When people elect their own dictator

[Angela]

Erdogan's re-election with vastly expanded powers makes him a virtual dictator in the eyes of many. Well, 53% of the population has decided for everyone that this is the way to go. It's not the first time a dictator has been elected, and in Europe, to boot. Now they're stuck with the consequences.

See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/...l?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

 

[etrusco]

Erdogan's re-election with vastly expanded powers makes him a virtual dictator in the eyes of many. Well, 53% of the population has decided for everyone that this is the way to go. It's not the first time a dictator has been elected, and in Europe, to boot. Now they're stuck with the consequences.

See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/...l?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

More simply in more traditional societies people prefer to be ruled by visible dictators that have visible agendas based on the preservation of traditional values( family, religion, national pride) instead of being ruled by invisible dictators with invisible agendas ( like banksters, free masons, globalists of all kind) that put forward a model of a "liquid society" where every traditional and natural bond is destroyed just to adore the new gods: the financial markets.

 

[Jovialis]

More simply in more traditional societies people prefer to be ruled by visible dictators that have visible agendas based on the preservation of traditional values( family, religion, national pride) instead of being ruled by invisible dictators with invisible agendas ( like banksters, free masons, globalists of all kind) that put forward a model of a "liquid society" where every traditional and natural bond is destroyed just to adore the new gods: the financial markets.

What? People want the freedom to pursue personal wealth, power and prosperity, it has nothing to do with "wanting" to be ruled by anyone invisible, or visible. In addition to that, in the United States, the people that want to have the more traditional society are also pro-free market. The two set of values are not mutually exclusive, and have nothing to do with dictatorships.

 

[etrusco]

What? People want the freedom to pursue personal wealth, power and prosperity, it has nothing to do with "wanting" to be ruled by anyone invisible, or visible.


In addition to that, in the United States, the people that want to have the more traditional society are also pro-free market. The two set of values are not mutually exclusive, and have nothing to do with dictatorships.

Well. that is true only if you are a liberal. conservative surely too pursue personal wealth and prosperity ( that is universal) but in addition and before all they prefer the preservation of traditional values like I said: family, national culture and heritage, religious values....we are not only consumers we are also citizen and son of our motherland.
As for your second sentence... that is true only in regard to home policy.....I do not think for example that conservatives in USA that voted for Trump are so enthusiast about laissez-faire on a international level. That is the reason why Trumpeconomics is going toward more protectionism and trade war.....but it is strange that I have to remind you ( you live in the USA) the basics of american politics.
As a more european kind of conservative anyway I'm not of the idea that being strongly pro-market and defense of traditional values can go hand in hand always. That does not mean that I support dictatorship. I'm only suggesting why people think that freedom is better preserved when traditional values are protected. Hence the decision by many of them to prefer an authoritarian "traditionalistic" regime instead of the more impersonal and much more pervasive dictatorship of hidden unchecked and undemocratic forces.
But if I would be a Turk I wouldn't vote for Erdogan.

 

[Jovialis]

Well. that is true only if you are a liberal. conservative surely too pursue personal wealth and prosperity ( that is universal) but in addition and before all they prefer the preservation of traditional values like I said: family, national culture and heritage, religious values....we are not only consumers we are also citizen and son of our motherland.
As for your second sentence... that is true only in regard to home policy.....I do not think for example that conservatives in USA that voted for Trump are so enthusiast about laissez-faire on a international level. That is the reason why Trumpeconomics is going toward more protectionism and trade war.....but it is strange that I have to remind you ( you live in the USA) the basics of american politics.
As a more european kind of conservative anyway I'm not of the idea that being strongly pro-market and defense of traditional values can go hand in hand always. That does not mean that I support dictatorship. I'm only suggesting why people think that freedom is better preserved when traditional values are protected. Hence the decision by many of them to prefer an authoritarian "traditionalistic" regime instead of the more impersonal and much more pervasive dictatorship of hidden unchecked and undemocratic forces.
But if I would be a Turk I wouldn't vote for Erdogan.

To be conservative in the United States is to be classically liberal. That doesn't mean you reject traditional values, and national pride. Why would it? You don't know the reasons why people vote the way they do in the United States. The United States still obviously engages in free trade. Do you honestly think we're some kind of a closed-autocracy here? Trump's platform criticized globalism, but proposed the U.S. have more advantageous trade deals. Ultimately the GOP wants to use it to expand U.S. interests. The U.S. created this infrastructure after World War II, and it was primarily to capitalize on U.S. uni-polarity after the Cold War. It is a part of our hegemony; soft power (financial, and influence) and hard power (military might). All you have is an outside perspective. 65 million Republican voters aren't represented by the conspiracy theory websites that you obviously frequent.

