Why Donald J Trump is a threat to Democracy and Normal Feedoms

once you get into the list of democrats that voted against securing the elections and automatic deportation for sex offender illegals, and mandated vaccinations I think most of that list flies out the window.

a reply to: nugget1

fifty years from now, I hope not. I'll be happy with ten.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: nugget1

fifty years from now, I hope not. I'll be happy with ten.

I'm just praying I'll make it to November so I don't vote Democrat.

a reply to: rigel4

Trump tried to steal an election, first by alleging nonexistent fraud and then by inciting a violent mob to attack the Capitol. These plain facts, which the whole world saw with its own eyes, are strenuously denied by most of the people who seek refuge from reality on Above Top Secret. I doubt you will convince them of anything by providing them with facts. They already have all the facts, but they either deny them or perform absurd mental gymnastics to make them appear to indicate the opposite of what they truly imply.

The threat Trump represents to democracy has been fully and publicly demonstrated and needs no further discussion. The real question is why so many Americans still want him to be President. His appeal, I think, is basically Satanic. He gives his followers permission to embrace and follow their own evil impulses -- selfishness, prejudice, boorishness, bullying and violence. Justifying their unjustified rage. Pandering to their ignorance, their resentment, their endless grievance. That is how he wins votes.

His political philosophy is simple -- indeed simplistic: get rid of all the 'evildoers' and society will heal itself. Drain the swamp. Deport the immigrants. Imprison the homeless. Send women back to the kitchen. Keep uppity minorities in their place. Oppress and trample down anyone who won't play by 'our' rules. If necessary, execute them: judicially or vigilante-style, either way will do.

This political philosophy has a name, of course. We know it as Fascism. It has always appealed immensely to the uneducated, the intellectually handicapped, and those who blame their failures on others rather than themselves: the serial bankrupt, the bungling entrepreneur, the salaried drudge with delusions of grandeur, the chronically unemployable, the habitual petty criminal for whom every encounter with the state is a conflict with authority. Those comprise Trump's base, for the most part, and he is a threat to democracy because there are so many people like that in America. He is their leader: King of the UnAmerican Dreamers.

I think it would serve America better to discuss the threat that Trump supporters pose to American democracy, rather than waste any further breath on the subject of Trump himself. But Above Top Secret really isn't the place to do it.

a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

Links to all this please?

And also. Careful with the electronic voting talk.

If I were Google I’d say something like “it appears the data on this subject is swiftly changing…”.

Or something like that.

Ya know what I mean?

Get a DMV license already.

a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

By golly gee whiz Wally I believe your programming is complete …next. You toe liners crack me up, same ol’ spent rhetoric over n over. 🥱. Sad sight really.

Oh, you forgot to mention Project 2025

Speaking of intellectualy handicapped 🤔

Now do Harris and the democratic path she took to be the current presidential candidate?

originally posted by: rigel4
Many critics argue that Donald Trump poses a threat to democracy for several reasons. Here are some of the most commonly cited concerns:

1. Undermining Trust in Democratic Institutions
Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the legitimacy of democratic institutions like the electoral system, the judiciary, and the media. One notable example is his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud following the 2020 presidential election, which many see as an attempt to delegitimize a legitimate democratic process. By eroding trust in these institutions, critics say Trump weakens the foundations of democracy itself.

2. Encouragement of Authoritarianism
Some argue that Trump's behavior aligns more with authoritarian tendencies than democratic leadership. He has openly praised authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un while criticizing democratic allies. Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power during the 2020 election, until after intense pressure, also fueled fears of authoritarianism.

3. Attacks on the Press
Trump frequently labelled the media as "the enemy of the people" and dismissed unfavourable news as "fake news." A free and independent press is a cornerstone of democracy, and his attacks on the media raised concerns about the future of press freedom under his leadership.

4. Subversion of Rule of Law
Critics claim that Trump often disregarded the rule of law, using the presidency to protect allies and target political enemies. For example, his attempts to influence investigations into his administration or personal interests, and his granting of pardons to political allies, suggested a desire to subvert legal processes for personal gain.

