[tensor]

Given the current situation in the US, it's a huge cautionary tale for how not to do democracy. To non-ironically hold it up as an example at this point of time is truly amazing. No, the rest of us don't want current US style dictatorship in our countries.

While the EU certainly has its issues, its protection of democracy is still one of the best in the world. Democracy is something we need to keep working towards. There is not one simple set of rules that will keep it healthy, at least as far as recently history shows.

[femiagbabiaka]

> While the EU certainly has its issues, its protection of democracy is still one of the best in the world.

Don’t let defensiveness lead you to say nonsensical things. Nearly every single country in the EU has a worse-than-trumpian party waiting in the wings, or even in power, see Hungary. Ascribing some sort of special property to the EU, a region with absolutely terrible standards for personal liberty, because at the moment there is more respect for liberal democracy there than elsewhere.. well it’s just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[tensor]

Yes, but many places in the EU use proportional representation or something close to it, so even if those parties gain significant traction, there is still protection as they are forced to work together with the rest of the parties.

In contrast, my own country Canada is far more at risk of the rise of an authoritarian adjacent party. A party with majority control has too much power here, and lack of proportional representation also means that majority control can be achieved with less than 50% of the voting population supporting you.

This is why I say the EU has better protections. The existence of parties that want more authoritarian control shouldn't be a measure of the health of a democratic system. In fact, somehow forcing these parties out would be pretty against the principles of democracy and free speech.

I do suppose its worth asking the question of whether democracy should allow the voting down of democracy itself, but I don't think the EU is at risk of that as a whole, even if a few member states are.

[engineeringwoke]

Could you describe with specific examples what qualifies the USA today as a "dictatorship"?

[yibg]

Executive orders to ban something explicitly deemed legal under the constitution by the supreme court? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/trump-flag-b...

[engineeringwoke]

Yeah, it's politics. He assumes it will get appealed to the supreme court who will take his side.

I personally don't like the Texas v Johnson decision. Burning flags is un-American and should be illegal. How is that dictatorial?

[shazbotter]

It's an executive order that contravenes existing legislative and judicial precedent, sets penalties, and is expected to be unchallenged. It limits free speech by fiat because a single man wants it to be so.

It's clearly dictatorial, you'll have to demonstrate why it's not an act of a single person dictating policy.

[engineeringwoke]

Burning American flags is free speech? It's definitely an interpretation... and one that many legal scholars disagree with, similar to Roe v Wade. Not that repealing Roe v Wade was a good thing, but it didn't have a solid legal foundation.

It's not all about getting your way... well maybe the better way to say it is that the left got their way, for sixty years. And some of those wins from that period for the left were built on shaky ground. There has to be give and take in any healthy political system.

[shazbotter]

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Texas v Johnson. It is an act that expresses a political view through a symbolic act. It might be offensive to you, but "I find it offensive" is not sufficient defense to stop political speech.

And the left did not get their way for sixty years. The left is predominantly socialist, communist, anarchist. Democrats are not a leftist party. The left hasn't held many political positions in the US. But we on the left hate the democrats as much (or more) than folks on the right. We also tend to be broadly supportive of individual freedoms (most of my leftist colleagues are anti gun control, for instance.)

[laughing_man]

It's a little more subtle than that. His executive order doesn't ban flag burning as an expression of speech. It only bans flag burning as part of an incitement to violence. I expect the courts will strike it down, but even if they don't it won't be something you get arrested for. It'll be something you get extra time for, like hate speech.

[xyzzyz]

Just for context, what Trump tries to (illegally) ban in US, flag desecration, is already a crime in most of Europe. You can get 3 years for burning the flag in Germany, 2 years in Portugal, 3 years in Switzerland, or 1 year in Poland. Worth keeping in mind when comparing democracy and individual liberty between Europe and US.

[ToDougie]

A better example might be the treatment of whistleblowers?

[engineeringwoke]

Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning were both pursued aggressively during the Obama administration. Next, please. I can go all day

[shazbotter]

Obama also engaged in dictatorial policy... Just because two people have done it does not make it "not dictatorial".

Or, using logical constructs - "A therefore B" is not made invalid by "C therefore B".

[engineeringwoke]

But it's obvious when people say "dictatorship" or "fascism" today in the USA it is just a dog whistle for not liking Trump. Nobody called Obama a fascist for how Chelsea Manning was treated.

[kryogen1c]

Boy if you think non-constitutional executive orders are new or a trump thing, you're in for quite a surprise.

[fknorangesite]

Today? No, maybe not yet. But you'd be a fool to look at the actions of the current admin and not see that that's where they're headed.

But here's something from today: "A lot of people are saying maybe we'd like a dictator." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koruWF1cfyc

[tensor]

Texas gerrymandering with an overt publicly stated goal to bias the election is enough evidence. But if you want more: sending the military to intimidate politicians (Newsom), deporting and arresting people with permanent residency or other forms of legal immigration, arresting citizens without cause, intimidating law firms, journalists, and news companies by using the power of the executive branch to punish individuals and organizations, illegally dismantling congressionally established governmental organizations and branches.

This is just a small summary. Foreigners are not visiting the US, not because they don't want to or don't like the US, but because they are afraid of visiting a non-free country. It's not worth the risk of getting detained because you posted a negative comment online about a government official.

[kjkjadksj]

Militarizing law enforcement to go after entire classes of people who aren’t politically aligned.

[engineeringwoke]

The executive branch has that right. It's happened many many times in the past. I recommend reading a history book and not MSM or social media

[tensor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[engineeringwoke]

Ever heard of the Little Rock Nine?

[kjkjadksj]

Notably, Eisenhower did not militarize the national guard to go after groups of people who are not politically aligned. He militarized them to protect groups of people. Quite the opposite and a poor choice of an equivocal example.