 

[Wheal]

The American political parties have become “dicatorships” in a different way. Their agendas line their own pockets with high wages and rely on the middle class to work 2 or three jobs to pay the outrageous taxes to support the growing lower class and the political class so the workers never getting ahead to provide opportunities to their families. They, the politicians, have created an evergrowing Government class who in return support them and rely on income from the government that is unequal to similar jobs in the private sector.
Many jobs were taken from the middle class and are now filled overseas in the manufacturing industry. These lower quality goods are imported and sold to the US citizens at lower prices, thus destroying more jobs and most especially the mom and pop businesses that were the backbone for our small communities.
Don’t get me wrong, the personality of POTUS rubs me the wrong way, but what he is saying is, we need to equal the playing field with equal tariffs, and grow a strong country by returning jobs in manufacturing to our country. And he is right. The fat and happy politicians are rejecting him, because it is threatening their pocketbooks and their control of the working “government” class.
And, btw, Trump was nominated because a great number of Dems all voted for him in the primary because the KNEW Hillary could beat him. But his unfettered comments are what got him elected.

 

[etrusco]

To be conservative in the United States is to be classically liberal. That doesn't mean you reject traditional values, and national pride. Why would it? You don't know the reasons why people vote the way they do in the United States. The United States still obviously engages in free trade. Do you honestly think we're some kind of a closed-autocracy here? Trump's platform criticized globalism, but proposed the U.S. have more advantageous trade deals. Ultimately the GOP wants to use it to expand U.S. interests. The U.S. created this infrastructure after World War II, and it was primarily to capitalize on U.S. uni-polarity after the Cold War. It is a part of our hegemony; soft power (financial, and influence) and hard power (military might). All you have is an outside perspective. 65 million Republican voters aren't represented by the conspiracy theory websites that you obviously frequent.

It is not a matter of conspiracy theory ( insult I received from you without provoking but let give it a pass...). I did not compare Turkey with the USA.
I was just referring to a division that is becoming quite common among conservative/right wing party all over the western world. There's a more "liberal" mainstream kind of conservatism ( like for example John McCain and Jeb Bush the first names I can recall now) and a more right wing kind of conservatives like Steve Bannon or Newt Gingrich for example or the religious right. These two kind of conservatism obviously collaborate inside the government but tensions exist anyway.

To be conservative in the United States is to be classically liberal: Completely wrong. conservatives actually label they political opponents in the USA as liberal: how can they be liberal. A republican cannot be a....democrat!!!!!!!!!

As for the unilateral kind of stuff....well you basically support my point. There are Trump conservatives that want to have more advantages from trade deal because they think that the only important thing is the well being of american people ( in this case the middle class that has been destroyed by delocalization of factories and jobs) and they want to act in this way regardless the fact that by doing so they can risk to destroy the liberal pro market institutions that the USA had created after the II WWW. Hence the difference with the more mainstream kind of conservatives that prefer to preserve those institutions regardless of the well being of american workers. So they prefer to basically represent constituencies that are on the winning side of the globalization process. Hence the tensions between the two.

Here some examples of basically the same kind of division among western conservative political parties:

France: Le Pen and Fillon
Italy: Salvini and Berlusconi
England: Nigel Farage and Theresa May
Germany: ADF and Merckel

The firsts are right wing conservatives the second the more mainstream globalist kind of conservatives.

Difficult to understand? I do not think so.

 

[Jovialis]

It is not a matter of conspiracy theory ( insult I received from you without provoking but let give it a pass...). I did not compare Turkey with the USA.
I was just referring to a division that is becoming quite common among conservative/right wing party all over the western world. There's a more "liberal" mainstream kind of conservatism ( like for example John McCain and Jeb Bush the first names I can recall now) and a more right wing kind of conservatives like Steve Bannon or Newt Gingrich for example or the religious right. These two kind of conservatism obviously collaborate inside the government but tensions exist anyway.

To be conservative in the United States is to be classically liberal: Completely wrong. conservatives actually label they political opponents in the USA as liberal: how can they be liberal. A republican cannot be a....democrat!!!!!!!!!

