I am given to understand that provisions in the Patriot Act make it possible for an election to be cancelled in case of an "emergency". I don't know details but this is one of the fears for the 2020 election that haunts my mind.
Periodically I check into the Brexit thread here, and then back out in utter dismay and bewilderment. I can hardly bear to see a country I visited only once, briefly, but which is the source of so much cultural wealth, so damaged. And then turn to see the wreckage that's been mounting at my back . . .
Here's a prediction: there will be no elections in November of 2020. Don't ask me how or why or when: I just think the Republicans are going to do away with any possibility of losing their death-grip on us.
Firstly Article 2i of the Constitution limits the term to 4 years and the 22nd Amendment limits a President to 2 terms. Secondly to change either of those requires a 2/3rds majority in both House and Senate, AND confirmation by 3/4s of the States.
Mind you, Trump can cause enough chaos in the time he may have legitimately.
The Constitution also has an emoluments clause, a 25th amendment, and various other so-called checks and balances. Note that nothing gets in the way of drumpf enriching himself at taxpayer expense, etc. The Constitution means absolutely NOTHING to these people. NOTHING. And they have an army at their beck and call.
Congratulations, America. You're just like everywhere else.
Only better.
I reckon that on just about every measure, Australia poos all over the USA on a per capita basis. Certainly on measures of livability, you guys obviously suck, although there are variations from State to State. If ever any paradise was ever build on the bodies of the original inhabitants, it is here. You guys have screwed your paradise totally. There's always a chance to turn it around. Where there's life there's hope, but really I think the rot set in when you invented a game that requires helmets and padding to play and something like a million people sitting on the interchange bench. Fair dinkum, give it up and watch a decent bloody sport.
That video is from 2015 and a bit tiggy touchwood. This is a docco about the greatest grand final in my life. I'd been drinking at a BBQ for about three hours when this happened. They should put my on the Supreme bloody Court. Brereton kicks a goal just after this finishes. You will never watch another game of pussies in pads if you watch the rest of the film.
There is a difference between changing the four year term of office (which does require constitutional change), compared with invoking the 25th Amendment, or impeaching Trump re emoluments or anything else (which do not require Constitutional change).
Short of a nuclear war, there will be a Presidential election in 2020.
You are quite right about the constitutional disdain, particularly over separation of powers. It's true that previous presidents have pushed the boundaries re separation of powers, but Trump blatently ignores these boundaries in many of his tweets and rally addresses.
This opinion piece from The Atlantic is the best article I've read about Trump and his deplorables -- and the most terrifying. Cruelty is the Point
From the article -
“Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.”
This is the truth.
But still I ask - why? Why does it make them feel united, why does it make them feel proud?
When ‘my people’ are being cruel I speak out against it. I had to do a lot of that in staff rooms in the 70s. Much less now, thankfully.
This opinion piece from The Atlantic is the best article I've read about Trump and his deplorables -- and the most terrifying. Cruelty is the Point
Powerful stuff. I think seeing Trump mock Ford at one of his rallies was pretty chilling and scary, I had echoes of Streicher. But I'm not sure about cruelty being the key thing - surely, in relation to the Ford case, that is that women are second class citizens. I suppose it is a bit different from the Anita Hill case, who was labelled "nutty and slutty", there is a veneer now over the misogyny.
I don't know if US women are feeling despondent now, or angry, or what. But it seems impossible to stop now, a luta continua, the struggle must go on.
The point about theoretical and actual freedoms and protection is key here. There is a very obvious parallel in healthcare: In the name of freedom, American legislators continuous block the development of proper healthcare. Trust me, people with access to healthcare are a lot more free than those who do not have it. It's much easier to pursue your own life when you're healthy...
I don't think Trump has any real ideology other than a belief in Trump himself but he is very happy to fan the flames of division and corporatism if it serves him.
We face the same battles in the UK. The language of freedom used for economic enslavement.
What will it take for parts of the the US (ie California) to reach the conclusion that their future would be better OUTSIDE the US than inside? If (say) abortion and same-sex marriage were made illegal, would California (and possibly other places) decide "enough is enough"? Is is all conceivable that the US could splinter?
