If a President has complete immunity

[schmonz]

So how are you going to vote him out if he straight up kills his opponents?

You cannot. Yes, that is a dictatorship then. Putins russia is no democracy, as you infact have no chance to take him out of office by anything else than a well deserved early death.

- - - Updated - - -

This is such an insanely simplistic view of "dictatorial" rule, since by your definition Putin is not yet a dictator. The fallacy that "There is still a democratic process" falls apart once you realize you can have that and still be under totalitarian rule.

Well, there is no democratic process. As Putin kills all opponents that could take his place.

[Polgara]

You cannot. Yes, that is a dictatorship then. Putins russia is no democracy, as you infact have no chance to take him out of office by anything else than a well deserved early death.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, there is no democratic process. As Putin kills all opponents that could take his place.

You are just adding your own hangups to reinforce you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Russia is still a "democracy", it just happens to be one held down by totalitarianism. Removing the "but it's not a REAL democracy!" just allows an easier avenue for people to excuse issues within the system itself.

Russia is a democracy, your argument is still flawed. Yes it's not the most "accurate" description, but how russia got to where it is requires us to understand that Democracy doesn't suddenly stop being because of a dictator, it's manipulated by such actors to wrest control. Putin CAN be voted out, it's insanely unlikely, but it is STILL possible. This, again, reinforces not that "democracy is some shining beacon on the hill", but another system we've devised and promoted while attempted to remain ignorant of its flaws.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Criminal immunity is a little insane and certainly does walk that dictator line. Immunity from like civil court level things makes a good bit of sense WHEN YOU ARE MAKING POLICY (not before or after term, if its a forever then dictator line again for sure). Because no matter what you do when making policy you probably screw over someone. Businesses might suffer. Individuals might suffer. Really no matter what you do some money could be lost etc. So protection there very specifically makes a little sense.

[LilSaihah]

At the end of the day I think it depends on whether the president is also the CIC and whether the military can't lawfully disobey orders from the CIC.

If it's both, yes; elections are basically only going to happen if they want them to happen. i.e. show elections.

[schmonz]

Russia is a democracy

Yeah. No. It is not. Putin is a goddamn fascist, mass murderer, and dictator.

[Polgara]

Yeah. No. It is not. Putin is a goddamn fascist, mass murderer, and dictator.

Yes, he is, but Russia still does "the bare minimum" that can allow it to be classified (rightly or wrongly) as "democratic". Your only measure that someone couldn't be a dictator is that they can be voted out. Putin can be voted out, insanely unlikely because you are right, he is a dictator. However, that means your first post was misinformed, and your "barrier" for what makes a dictator is flawed, since:

As long a president can be voted out of office he is no dictator yet.

How can what you say be true, when you've already set your boundaries to make it false? Make this make sense, without weaseling or word salads. Do you mean that a prime minister who can't be voted out can't be a dictator? I am literally only tying your two posts together to clearly understand how presidential immunity isn't dictatorial, because they can be voted out, but putin is a dictator who gave past presidents total immunity but can also be voted out?

In essence, Trump would very likely take the full reigns of dictatorial rule, and any ruling that gave presidents "full immunity" would be one of the biggest steps towards authoritarian rule: The president can't be held accountable, so all their decisions are, in essence, "correct".

[schmonz]

How can what you say be true, when you've already set your boundaries to make it false?

There is no "bare minimum" which makes russia any kind of democracy. That fascist Putin got 82% of the fake votes with noone really competing with him. And no, that is not because there is noone, that is because he killed his political opponents.

Cannot really believe you defend that criminal.

[Polgara]

There is no "bare minimum" which makes russia any kind of democracy. That fascist Putin got 82% of the fake votes with noone really competing with him. And no, that is not because there is noone, that is because he killed his political opponents.

Cannot really believe you defend that criminal.

You often believe things you just made up on the spot? That's an unhealthy world-approach. My points were articulate and clear, if you can't figure it out that's on your end to figure out. Sorry for wasting my time.

[Kaleredar]

You often believe things you just made up on the spot? That's an unhealthy world-approach. My points were articulate and clear, if you can't figure it out that's on your end to figure out. Sorry for wasting my time.

"Can be voted out" in the context of Russia is nonsense. It doesn't matter if the law says in theory he would be removed as president if Putin is free to ignore it, even were his sham elections to somehow not reelect him. The "well it might be a fake election and he could just ignore the results anyway, but it's still an election so technically it's a democracy!" is meaningless.

The fact that the elections are rigged means they're not "democratic."