5. Incitement of Political Violence
Trump has been accused of inciting political violence, most notably through his role in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. His rhetoric during the “Stop the Steal” rally and refusal to immediately condemn the rioters were seen by many as encouraging an attempt to disrupt the certification of a lawful election.

6. Polarisation and Division
Under Trump's leadership, political polarisation in the U.S. reached unprecedented levels. His rhetoric frequently demonised opponents, both political and cultural, and many believe this deepened divisions in society. A deeply divided electorate is more susceptible to authoritarian influences, making it harder to maintain a healthy, functioning democracy.

7. Disregard for Norms and Traditions
While not all political norms are legally binding, they are essential for the smooth functioning of democracy. Trump's frequent disregard for norms—such as refusing to release his tax returns, challenging the independence of federal agencies, and pressuring state officials to overturn election results—alarmed many who see these as critical safeguards for democracy.

These concerns, when combined, have led many to argue that Trump’s actions threaten the principles that uphold democratic governance. His defenders, however, argue that his anti-establishment style is a necessary challenge to entrenched political interests and that criticisms are exaggerated or politically motivated.


Please stick to the debunking my points and not trying to trash me for a change

1 - Casting doubt on govt institutions is not a threat to Democracy. If you think about it for even a moment, if it were, then no one could ever question or challenge a corrupt govt. Elections could be rigged, justice systems perverted and law enforcement , tax collection, etc could be used as weapons against targeted groups. All with impunity. No chance of getting out of it, because the corrupt govt could just rig the elections. No challenges allowed, otherwise you are undermining democracy.

2 - Let's be clear, what Trump did in late 2020 was question an election that had a very clear appearance of being rigged. What he did was try and get the ratification of that election stopped to allow a full investigation. That doesn't seem to be authoritarianism to me. One wonders why there was not FULL support for such an investigation. Everyone should be confident that elections are fair. There was no question of a non peaceful hand over of power. At no point did Trump call for violence to change the election result.

3 - Refer to point 1 - if the media are co-opted by a corrupt govt, then an inability to call them out for what they are means that the people have no avenue to actually have a free and independent press.

4 - Which political enemies did Trump target with law enforcement? I do believe that particular issue was severe before Trump became President and after - so if anything he's the one that has stopped such Govt behaviour. In terms of pardons, well that has always been the case that Presidents have given pardons. It's Constitutionally authorised.

5 - Incitement is not, and never has been, simply offering an opinion or having a view. Again refere to point 1. Lately there is a worrying trend to turn opinions into an incitement charge - it is the cornerstone of censorship and thus, ironically, a major threat to democracy

6 - The polarisation and division happened before Trump came down the escalator, but it is true it has worsened since that point. Who's to blame? In my view the media - they have spent nearly a decade demonising Trump and his supporters. Keep in mind that Trump has been a public figure for decades and was never seen as divisive until he questioned Obama. 95% of what has been reported on him since that time have been lies, like Russia Russia and the 'fine people' hoax.

7 - If the norms and traditions are in fact corrupt then anyone challenging them becomes a champion of democracy, not a destroyer of it.

originally posted by: Kallipygywiggy
His political philosophy is simple -- indeed simplistic: get rid of all the 'evildoers' and society will heal itself. Drain the swamp. Deport the immigrants. Imprison the homeless. Send women back to the kitchen. Keep uppity minorities in their place. Oppress and trample down anyone who won't play by 'our' rules. If necessary, execute them: judicially or vigilante-style, either way will do.

This political philosophy has a name, of course. We know it as Fascism. It has always appealed immensely to the uneducated, the intellectually handicapped, and those who blame their failures on others rather than themselves: the serial bankrupt, the bungling entrepreneur, the salaried drudge with delusions of grandeur, the chronically unemployable, the habitual petty criminal for whom every encounter with the state is a conflict with authority.

So do we crack down on evildoers or not?

Please read both paragraphs I quoted carefully. You might be projecting your side's faults onto your perceived opponents a little bit.

a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

Trump held a rally, then told the crowd to march peacefully to the capital to have their voices heard. It's all on video. Every word he spoke. If you aren't a thinking for yourself kind of person, you might just accept what the MSM has been telling you, and it seems you have drank the whole jug of koolaid.

