suds

Again you're over simplifying things. Are there no laws that prevent a President from getting the DOJ to go out and kill his political opponents or anyone else that stands in his way? I'm betting there are, and that being the case (as with Hitler and Chavez), he would have to have the authority to legislate new laws and enforce them. Now that might be a bit of a hurdle I would imagine, but I'm sure you've got a few ideas about that little obstacle also.

A dictatorship ..... no. Because it's almost impossible to achieve one in the U.S. with all its checks and balances and the power sharing between state and federal governments. What the democrats want is a 'pseudo democracy' where they as the ruling party completely monopolize the political system ( and of which WestCanMan provided a number of ways and means in which they hope to achieve that role).

And what happens if they say no? This doesn't exactly strike me as a well thought out plan.

Good points! And it's why I fear the democrats far more than I do the republicans. More specifically though, how would the President take control of the legislative branch without major amendments to the constitution? It would require far more than a simple referendum or a law passed by a packed legislature. And what about the individual states themselves, who I doubt would go along with any of this and who have their own militias?

1933 Germany became a dictatorship under the Nazis by creating an emergency (the Reichstag fire) which led to the Enabling Act..... a law that gave Hitler the power to make and enforce laws without the involvement of the German parliament. It also allowed him to take over complete power of the federal states. In 1998, Chavez was elected President of Venezuela and immediately set out to replace the 1961 constitution by referendum. Under the new constitution, Chavez was involved in the selection process of selecting governors to head the various federal states. He also began replacing justices on the Supreme court while expanding its size by more than half. In both cases, the paths to dictatorship was nearly complete. So let's assume that Trump wins the 2024 Presidency and has ambitions of being a dictator. Exactly, how would he go about doing this? It's a question I'd like to put to Timothy Snyder.

So you don't like it when Biden criticizes the courts or when Trump criticizes the courts. I don't agree with you but at least you're consistent. There are few things in life that are above criticism and the justice system isn't one of them.

I don't agree with Trump's plan to cut aid to Ukraine, but if Trump was such a Putin cheerleader, why didn't he invade while Trump was in office?

I must say you do post with a certain amount of comic relief. Carry on!

Please explain. You don't have a clue what you're talking about do you?

According to you I would be, since I also identify as a classical liberal. But unlike Bill Maher I would vote Republican rather than Democrat. Nothing to do with abortion either, just that the left in the U.S. has gone completely bat shit crazy. Are you a pro-communist? Personally I don't like fascism or communism as there's not much difference between the two.

So was this after the Commies signed a non aggression pact with the Nazis which included a plan on how they were going to carve up Europe between them? Or was it after they kicked the Nazis out of Eastern Europe and decided not to leave?

Really? Within the U.S. political spectrum I would have to believe a classical liberal like Mahar would fall smack dab in the center along with the self acclaimed moderates. A capitalist, anti-woke, pot smoking, free speech advocate, who votes democrat. What's not to like? He says things that have to be said. I'm a fan.

Because of the situation we're in, our ponzi scheme way of doing things creates a catch-22 (a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem). We need a growing population to sustain economic growth to a degree where it can pay for all the pensions, healthcare, and other entitlements for future generations that are only going to live longer. When the economy isn't supportive enough to pay the bills, then everything begins to unravel. The world's increase of population growth rate is slowing down, but most demographers contend that (actual) world population will peak sometime near the end of this century. And then there's the climate change thing. How will another 2.5 billion people affect our efforts to control climate change when we can't get a handle on it now?

Absolutely, once verified by intelligence sources. As Canadians we have the right to know the truth.

It seems that with the nomination process we are a 'soft target' that openly invites foreign interference. 'Nomination processes are not directly regulated or safeguarded by Federal or Provincial legislation, nor Elections Canada.' 'Canada does not criminalize interfering in nominations, leadership races, or any other political party process.' Nomination processes are governed by different rules of each party. Breaking of these rules is not illegal. Some parties allow non-citizens to register as party members and to vote in nominations as long as they live in the riding. (CSIS contends it's relative easy to alter documents that indicates one's place of residence.) As the report indicates (especially in safe ridings), it's relatively easy to interfere in Canada's elections without interfering in the actual election itself (where the nominee wins a seat). And we wonder why foreign interference is so rampant. This might be a good place to start in tightening things up.

There are scientific and non-scientific definitions for the terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory'. Non-scientific usage of the terms often finds them being synonymous with one another. On the other hand, scientific usage of the terms defines 'hypothesis' as an assumption based on no data or research, while it defines 'theory' as being based on research and observable data. YOU (not being a scientist) see them as being synonymous, while Alina Chan (a molecular biologist) uses the scientific definitions of the terms. Did Chan use both terms in her NYT piece? Yes she did, in describing the 'lab leak theory' as being theory based on observable evidence, and describing the claims of 'zoonotic spillover' as being simply hypothesis based on the fact that exactly zero evidence exists that Sars-CoV-2 was transmitted naturally from wild animals to humans.

By definition, 'conspiracy theories' are hypothetical and not theory in any sense of the word. Not being based on research and observable data.

A 'theory' is formed from research and observable data. A 'hypothesis' is merely an assumption. Chan's theory suggests 'the pandemic most likely occurred because the virus escaped from a research lab in wuhan' (and backs it up with facts). While the hypothesis is that 'covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan which is not supported by any strong evidence'. Relativity and evolution are both theories formed by research and observable data. Do you not believe in relativity or evolution?? If you do, are you not by your own definition a conspirator?

It wouldn't be the first time for a lab leak in China. You'd think we'd learn from our mistakes.

No they did not. And that has to change.

For someone who seems to care so much about the planet you seem to think making deadly pathogens far more deadly for humans is a good idea. Can't see anything going wrong there eh? What the hell are BSL4 labs doing in large population centres anyway? Some are in the middle of war zones in Ukraine. Yeah, let's find out what happened, hold people accountable, and make changes where changes should be made. The world has to come to some agreement on these things. What happens in China, or anywhere else doesn't stay there. We were just lucky this time it wasn't kids the virus went after.

Excellent deductions! The only proof of Sars-CoV-2 originating from a zoonotic spillover event is that all previous coronaviruses have been proven to originate from zoonotic spillover events, of which gain of function research never played a factor. Now gain of function research does play a factor as a distinct possibility because it was taking place at the the same time and the same geographical location as where the Sars-CoV-2 outbreak occurred. Until Sars-CoV-2 can be proven to have originated from a zoonotic spillover event (on its own merits), the probabilities are far greater of originating from gain of function research taking place at the Wuhan lab.

Most of us would have done the same thing if it avoided embarrassment for the family and a possible marriage breakup. I don't see it as such a big deal. The Hunter Biden laptop story was a big deal and they managed to kill that didn't they?

You're not exactly impressing me either bud.

In 2016 Hillary Clinton admitted defeat and then for the next four years complained bitterly the election was stolen from her and that Trump was an 'illegitimate President'. And the media gladly picked up on it. Google it. And as far as 'undermining' goes, that's what the impeachment process does to a Presidency. It undermines it by not allowing a President to operate freely. Even if the Democrats don't succeed with their two impeachments, they still win.