he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election.

He was elected President, not king. The laws being broken applied to all previous election winners.

King Charles III is many Kings and quite a few other head of states/dominions/Mann! He does not have many of the powers that Trump is deploying.

It may turn out to be ironic that you describe Trump and our Monarch (or any other) within the same breath.

Please recall (or look up) what happened to Charles I of England.

Trump has already signaled he plans to run for a (as of right now) unconstitutional third term.

Where did he signal this?

Once you find the quote, go onto politco (a not exactly pro-trump site) fact-checking service to get the full context.

What full context am I missing?

Here from his own mouth https://youtube.com/shorts/DpVsZZtEpS8?feature=shared

And a proposed amendment to go with it, excluding Obama of course https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...

Literally one guy proposed an amendment in an attempt to brown nose his boss.

It has practically zero support and has an actual zero chance of being ratified.

I actually agree with you, I don’t think a constitutional amendment will be ratified in my lifetime. But a lot of things I didn’t think I’d ever see have happened in the last two weeks

Time is not on his side.

With the best healthcare in the world available, I definitely won't be getting my hopes up on that. And furthermore the order of succession isn't much better.

You know the guy who was elected was prepared to stay in power had his insurrectionists been a little better planned.

Histerioinics and history are not associated with the same word.

Grow up.

>he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election

So did Hitler.

I wish that in 100 years Hitler becomes truly synonymous to "Satan", and instead of "satanic" or "demonic" people would say "hitleric". Because it sounds cooler and it suits the way how people throw "hitlers" at each other online.

I mean, he's literally gone on live TV, in an official briefing, saying he's going to take over the Gaza Strip. With no authority except his own. This is exactly how dictators across the world operate after they're initially elected.