A riot was started and security was purposefully inadequate. Jan 6th was a set up to tag Trump with the label "insurrectionist" as it was the only way to make him ineligible to be POTUS again, per the COTUS. No proof of that yet, but I believe it will be revealed to have been just that.

Trump wasn't innocent though, he amassed a large crowd, sent them to the capitol, and didn't give anymore direction. So he sent hundreds of thousands of pissed off people to congregate in one spot with no clear purpose. That was stupid and many of us could see the trap before it happened. he did it anyhow. But the outrage you pretend to have is manufactured and sad.

You lost me at it didn’t matter who did it.

I know you were talking to me. But no can’t be friend the world you want and the world I want are to different and the things required to achieve each world so opposed to one another friendship would be impossible.
a reply to: BingoMcGoof

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: rigel4

The iron law of woke projection never fails.

Accuse your opposition of what you're doing.

^^ That.

Since 2020 global lockdown, ALL leaders and potential leaders across the world are seeing value in total control of their citizenship.

Questioning and speaking truth to power is the essence of democracy - sometimes the only people in position to do so are journalists and political opponents.

Once the idea of personality politics has been removed, people can see more clearly, those who seek power to rule over us do not do so for the benefit of anything other than their own ambition.

As far as they, the politicians and other controllers are concerned, true democracy, freedom of the individual and of the press are a messy and disconcerting threat to their hegemony. Never before in the modern, emancipated world, have we seen so much autocracy being rolled out. And it does not matter what colour mast these people have pinned their allegiance to.

originally posted by: Athetos
You lost me at it didn’t matter who did it.

I know you were talking to me. But no can’t be friend the world you want and the world I want are to different and the things required to achieve each world so opposed to one another friendship would be impossible.
a reply to: BingoMcGoof

You? I was not talking to you, I was talking to another. Also the post you replied to is not the post that quote came from.

a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

This political philosophy has a name, of course. We know it as Fascism. It has always appealed immensely to the uneducated, the intellectually handicapped, and those who blame their failures on others rather than themselves: the serial bankrupt, the bungling entrepreneur, the salaried drudge with delusions of grandeur, the chronically unemployable, the habitual petty criminal for whom every encounter with the state is a conflict with authority

You just described the Democrat/Liberal/Leftist base perfectly.
Unemployable, living in their parents basement, wanting everything for free.

You are insane if you think that is Trump's base.

I think it would serve America better to discuss the threat that Trump supporters pose to American democracy, rather than waste any further breath on the subject of Trump himself. But Above Top Secret really isn't the place to do it.

Trump supporters are a threat?
You must really be a weak and fragile, narrow minded clown.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

Trump held a rally, then told the crowd to march peacefully to the capital to have their voices heard. It's all on video. Every word he spoke. If you aren't a thinking for yourself kind of person, you might just accept what the MSM has been telling you, and it seems you have drank the whole jug of koolaid.

A riot was started and security was purposefully inadequate. Jan 6th was a set up to tag Trump with the label "insurrectionist" as it was the only way to make him ineligible to be POTUS again, per the COTUS. No proof of that yet, but I believe it will be revealed to have been just that.

Trump wasn't innocent though, he amassed a large crowd, sent them to the capitol, and didn't give anymore direction. So he sent hundreds of thousands of pissed off people to congregate in one spot with no clear purpose. That was stupid and many of us could see the trap before it happened. he did it anyhow. But the outrage you pretend to have is manufactured and sad.

I heard "Fight like hell"

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

Trump held a rally, then told the crowd to march peacefully to the capital to have their voices heard. It's all on video. Every word he spoke. If you aren't a thinking for yourself kind of person, you might just accept what the MSM has been telling you, and it seems you have drank the whole jug of koolaid.

A riot was started and security was purposefully inadequate. Jan 6th was a set up to tag Trump with the label "insurrectionist" as it was the only way to make him ineligible to be POTUS again, per the COTUS. No proof of that yet, but I believe it will be revealed to have been just that.