As for the unilateral kind of stuff....well you basically support my point. There are Trump conservatives that want to have more advantages from trade deal because they think that the only important thing is the well being of american people ( in this case the middle class that has been destroyed by delocalization of factories and jobs) and they want to act in this way regardless the fact that by doing so they can risk to destroy the liberal pro market institutions that the USA had created after the II WWW. Hence the difference with the more mainstream kind of conservatives that prefer to preserve those institutions regardless of the well being of american workers. So they prefer to basically represent constituencies that are on the winning side of the globalization process. Hence the tensions between the two.

Here some examples of basically the same kind of division among western conservative political parties:

France: Le Pen and Fillon
Italy: Salvini and Berlusconi
England: Nigel Farage and Theresa May
Germany: ADF and Merckel

The firsts are right wing conservatives the second the more mainstream globalist kind of conservatives.

Difficult to understand? I do not think so.

Obviously you don't understand what the definition of classical liberal, liberal, or conservative mean in the United States. But being that you're an outsider, I will give you a pass. Steve Bannon doesn't even have a position in the administration anymore. Furthermore, he was actually a johnny-come-lately to Trump's campaign. (I guess you didn't follow the election) His so-called "nationalist" agenda wasn't pursued. Because we're not going to give up our military bases and trade deals. Yes, Trump ran with the promise to bring jobs back, and impose more protectionist policies. But ultimately, the US uses the global trade system to our own advantage. It is not going anywhere, anyone with a brain, and understands US politics and power-structure knows that. Why do you think weirdos like Alex Jones say they don't like Trump anymore?

 

[Wheal]

To be conservative in the United States is to be classically liberal: Completely wrong. conservatives actually label they political opponents in the USA as liberal: how can they be liberal. A republican cannot be a....democrat!!!!!!!!!
.

Etrusco, I think that most people confuse the words "liberal" and "conservative" with the words "Democratic" and "Republican". You can be fiscally conservative, ie. if you believe too much money is being spent on a particular item, and you can be "liberal" in your views about equality of all. I know more Democrats that are much less "liberal" than Republicans I know. In fact, I might say they are quite antiquated in their views of equality and fairness. And I know Republicans that are less "conservative" than those same Democrats.

 

[Salento]

President Trump has canceled many Executive Orders, with the intention of forcing Congress to pass permanent laws.
This is the opposite of an authoritarian act.
He signed an executive order to implement neglected laws passed by Congress, as in the case of crossing the border illegally.
Also the opposite of an authoritarian act.
IMO Citizens vote for a candidate mainly for personal reasons, and secondarily for a collective interest.
Rhetoric without abuse of power does not make you become a dictator, especially if you can lose at the next free and fair elections.

 

[etrusco]

Obviously you don't understand what the definition of classical liberal, liberal, or conservative mean in the United States. But being that you're an outsider, I will give you a pass. Steve Bannon doesn't even have a position in the administration anymore. Furthermore, he as actually a johnny-come-lately to Trump's campaign. His so-called "nationalist" agenda wasn't pursued. Because we're not going to give up our military bases and trade deals. Yes, Trump ran with the promise to bring jobs back, and impose more protectionist policies. But ultimately, the US uses the global trade system to our own advantage. It is not going anywhere, anyone with a brain, and understands US politics knows that. Why do you think weirdos like Alex Jones say they don't like Trump anymore?

You are plain wrong ( you probably mean the european definition of the terms). In all the english speaking nations being a liberal means being the opposite of a conservative. Of course you can have "liberal " republicans ( in european term a moderate conservative example: Angela Merkel).
Funny that you put in my mouth things I never wrote. Did I say that Bannon has a role in the government???? I was only taking him as an example of a non mainstream conservative. You basically made my point. Trump had an agenda that......mainstream conservatives ( and democrats/liberals alike ) do not agree with. Hence the tensions around his presidency and all the chaos in the west wing since he took office. But in your last sentence you got it right: the interest of the empire are more important that the well being of the citizens ( especially the middle class and blue collars)....so or Trump change completely his agenda or Bob Muller the special counsel will knock on his door very soon.

 

[etrusco]

Etrusco, I think that most people confuse the words "liberal" and "conservative" with the words "Democratic" and "Republican". You can be fiscally conservative, ie. if you believe too much money is being spent on a particular item, and you can be "liberal" in your views about equality of all. I know more Democrats that are much less "liberal" than Republicans I know. In fact, I might say they are quite antiquated in their views of equality and fairness. And I know Republicans that are less "conservative" than those same Democrats.