Not being a US citizen, I thought that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion would devolve upon individual states. It's often said that about 24 states would illegalize it, but not all would. Of course, some states already place considerable obstacles before women wanting an abortion.
I don't know if Trump really cares, but presumably owes a debt to those Christians who voted for him, and are pro forced birth.
Hey, for all those folks who were worried that Brett Kavanaugh would be some kind of partisan political actor after he was elevated to the Supreme Court I have good news!
President Trump will ceremonially swear in Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at a prime-time event in the East Room of the White House on Monday evening.
The ceremony follows perhaps the most contentious confirmation battle for a Supreme Court nominee in history and the administration is using Monday evening to show voters they can make good on its promises.
You were right.
Good to know that with the Court starting the second week of its new session and Kavanaugh already behind from missing week 1 he still has time to help Republican electoral prospects, as any impartial, non-partisan jurist would.
Well then. I reckon that told us. Been at another 3-hour BBQ, Simontoad?
Actually, Ohher, the incident happened at the start of the game, so I had only been drinking for about three hours at that point. The gathering would last a long long time after that. I was working nightshift at a servo at the time, saving up for a year overseas in 1990. This meant that I would usually take myself off to bed early on, and then get up later to continue the fun. Those particular friends used to call me the Lay-down Lad. We were mostly harmless. I do remember watching all of that game though.
Sorry for attacking the USA, even if only comparatively. I do love the place and am looking forward to meeting fictive-family and friends there in November.
Taylor Swift coming out as voting for the Democrats, and why, all this quite to the astonishment of some who had cast her as an icon of the far-right ('blonde white girl, growing up on a Christmas tree farm in rural Pennsylvania'; WaPo).
After they had the cloture vote I was done. All I heard other than Collins were soundbites.
Well what I heard from some people, overwhelmingly Democrat senators, was a robust plea to respect the integrity of the SCOTUS, one of whose values is its nonpartisanship. A very few Republicans made speeches along these lines, and a very few Democrats were nastily partisan.
But in my view those who have had their asses handed to them here are the American people, not the Democrats.
I have little doubt Kavanaugh has a fine legal mind or that he will do his job conscientiously by his own lights, although I would not expect personally to agree with his opinions (I don't think I'm an originalist), but his behaviour under oath and his temperament cast a shadow over the Court.
I've been looking at the National Review for the last few weeks. I got onto it because the conservative Yankee commentator Philip Adams interviews weekly is on the editorial board. It has almost but not quite been wall-to-wall Kavanaugh, but I did the old coffee-spit this morning when an article about how much the conservatives are upholding the Separation of Powers temporarily 'graced' my screen. Does anyone know where to get a cheap smartphone? Someone took to mine with a sledgehammer...
One of the points I picked up from the hearings is how the GOP are overturning Democrat-leaning legislation by systematically challenging it through the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court where a Republican majority can ensure it's undone.
I hope she has a current passport and friends and a future career in Canada. I heard the triumphalist sleaze and thought of Margaret Attwood, and the last century's drinking gourd.
I saw a few clips of Trump's speech prior to Kavanaugh's swearing-in on the Guardian's website - they're just rubbing it in, now, aren't they? It all seemed like one big, huge, "We won and you didn't and now we're going to rub your nose in and remind you how much you lost". So nasty and spiteful, it just looked designed to gloat over Ford, her supporters and all those who opposed Kavanaugh's becoming a judge.
But then, that is the way of Trump, the Republicans and their supporters it seems.
I saw a few clips of Trump's speech prior to Kavanaugh's swearing-in on the Guardian's website - they're just rubbing it in, now, aren't they? It all seemed like one big, huge, "We won and you didn't and now we're going to rub your nose in and remind you how much you lost". So nasty and spiteful, it just looked designed to gloat over Ford, her supporters and all those who opposed Kavanaugh's becoming a judge.
But then, that is the way of Trump, the Republicans and their supporters it seems.
Yep.
There is a hashtag for this: #MakeLiberalsCryAgain.
I've got a response to that: Luke 19:41-44. I fully intend to engage any Christians who support Trump on their own terms. It's easy to do and I think the most appropriate response to the misappropriation of the Name of Jesus.
