I genuinely believe that his supporters are hardened enough that if he tried it he'd have the support. The only thing that would prevent him from doing so is his lack of will to do it.
I think Trump being a businessman rather than a general who seems to also have been significantly affected by having front-row seats to the aftermath of 9/11 would be a far less brutal or bloodthirsty emperor than anyone else who might want to apply for the position.
That is one of the reasons I think if it's anyone it should be him: because any alternative I can think of would be far worse.
What is it other than dictatorship if you can choose between globalists and globalists. What makes an actual revolution currently not justified, even in theories that allow for a right of revolution, is that peaceful means of regime change have not yet been exhausted.
I genuinely believe that his supporters are hardened enough that if he tried it he'd have the support.
Trump's enemies made many comments and signals that they will destroy America into a communist hell-hole should they win. It is not hard to find people who are willing to die and kill to make sure that Trump's enemies does not win.
I don't think it really comes down to a matter of will.
You could have the will to do a thing but still decide that it is not the best choice.
There's an argument to be made that, as bad as the democrats are, maintaining his power is simply no important enough to do something that would very likely plunge the country into a bloody civil war.
(Of course you could also make the argument that we're better to get that over with now than accept the slide into a progressive-authoritarian dystopia.)
He could feel that the violence is just not worth it.
I suppose you could say that comes down to a matter of will, but it doesn't feel that way for me.
I have the will to do a lot of things that my better judgement vetoes. A matter of semantics I guess.
I genuinely believe that his supporters are hardened enough that if he tried it he'd have the support. The only thing that would prevent him from doing so is his lack of will to do it.
I think Trump being a businessman rather than a general who seems to also have been significantly affected by having front-row seats to the aftermath of 9/11 would be a far less brutal or bloodthirsty emperor than anyone else who might want to apply for the position.
That is one of the reasons I think if it's anyone it should be him: because any alternative I can think of would be far worse.
What is it other than dictatorship if you can choose between globalists and globalists. What makes an actual revolution currently not justified, even in theories that allow for a right of revolution, is that peaceful means of regime change have not yet been exhausted.
Trump's enemies made many comments and signals that they will destroy America into a communist hell-hole should they win. It is not hard to find people who are willing to die and kill to make sure that Trump's enemies does not win.
I don't think it really comes down to a matter of will.
You could have the will to do a thing but still decide that it is not the best choice.
There's an argument to be made that, as bad as the democrats are, maintaining his power is simply no important enough to do something that would very likely plunge the country into a bloody civil war.
(Of course you could also make the argument that we're better to get that over with now than accept the slide into a progressive-authoritarian dystopia.)
He could feel that the violence is just not worth it.
I suppose you could say that comes down to a matter of will, but it doesn't feel that way for me.
I have the will to do a lot of things that my better judgement vetoes. A matter of semantics I guess.