Thank you Wheal for your kindness ( unlike others...). I get your point and I'm aware of it. That was probably the original difference between the two words but as for now in everyday speech the link liberal/democrat and conservative/ republican is quite the rule. I see debates on cable news ( often CNN that is not a conspiracy news outlet....right Jovialis....) and the words are always used in the sense I was referring to.

 

[Salento]

@Etrusco
If Bob Mueller get involved in anything political will be FIRED immediately.
President Trump has the Legitimate POWER to Fire Mueller at will.
NOBODY elected Mueller.

 

[Jovialis]

Thank you Wheal for your kindness ( unlike others...). I get your point and I'm aware of it. That was probably the original difference between the two words but as for now in everyday speech the link liberal/democrat and conservative/ republican is quite the rule. I see debates on cable news ( often CNN that is not a conspiracy news outlet....right Jovialis....) and the words are always used in the sense I was referring to.

CNN is obviously a partisan news outlet, as are most of them. Now you're putting words in my mouth. Sorry if you think I wasn't kind enough to you, you must be a real snowflake. Also, it is NOT the "rule", and I don't think you're fully aware of the difference.

 

[etrusco]

@Etrusco
If Bob Mueller get involved in anything political will be FIRED immediately.
President Trump has the Legitimate POWER to Fire Mueller at will.
NOBODY elected Mueller.

If Trump fires Muller ( he has the right to do so) he will trigger an impeachment procedure.....especially if in the middle term elections the GOP will lose many seats ( which is pretty much likely).

 

[Salento]

BIAS CNN has lost all credibility in the United States.
BIAS CNN International is still unchallenged. Don’t watch it, and don’t think for a second that it is broadcasting an Independent/non-partisan coverage of the News.

 

[Salento]

If Trump fires Muller ( he has the right to do so) he will trigger an impeachment procedure.....especially if in the middle term elections the GOP will lose many seats ( which is pretty much likely).

Impeachment for What?
And by the way, just in case Mike Pence will become President.
This is bigger than just Trump.
Trump didn’t create the movement, he was just the loudest messenger.

 

[etrusco]

Impeachment for What?
And by the way, just in case Mike Pence will become President.
This is bigger than just Trump.
Trump didn’t create the movement, he was just the loudest messenger.

Mainly because most of the people indicted by Muller are starting to "sing" and talking about wrongdoings among the Trump organization ( likely you will find something at that level of power). Do not forget that we have also the big Russiagate affair.....collusion is a serious crime ( I do not personally think that there was but what matters here is the optics). So if he fires Muller it could be seen as an obstruction of justice and things will turn badly for the Donald.......and if in november the GOP loses the election the situation on the Hill will turn badly for Trump given the fact that all the news outlets and all the powers that really "matter" are against him.
Well...if Trump get impeached and removed from office be sure Pence will "behave" and will "learn" the lesson quickly.....he doesn't look like a braveheart.

@jovialis .....

thank you for the snowflake....I appreciated that.

 

[Salento]

Mainly because most of the people indicted by Muller are starting to "sing" and talking about wrongdoings among the Trump organization ( likely you will find something at that level of power). Do not forget that we have also the big Russiagate affair.....collusion is a serious crime ( I do not personally think that there was but what matters here is the optics). So if he fires Muller it could be seen as an obstruction of justice and things will turn badly for the Donald.......and if in november the GOP loses the election the situation on the Hill will turn badly for Trump given the fact that all the news outlets and all the powers that really "matter" are against him.
Well...if Trump get impeached and removed from office be sure Pence will "behave" and will "learn" the lesson quickly.....he doesn't look like a braveheart.

@jovialis .....

thank you for the snowflake....I appreciated that.

You listed Hypothetical assumptions.
You’re overestimating the Power of the Media (Remember the 2016 Election), and You’re underestimating Mike Pence (ask the people of Indiana).

 

[Angela]

@Etrusco,

I'm baffled. You didn't like that I posted an article about Erdogan's re-election with sweeping powers, or you didn't like my categorization of it as giving him dictatorial powers?

Gosh. I thought only Turks supported him, and only 53% of them, I might add.

Do you really not believe that Turks will have fewer civil rights that people in western representative democracies, including the U.S. ? Could you provide some concrete examples?