I don't get the whole Christians voting for Trump thing. I suppose a lot of them are aiming for a forced birth regime, (laughingly called pro-life), plus white supremacy, homophobia, and misogyny. Basically, the stuff that Jesus talked about!
There's a few PHD's that are going to come from this Presidency. Some might even come from our divinity schools. I think the German institutional church went through an agonizing process of self-examination after WW2. I only jokingly compare Trump to Hitler, and I really do believe that everything will be all right, so the devastation of post-war Germany isn't an apt comparitor. But maybe this experience will cause American Christians to undergo a similar process.
By the way, I think Pinochet's Chile or Argentina's Dirty War is a closer comparison to a Trump nightmare scenario than Hitler's Germany. It is truly a horrible and frightening scenario and I really don't think it will go that way. It would be a nightmare scenario for the world too if the US focuses on itself with murderous intent. The field would be vacant for China, and we are the field.
I read that over and feel an urgent call to prayer.
Yes, Simon Toad, although there are "pre-fascist" indicators about Trump, I don't think he is a fascist a la Hitler, but with Pinochet or the Dirty War, that sounds closer. Mind you, fascism is not easy to define - I would start with the incorporation of many functions into the state apparatus, hence very top-down. I would think there would be plenty of opposition to that. Other indicators are ultra-nationalism, suppression of opposition, persecution of minorities, misogyny. Now I feel depressed, it sounds like half of Europe.
There's a few PHD's that are going to come from this Presidency. Some might even come from our divinity schools. I think the German institutional church went through an agonizing process of self-examination after WW2. I only jokingly compare Trump to Hitler, and I really do believe that everything will be all right, so the devastation of post-war Germany isn't an apt comparitor. But maybe this experience will cause American Christians to undergo a similar process.
By the way, I think Pinochet's Chile or Argentina's Dirty War is a closer comparison to a Trump nightmare scenario than Hitler's Germany. It is truly a horrible and frightening scenario and I really don't think it will go that way. It would be a nightmare scenario for the world too if the US focuses on itself with murderous intent. The field would be vacant for China, and we are the field.
I read that over and feel an urgent call to prayer.
I think you're probably about right with your parallels. So many in the West seem to think the world's been at peace since 1945, just because Western Europe and the North Atlantic has. Never mind, Eastern Europe, South America, Africa, the Middle East etc... The scary thing for many is with a country that is as huge and powerful as the US, instability is dangerous for everyone else. There are some who, given the US's foreign policy for the past decades think they will benefit from this (Begins with "R" and ends in "ussia" and probably Iran and a whole host of other places...).
For me who (probably still) self-identifies as an evangelical (UK version), the complicity, cravenness and base selfishness of the churches that support Trump is the most disturbing part of all this. Not that I haven't seen it coming. The so-called 'Christian Right' has been neither Christian or right for quite a while now. My reference to Luke 19, is that if they want to play the 'biblical card,' I can play that game too. And much better. At the heart of all this is the same heresies - bad ideas never seem to die. Whatever you may think of Luther and the Reformation, he was right about the corruption of the (Catholic) church. The church debased itself for earthly wealth and power. The irony that most evangelicals would define themselves as 'bible-believing' and opposite to the Catholic church in how they approach their beliefs, is not lost of me. Though, I suspect it is lost of them. The health/wealth gospel dates even further; at least to Job; bad ideas never seem to die.
Having defined themselves as 'Moral opponents of all that is wrong...' they have a huge blindness. Couple that with the pull of (my 'self-made and earned') wealth and power and you have a recipe for a very earthly and powerful religion that has almost nothing to do with Jesus.
I remember that the historian Simon Schama called Trump an entertainment fascist, which is a bit opaque. But he listed the usual criteria, massive lies, threats of criminal action against opponents, demonization of racial minorities, authoritarian. Still, so far, it's pre-fascist.
Not being a US citizen, I thought that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion would devolve upon individual states. It's often said that about 24 states would illegalize it, but not all would. Of course, some states already place considerable obstacles before women wanting an abortion.
I don't know if Trump really cares, but presumably owes a debt to those Christians who voted for him, and are pro forced birth.
