MAGAbomber arrested!

Thank you for confirming you're a supporter. Added you to my blocked list. Life is just too short to spend it dealing with far-right nuts.

We simply haven't seen a national leader in the Anglosphere with these sort of tendencies for perhaps centuries (I would argue the last time we did is probably Richard II). It has an incredibly corrosive effect on the health of our political system

Definitely highlighting some very important facts in this article-style post. Thanks!

On another note... I think maybe you could give that blocked person another chance, or just ignore him/her. I'm saying this from hindsight because I've been on the other end. Ah well.

Elizabeth 1.0 was quite the rabble rouser

Elizabeth 1.0 was quite the rabble rouser

Thanks indeed for the kind words about the post. I'll have a think about what you've said there too.

On the broader issues, I really do think Trump is a serious threat to the rule of law and democracy and in a way that is qualitatively different to anyone we've seen in politics in England or America for a very long time.

I'm a socialist but I always try to look at things objectively, to decide each matter on its merits and facts rather than referring back to my ideology or "side". I also make sure that I engage with people who don't share my politics, and probably a majority of my friends are conservatives. I also accept that there is a valid conservative critique in a number of areas (also, obviously, wrong in many others), and I see faults on my own side. I think that's really important, and I've found that my conservative friends are able to do the same. The problem I've found with Trump supporters is that they simply do not see things that way. They seem as much, and probably more, interested in politics from a tribal / partisan perspective, it's all about the fight and attacking "SJWs" and posting memes rather than a disagreement rooted in policy differences. They seem incapable of seeing any faults in their own side, and are totally obsessed with 'campus politics' and political correctness.

It used to be a joke but increasingly I find it quite plausible when Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and not lose votes. There is a significant portion of the right who will support him no matter what, and they are compeltely impervious to reasoned discussion and persuasion. My main fear is not that Trump could be a dictator or abolish elections, he lacks the support or the means to do so. What I do worry about is that he is eroding conventions, norms of behaviour, respect for the rule of law, that are our best protection from authoritarianism. It is those norms of behaviour in politics and public life, and respect for the rule of law and the system, which build up over centuries and which Trump has eroded since he appeared on the politics scene. What concerns me is that he has opened the way for the next Trump, the next populist authoritarian, and while Trump may not be able to abolish elections, the third or fourth Trump might well be able to do something radical, if it were in a time of crisis.

We haven't had a despot in the Anglosphere since the 1680s, and we've had continuous rule of law with no revolutionary discontinuities since 1661. That's a remarkable record. Germany and Italy did as recently as the 1940s, Spain in the 1970s, France in the 19th century, all of eastern Europe until 1991. Our record isn't because we passed a law like the No Dictators Act of 1690. It's because of those, as I said, norms of behaviour and political conventions that politicians and people in public life follow. Trump has no respect for such things, and they erode far quicker than they accrue.

Anyway, I agree that undermining existing US law code, alongside attempting to effectively silence the "bad" media by cleverly and repeatedly calling them "fake news", could be a very dangerous and foolish move.

We can only wonder what we would feel like calling parts of the media dragging our name down the way they do, with the added injury of saying he is thin-skinned when he hits back somehow. He'll sit in that WH looking at what CNN and the like are telling the people about him, that incessant parade of characters maing him a racist, a sexist, everything under the Sun in a way that no President ever had to endure. The personal abuse is definitely mental at times, totally unprecedented and quite often morally indefensible to anyone still mildly sane. 24/7 on every outlet of that Democratic media complex thing.

He probably believes they purvey 'fake news', quite often the reporting on him and his policies will be portrayed as something that will send him into a fit because he truly believes it is not the correct way to put it. He's only human and because I genuinely don't think I could take it any better than him... I do have some sympathy for the man in that respect. Surely he is personally hurt by some of the demented flack dished out, who wouldn't?

I would recommend having a look at Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Steven Crowder - of course, they are not the majority.

I am not informed on despots and legislative acts governing these countries you mentioned. I couldn't find any information on the "No Dictators Act 1690".

As far as I am aware, CNN is heavily corrupt. They have largely attributed fake news

Much of the reaction and subsequent sabotaging of his presidency has been no less than a frontal assault on democracy and the rule of law at times

Please, do elaborate. Tell us what "assault on ... the rule of law" has been undertaken by the president's political opponents. This should be interesting.

I'd just pulled that post to add something and now it's gone but on that segment, and noting that you cut out of it the bit on the democratic institution presumably because you agree that such thing has indeed been under attack...

On immigration alone, every assault on Trump's policies is an assault on the rule of law. He can be accused of no more than daring to implement them and curb the flow of illegals over the border and every day and hour his opponents crucify him for it, shamelessly exploiting the emotionally-manipulative potential in it. There are people in the streets who want to burn down ICE's offices, those evil monsters on the border chasing illegals only because the law says they should.

There are so many people like that out there now, inspired by the Democrats, by CNN, the NYT, the WP and so many other outlets that I find it fair enough to see it as an assault on the rule of law. Obama was separating children from their families, Hillary was always dead against illegal immigration, never got CNN going as under Trump. That is where the assault comes from, for the mere sake of political expedience. It is also a barefaced trampling over democratic rule, most people in the US disagree with an open border.

The incoming caravan, organized and supported as an assault on the rule of law. Not by Trump supporters. obviously.

