Trump says dictator only 'on day one' if elected
www.rte.ie
Donald Trump has said that he will not become a dictator if he becomes US president again except "on day one", after warnings from Democrats and some Republicans that the US was in danger of becoming an autocracy if he wins the 2024 election.

Donald Trump has said that he will not become a dictator if he becomes US president again except “on day one”, after warnings from Democrats and some Republicans that the US was in danger of becoming an autocracy if he wins the 2024 election. Fuck, well at least he’s honest on this statement

  • vitamin@infosec.pub
    95·
    7 months ago

    Has there ever been a dictator who relinquished power after “fixing” things? Yeah guys, I’m going to need some extra judicial powers and have the military become my personal army, but it’s just temporary, I swear.

    • DaveDavesen@feddit.de
      521·
      7 months ago

      Yes, the original roman ones. This is the origin of the word. They were appointed for emergencies with a lot of power.

      They all gave up their position after a while except for Caesar. When Caesar was appointed as a lifelong dictator, he was shortly after assassinated by most members of the senate. But the turmoil led to the Roman Empire not being “democratic” anyway.

      • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
        27·
        7 months ago

        Slight correction, he wasn’t assassinated by most of the senate. There were about 60 conspirators out of 200-300, and only a dozen or so actually participated in the assassination (and only 5 actually confirmed to have stabbed him while still alive). Regardless, it’s still true that they came to that conclusion after Caesar was declared dictator for life and started taking away senate power

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          7 months ago

          (and only 5 actually confirmed to have stabbed him while still alive)

          It’s medically pretty unlikely you can be stabbed 60 times and not die till the last guy gets his turn.

        • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
          2·
          7 months ago

          Funny thing is apparently only one of the wounds was lethal, we were literally one dude getting sick off from Caesar just going Palps mode

      • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
        7·
        7 months ago

        Yeah, but he was rustled since they wanted to disband his legions and all that. Who wouldn’t be

        • cannache
          1·
          7 months ago

          A general must always have brothers/sisters to carry upon his shoulders

    • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
      16·
      7 months ago

      Despite his relatively old age, [Cincinnatus] worked his own small farm until an invasion prompted his fellow citizens to call for his leadership. He came from his plough to assume complete control over the state but, upon achieving a swift victory in only 16 days, relinquished his power and its perquisites and returned to his farm.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      15·
      7 months ago

      The original office of dictator as defined in the Roman Republic was exactly that,

      It was literally the office of “we have tried literally everything else and still have a problem, you there, you seem like a not idiot person, you can do basically anything you want for the next six months or until you solve the problem, after that we’ll make cool statues of you if you do a good job.”

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        4·
        7 months ago

        Given how the reality can get modified over long periods of history, I have to wonder how much those old dictators stepping down were motivated by threats of stabbing if they didn’t.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        3·
        7 months ago

        Honestly it’d probably work better than our current system.

        Just give one random guy carte blanche to run everything. Get immortalized if you do a good job. Get executed if you don’t.

        And I’m sure lots of people would take it up, and think that they’d do a good job. And more than likely, they wouldn’t.

    • tegs_terry@feddit.ukEnglish
      12·
      7 months ago

      I’ve heard the term ‘benevolent dictator’ before, but it might be philosophical. It doesn’t seem to me that anyone capable of assuming the role could remain benevolent long.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
        28·
        7 months ago

        Cincinnatus is always the classical example, as a senator who was named dictator twice and in both cases relinquished his power as soon as the crisis was resolved.

        What’s less often mentioned is that the second “crisis” was just a prominent plebeian undermining the prestige of the Senate by providing cheap grain to the poor during a famine—Cincinnatus presided over the plebeian’s extrajudicial murder, and it’s that as much as his subsequent resignation that made him an eternal hero to the Senate.

        • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
          3·
          7 months ago

          To be fair until Augustus there was a particular taboo in Rome of coming off as kinglike, being one guy and making a point of stepping on the Senate’s toes was a VERY fast way to get yourself killed, see also The Gracchi Brothers and Marius.

          Romans hated anything to do with royal aspiration so much that one of their most sadistic pleasures was to watch the former royals of newly conquered lands be forced to march in the victory parade of the lead general of the conquest before being ritually strangled. It took being a literal child for the Roman public to hold back from gleefully jeering you for having been a monarch, nevermind being willing to ask for you to be spared from being killed.

          Basically just imagine a several centuries long stretch of peak Robespierre paranoia about anything to do with potential plots on kingly aspirations and you can see why some guy deciding to take state business on himself, especially state business that can earn a lot of public support, would be seen as a dictatorship worthy crisis to the Roman Senate.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        5·
        7 months ago

        Washington was elected in 1788 and re-elected in 1792. However both were unanimous, unopposed, and done solely by the electoral college. Adams/Jefferson in 1796 was the first proper election, after Washington set the 2-term precedent and relinquished power. That precedent was maintained until FDR served four terms during the First World War sequel, which led to the drafting of the 22nd Amendment to the US constitution limiting presidents to two terms in 1947. It was ratified by 36 of the 48 states in 1951.

        Also while trying to remember the dates I read Section IV of the 20th amendment. What the fuck is this word salad? Is this the original “Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??”

        The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          7 months ago

          The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

          Commas were expensive back then.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        3·
        7 months ago

        He was facing heavy domestic and international pressure as well as sanctions on the country. He didn’t do it out of honor.