We are there. So there. But there are difficulties associated with that (see Civil War). So it depends on just how committed we are-- are we willing to lay down our lives, our blood?
Not being a US citizen, I thought that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion would devolve upon individual states. It's often said that about 24 states would illegalize it, but not all would. Of course, some states already place considerable obstacles before women wanting an abortion.
I don't know if Trump really cares, but presumably owes a debt to those Christians who voted for him, and are pro forced birth.
We are there. So there. But there are difficulties associated with that (see Civil War). So it depends on just how committed we are-- are we willing to lay down our lives, our blood?
Quite possibly.
I would think that Trump would proceed quite slowly. I don't think he would launch a barrage of attacks on women, as the response could be massive. But who knows, he may be feeling triumphant, after Kavanaugh. Also, he seems to be angling towards the "men are innocent victims" line.
Actually, the key criterion of fascism is the revolutionary (and violent) overthrow of government. Not true of Trump.
Nor of Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Why is that considered a key criterion of fascism again?
Are you saying that the Nazis and the squadristi (blackshirts), didn't use violence to enforce authoritarian rule?
I'm saying they didn't violently overthrow their governments. Mussolini became prime minister at the invitation of Victor Emmanuel III. Hitler was made Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg. In other words, they seem to be the exact opposite of revolutionaries. As for the use of violence, isn't the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence the defining characteristic of any state, authoritarian or otherwise?
Actually, the key criterion of fascism is the revolutionary (and violent) overthrow of government. Not true of Trump.
Nor of Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Why is that considered a key criterion of fascism again?
Are you saying that the Nazis and the squadristi (blackshirts), didn't use violence to enforce authoritarian rule?
I'm saying they didn't violently overthrow their governments. Mussolini became prime minister at the invitation of Victor Emmanuel III. Hitler was made Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg. In other words, they seem to be the exact opposite of revolutionaries. As for the use of violence, isn't the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence the defining characteristic of any state, authoritarian or otherwise?
But they both then formed one party authoritarian states, with the suppression of opposition. Anyway, o/t, but Trump is not there (yet).
Bad case of moving the goalposts here. First "violent overthrow" is claimed, then "violent maintenance of regime" as if to prove wrong those who refuted (accurately) "violent overthrow." Those aren't the same thing.
Actually, the key criterion of fascism is the revolutionary (and violent) overthrow of government. Not true of Trump.
Nor of Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Why is that considered a key criterion of fascism again?
Are you saying that the Nazis and the squadristi (blackshirts), didn't use violence to enforce authoritarian rule?
I'm saying they didn't violently overthrow their governments. Mussolini became prime minister at the invitation of Victor Emmanuel III. Hitler was made Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg. In other words, they seem to be the exact opposite of revolutionaries. As for the use of violence, isn't the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence the defining characteristic of any state, authoritarian or otherwise?
Yes, to the final question there. If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, and the White House was subsequently stormed by a bunch of alt-right militamen seeking to force her out of office and put Steve Bannon in the chair, the only thing stopping the coup would be the willingness of the US military to resist the coup plotters with armed force. Not the disembodied powers of liberty, social justice etc.
Now, yes, someone could say that the loyal soldiers were protecting the Constitution, which is not, in and of itself, a military entity. However, the Constitution stays in effect partly because there ARE people willing to protect its pre-eminence with weaponry and violence.
Bad case of moving the goalposts here. First "violent overthrow" is claimed, then "violent maintenance of regime" as if to prove wrong those who refuted (accurately) "violent overthrow." Those aren't the same thing.
But the violent maintenance involved shattering the prevailing system of governance, leading to a one party dictatorship, a corporate state, armed gangs, and so on. Isn't this an overthrow? I think Lenin argues somewhere that they can preserve existing forms for a period, and then carry out a revolution, partly by taking over state power.
Comments
The Constitution also has an emoluments clause, a 25th amendment, and various other so-called checks and balances. Note that nothing gets in the way of drumpf enriching himself at taxpayer expense, etc. The Constitution means absolutely NOTHING to these people. NOTHING. And they have an army at their beck and call.
Should have said I recall history lessons about the isolationists.