Trump wasn't innocent though, he amassed a large crowd, sent them to the capitol, and didn't give anymore direction. So he sent hundreds of thousands of pissed off people to congregate in one spot with no clear purpose. That was stupid and many of us could see the trap before it happened. he did it anyhow. But the outrage you pretend to have is manufactured and sad.

I heard "Fight like hell"

That's your problem.
To you 'fight' means 'violent insurrection'.
In the same speech he also said things like 'Jim Jordan is out there fighting'. Do you think he meant that Jordon was out there swinging punches , breaking into the Capital building and trying to get to Nacy Pelosi so he could kill her?

What do you think this means?:

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

Trump held a rally, then told the crowd to march peacefully to the capital to have their voices heard. It's all on video. Every word he spoke. If you aren't a thinking for yourself kind of person, you might just accept what the MSM has been telling you, and it seems you have drank the whole jug of koolaid.

A riot was started and security was purposefully inadequate. Jan 6th was a set up to tag Trump with the label "insurrectionist" as it was the only way to make him ineligible to be POTUS again, per the COTUS. No proof of that yet, but I believe it will be revealed to have been just that.

Trump wasn't innocent though, he amassed a large crowd, sent them to the capitol, and didn't give anymore direction. So he sent hundreds of thousands of pissed off people to congregate in one spot with no clear purpose. That was stupid and many of us could see the trap before it happened. he did it anyhow. But the outrage you pretend to have is manufactured and sad.

I heard "Fight like hell"

so those words are the catalyst to an insurrection? I just need to know the rules, please clarify.

www.youtube.com...

Another thread may have identified why Kamala has the potential to be a threat to democracy and normal freedoms.

Another user speculated she probably slept her way to the top.

Some people want to use the sexual revolution to circumvent a lesser ability to learn from books and listening, or simply to cheat on exams. So it's not just making connections with people in power.

I have heard it said that they feel they are doing sex work in exchange for knowledge and they resent it.

What if, hypothetically speaking, someone came to power who looked forward to the day when they didn't have to stay in shape and be nice in order to get the insider information but could have it on their terms?

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: rigel4

So a guy that doesn’t trust government alphabet agencies and a fight the establishment/powers that be attitude…

🤔 hmmm

Can’t imagine why people might favor someone like that..🤷‍♂️

I am all for a shakeup in the so called "Swamp",

An example of going way to far is " They are eating the dogs"...............

Now that statement by Trump and peddled on by Vance has caused real harm in Springfield.
Bomb threats, evacuations , all chaotic things that should not be part of any candidates rhetoric.

That’s hysterical …
Did you know that North Koreans were eating dogs routinely in their home country because the communist trashed their economy so badly. Even the South Koreans have a Netflix series with an interesting compare and contrast. It’s called “Crash Landing on You”
You could watch it and get a more truthful understanding of communism than what we are getting from our lovely government friends running the Office of the Presidency now, and their complicit friends in the media.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Another thread may have identified why Kamala has the potential to be a threat to democracy and normal freedoms.

Another user speculated she probably slept her way to the top.

Some people want to use the sexual revolution to circumvent a lesser ability to learn from books and listening, or simply to cheat on exams. So it's not just making connections with people in power.

I have heard it said that they feel they are doing sex work in exchange for knowledge and they resent it.

What if, hypothetically speaking, someone came to power who looked forward to the day when they didn't have to stay in shape and be nice in order to get the insider information but could have it on their terms?

Maybe this is the subject of the 1970s Rush song "Priests of the Temple of Syrinx."

It seems to be about a city where the local political machine and the gangs are run by such successful but malcontented revolutionaries.

"The meek shall inerit the earth" must be what they tell their victims. "Equality our stock in trade" may be about how they use race pandering to gain influence. "All the gifts of life are held within our walls" may be a reference to having to obey in order to be allowed any success.

Why would a rock & roll band care about those things?

Perhaps they or someone they knew of hated that they were marginalized until they were no good for anything but helping DEIs succeed? Maybe for being a little different somehow?

I don't know their backstory but maybe it's what drove them out of ordinary career paths and into rock & roll?