Thanks indeed for the kind words about the post. I'll have a think about what you've said there too.

On the broader issues, I really do think Trump is a serious threat to the rule of law and democracy and in a way that is qualitatively different to anyone we've seen in politics in England or America for a very long time.

I'm a socialist but I always try to look at things objectively, to decide each matter on its merits and facts rather than referring back to my ideology or "side". I also make sure that I engage with people who don't share my politics, and probably a majority of my friends are conservatives. I also accept that there is a valid conservative critique in a number of areas (also, obviously, wrong in many others), and I see faults on my own side. I think that's really important, and I've found that my conservative friends are able to do the same. The problem I've found with Trump supporters is that they simply do not see things that way. They seem as much, and probably more, interested in politics from a tribal / partisan perspective, it's all about the fight and attacking "SJWs" and posting memes rather than a disagreement rooted in policy differences. They seem incapable of seeing any faults in their own side, and are totally obsessed with 'campus politics' and political correctness.

It used to be a joke but increasingly I find it quite plausible when Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and not lose votes. There is a significant portion of the right who will support him no matter what, and they are compeltely impervious to reasoned discussion and persuasion. My main fear is not that Trump could be a dictator or abolish elections, he lacks the support or the means to do so. What I do worry about is that he is eroding conventions, norms of behaviour, respect for the rule of law, that are our best protection from authoritarianism. It is those norms of behaviour in politics and public life, and respect for the rule of law and the system, which build up over centuries and which Trump has eroded since he appeared on the politics scene. What concerns me is that he has opened the way for the next Trump, the next populist authoritarian, and while Trump may not be able to abolish elections, the third or fourth Trump might well be able to do something radical, if it were in a time of crisis.

We haven't had a despot in the Anglosphere since the 1680s, and we've had continuous rule of law with no revolutionary discontinuities since 1661. That's a remarkable record. Germany and Italy did as recently as the 1940s, Spain in the 1970s, France in the 19th century, all of eastern Europe until 1991. Our record isn't because we passed a law like the No Dictators Act of 1690. It's because of those, as I said, norms of behaviour and political conventions that politicians and people in public life follow. Trump has no respect for such things, and they erode far quicker than they accrue.

Regarding Rubin, Shapiro, Carlson and Crowder, I'm well aware of all four. I enjoy a lot of Shapiro's commentary. Rubin is trash, he's an intellectual lightweight and he has sold out to the worst elements of right-wing tribalism (i.e. total obsession with campus politics, "SJW", political correctness etc). What makes it worse is that it looks likely that he tacked sharply to the right for a payday, and that he incessantly leans on this spurious authority he claims to have as an alleged former progressive, as if that affects the merits of what he says.

Carlson is highly reasonable in certain environments; for example, I agreed with probably 60% of what he said during his debate with Cenk Uygur. However, his show on Fox is utter trash; it appeals to the worst partisan, tribal instincts (although like all such TV personalities he doesn't really write the show himself so I give him

Crowder has the potential to be a real contributor, but again on many matters he reverts to tribal/partisan instincts and is not intellectually honest. But again, I recognise that some of what he says is reasonable. What I find frustrating about Shapiro, Carlson and Crowder is that while they exhibit genuine merit, they also often revert to tribalism and the partisan mentality.

Re the "No Dictators Act", there is no such act. That was precisely my point; the fact that we haven't had a dictator in the English-speaking world since the 1680s isn't because we passed a law to that effect, it's made up in large part due to the non-compelled behaviour of politicians, and the people generally, in our society. It's about an attitude to propriety, to the rule of law, that has kept our society democratic. For that reason it would have been almost impossible for a Hitler to emerge in England.

How about you stop being an NPC yourself and engage in conversation, as opposed to towing the alt-right/4chan line and posting *****y memes.

Regarding Rubin, Shapiro, Carlson and Crowder, I'm well aware of all four. I enjoy a lot of Shapiro's commentary. Rubin is trash, he's an intellectual lightweight and he has sold out to the worst elements of right-wing tribalism (i.e. total obsession with campus politics, "SJW", political correctness etc). What makes it worse is that it looks likely that he tacked sharply to the right for a payday, and that he incessantly leans on this spurious authority he claims to have as an alleged former progressive, as if that affects the merits of what he says.

Carlson is highly reasonable in certain environments; for example, I agreed with probably 60% of what he said during his debate with Cenk Uygur. However, his show on Fox is utter trash; it appeals to the worst partisan, tribal instincts (although like all such TV personalities he doesn't really write the show himself so I give him

Crowder has the potential to be a real contributor, but again on many matters he reverts to tribal/partisan instincts and is not intellectually honest. But again, I recognise that some of what he says is reasonable. What I find frustrating about Shapiro, Carlson and Crowder is that while they exhibit genuine merit, they also often revert to tribalism and the partisan mentality.

Re the "No Dictators Act", there is no such act. That was precisely my point; the fact that we haven't had a dictator in the English-speaking world since the 1680s isn't because we passed a law to that effect, it's made up in large part due to the non-compelled behaviour of politicians, and the people generally, in our society. It's about an attitude to propriety, to the rule of law, that has kept our society democratic. For that reason it would have been almost impossible for a Hitler to emerge in England.

You're saying CNN puts out false information that they know to be false? Can you provide examples?