I reckon that on just about every measure, Australia poos all over the USA on a per capita basis. Certainly on measures of livability, you guys obviously suck, although there are variations from State to State. If ever any paradise was ever build on the bodies of the original inhabitants, it is here. You guys have screwed your paradise totally. There's always a chance to turn it around. Where there's life there's hope, but really I think the rot set in when you invented a game that requires helmets and padding to play and something like a million people sitting on the interchange bench. Fair dinkum, give it up and watch a decent bloody sport.
That video is from 2015 and a bit tiggy touchwood. This is a docco about the greatest grand final in my life. I'd been drinking at a BBQ for about three hours when this happened. They should put my on the Supreme bloody Court. Brereton kicks a goal just after this finishes. You will never watch another game of pussies in pads if you watch the rest of the film.
There is a difference between changing the four year term of office (which does require constitutional change), compared with invoking the 25th Amendment, or impeaching Trump re emoluments or anything else (which do not require Constitutional change).
Short of a nuclear war, there will be a Presidential election in 2020.
You are quite right about the constitutional disdain, particularly over separation of powers. It's true that previous presidents have pushed the boundaries re separation of powers, but Trump blatently ignores these boundaries in many of his tweets and rally addresses.
This isn't the place for 'My country's better than your country' brawls, Simon Toad.
</host hat off>
Cruelty is the Point
Cute game for average sized men, and fun for the ladies too!
From the article -
“Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.”
This is the truth.
But still I ask - why? Why does it make them feel united, why does it make them feel proud?
When ‘my people’ are being cruel I speak out against it. I had to do a lot of that in staff rooms in the 70s. Much less now, thankfully.
I'm assuming that you missed fineline's warning to Simon Toad about that tangent. Please do not continue it further.
Eliab, Purgatory host
Powerful stuff. I think seeing Trump mock Ford at one of his rallies was pretty chilling and scary, I had echoes of Streicher. But I'm not sure about cruelty being the key thing - surely, in relation to the Ford case, that is that women are second class citizens. I suppose it is a bit different from the Anita Hill case, who was labelled "nutty and slutty", there is a veneer now over the misogyny.
I don't know if US women are feeling despondent now, or angry, or what. But it seems impossible to stop now, a luta continua, the struggle must go on.
The point about theoretical and actual freedoms and protection is key here. There is a very obvious parallel in healthcare: In the name of freedom, American legislators continuous block the development of proper healthcare. Trust me, people with access to healthcare are a lot more free than those who do not have it. It's much easier to pursue your own life when you're healthy...
I don't think Trump has any real ideology other than a belief in Trump himself but he is very happy to fan the flames of division and corporatism if it serves him.
We face the same battles in the UK. The language of freedom used for economic enslavement.
AFZ
What will it take for parts of the the US (ie California) to reach the conclusion that their future would be better OUTSIDE the US than inside? If (say) abortion and same-sex marriage were made illegal, would California (and possibly other places) decide "enough is enough"? Is is all conceivable that the US could splinter?
I don't know if Trump really cares, but presumably owes a debt to those Christians who voted for him, and are pro forced birth.
You were right.
Good to know that with the Court starting the second week of its new session and Kavanaugh already behind from missing week 1 he still has time to help Republican electoral prospects, as any impartial, non-partisan jurist would.
Less than 2 years later, those folks are validated.
The left should be in a frenzy, cause they've had their asses handed to them as far as the Judiciary goes.
After they had the cloture vote I was done. All I heard other than Collins were soundbites.
It was all rather draining really.
Actually, Ohher, the incident happened at the start of the game, so I had only been drinking for about three hours at that point. The gathering would last a long long time after that. I was working nightshift at a servo at the time, saving up for a year overseas in 1990. This meant that I would usually take myself off to bed early on, and then get up later to continue the fun. Those particular friends used to call me the Lay-down Lad. We were mostly harmless. I do remember watching all of that game though.
Sorry for attacking the USA, even if only comparatively. I do love the place and am looking forward to meeting fictive-family and friends there in November.
Interesting.
But in my view those who have had their asses handed to them here are the American people, not the Democrats.
I have little doubt Kavanaugh has a fine legal mind or that he will do his job conscientiously by his own lights, although I would not expect personally to agree with his opinions (I don't think I'm an originalist), but his behaviour under oath and his temperament cast a shadow over the Court.
AFZ
But then, that is the way of Trump, the Republicans and their supporters it seems.
Yep.
There is a hashtag for this: #MakeLiberalsCryAgain.
I've got a response to that: Luke 19:41-44.
AFZ
By the way, I think Pinochet's Chile or Argentina's Dirty War is a closer comparison to a Trump nightmare scenario than Hitler's Germany. It is truly a horrible and frightening scenario and I really don't think it will go that way. It would be a nightmare scenario for the world too if the US focuses on itself with murderous intent. The field would be vacant for China, and we are the field.
I read that over and feel an urgent call to prayer.
I read that and found it disturbing. Even more so was the one linked to in it, by Megan Garber, about his mockery of those who oppose him. Venomous man. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/10/trump-mocks-christine-blasey-ford/572005/
I think you're probably about right with your parallels. So many in the West seem to think the world's been at peace since 1945, just because Western Europe and the North Atlantic has. Never mind, Eastern Europe, South America, Africa, the Middle East etc... The scary thing for many is with a country that is as huge and powerful as the US, instability is dangerous for everyone else. There are some who, given the US's foreign policy for the past decades think they will benefit from this (Begins with "R" and ends in "ussia" and probably Iran and a whole host of other places...).
For me who (probably still) self-identifies as an evangelical (UK version), the complicity, cravenness and base selfishness of the churches that support Trump is the most disturbing part of all this. Not that I haven't seen it coming. The so-called 'Christian Right' has been neither Christian or right for quite a while now. My reference to Luke 19, is that if they want to play the 'biblical card,' I can play that game too. And much better. At the heart of all this is the same heresies - bad ideas never seem to die. Whatever you may think of Luther and the Reformation, he was right about the corruption of the (Catholic) church. The church debased itself for earthly wealth and power. The irony that most evangelicals would define themselves as 'bible-believing' and opposite to the Catholic church in how they approach their beliefs, is not lost of me. Though, I suspect it is lost of them. The health/wealth gospel dates even further; at least to Job; bad ideas never seem to die.
Having defined themselves as 'Moral opponents of all that is wrong...' they have a huge blindness. Couple that with the pull of (my 'self-made and earned') wealth and power and you have a recipe for a very earthly and powerful religion that has almost nothing to do with Jesus.
AFZ
You what?
Or more precisely; to what are you referring?
AFZ
We are there. So there. But there are difficulties associated with that (see Civil War). So it depends on just how committed we are-- are we willing to lay down our lives, our blood?
Quite possibly.
I would think that Trump would proceed quite slowly. I don't think he would launch a barrage of attacks on women, as the response could be massive. But who knows, he may be feeling triumphant, after Kavanaugh. Also, he seems to be angling towards the "men are innocent victims" line.
Nor of Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Why is that considered a key criterion of fascism again?
Are you saying that the Nazis and the squadristi (blackshirts), didn't use violence to enforce authoritarian rule?
I'm saying they didn't violently overthrow their governments. Mussolini became prime minister at the invitation of Victor Emmanuel III. Hitler was made Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg. In other words, they seem to be the exact opposite of revolutionaries. As for the use of violence, isn't the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence the defining characteristic of any state, authoritarian or otherwise?
But they both then formed one party authoritarian states, with the suppression of opposition. Anyway, o/t, but Trump is not there (yet).
Yes, to the final question there. If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, and the White House was subsequently stormed by a bunch of alt-right militamen seeking to force her out of office and put Steve Bannon in the chair, the only thing stopping the coup would be the willingness of the US military to resist the coup plotters with armed force. Not the disembodied powers of liberty, social justice etc.
Now, yes, someone could say that the loyal soldiers were protecting the Constitution, which is not, in and of itself, a military entity. However, the Constitution stays in effect partly because there ARE people willing to protect its pre-eminence with weaponry and violence.
But the violent maintenance involved shattering the prevailing system of governance, leading to a one party dictatorship, a corporate state, armed gangs, and so on. Isn't this an overthrow? I think Lenin argues somewhere that they can preserve existing forms for a period, and then carry out a revolution, partly by taking over state power.