[Polgara]

"Can be voted out" in the context of Russia is nonsense. It doesn't matter if the law says in theory he would be removed as president if Putin is free to ignore it, even were his sham elections to somehow not reelect him. The "well it might be a fake election and he could just ignore the results anyway, but it's still an election so technically it's a democracy!" is meaningless.

The fact that the elections are rigged means they're not "democratic."

This was the person's original post:

As long a president can be voted out of office he is no dictator yet.

In regards to the OP's question:

If a President has immunity doesn’t that make him a dictator?

I can not stress enough, that this is an extrapolation of the thinking that because someone CAN be voted out, they can't be a dictator. It's insanely unlikely (as I have already said) for Putin to be voted out, but it still can happen. I get reading 1 post is time saving but I thought it would be a simple continuity of logic? With full presidential immunity you can pretty much go full Putin.

To try and make this as absolutely bare-bones simple as possible: Presidential full-immunity is enough for me to call dictatorial rule into the fray. Being able to "elect" someone else does not make a system void of totalitarianism; I am also not saying Putin is some fearless democratic bastion that seems to also be a safe direction idiots may venture. No, I'm pointing out that you can't find some pseudo-singular position that separates "dictator" and "not-dictator", and elections is not that. For some reason, though, it's being attributed to me.

[Kaleredar]

This was the person's original post:



In regards to the OP's question:



I can not stress enough, that this is an extrapolation of the thinking that because someone CAN be voted out, they can't be a dictator. It's insanely unlikely (as I have already said) for Putin to be voted out, but it still can happen. I get reading 1 post is time saving but I thought it would be a simple continuity of logic? With full presidential immunity you can pretty much go full Putin.

So... Is your contention that Putin isn't a dictator, and that Russia isn't, in essence, a dictatorship? He can't be voted out, because the elections don't actually exist. It's just every so often the government of Russia makes up a number that they think makes Putin look big.

[Polgara]

So... Is your contention that Putin isn't a dictator, and that Russia isn't, in essence, a dictatorship? He can't be voted out, because the elections don't actually exist. It's just every so often the government of Russia makes up a number that they think makes Putin look big.

My contention that the claim "they CAN be voted out" is nebulous, at best. How would you vote out a president with complete immunity? Putin is evidence you can't, even though he only gave FORMER presidents that immunity, he "basically" has it. My point is, in context of the OP Trump with complete presidential immunity would be a dictator, same with Putin now. I don't logistically see how a ruler with total immunity wouldn't easily continue that reign. I want to know how it's possible, because elections are now shams. This is entirely in the scope of the OP's question OF total immunity.

I'm saying the words schmonz says isn't conducive to reality. I doubt a leader with total immunity is going to stand aside after a failed election, or even respect the establishment if they do not need to. My point as to "making shit up" was schmonz insinuating I would defend Putin, instead of asking for clarification if what I was saying wasn't as clear as I could be. Putin IS basically a president with "full presidential immunity". . . so Russia would be where a US president with full immunity would end up; the same path, even if there is a "chance" of some fluke election shift.

I am trying to make this as clear as I can, sorry if I am not, my english isn't the best, essentially "letting a leader have office immunity" such as presidential immunity is setting up a dictator. Whether or not they can be voted out after (since in this scenario they have immunity) is a short-sighted "stopgap".

[schmonz]

My contention that the claim "they CAN be voted out" is nebulous, at best. How would you vote out a president with complete immunity? Putin is evidence you can't, even though he only gave FORMER presidents that immunity, he "basically" has it. My point is, in context of the OP Trump with complete presidential immunity would be a dictator, same with Putin now. I don't logistically see how a ruler with total immunity wouldn't easily continue that reign. I want to know how it's possible, because elections are now shams. This is entirely in the scope of the OP's question OF total immunity.

Putin is a fascist not because he is immune, he is a fascist because he kills all of his political opponents and operates an oppressive regime in his home country. Everytime he opens his mouth he lies. He killed millions of people in the illegal attack war against ukraine. Before that he massacred the opposition in belarus. Before that he bombed hospitals in Syria.

He is a dictator because he installed a dictatorship in russia and not because he is "immune".

[Polgara]

Putin is a fascist not because he is immune, he is a fascist because he kills all of his political opponents and operates an oppressive regime in his home country. Everytime he opens his mouth he lies. He killed millions of people in the illegal attack war against ukraine. Before that he massacred the opposition in belarus. Before that he bombed hospitals in Syria.

He is a dictator because he installed a dictatorship in russia and not because he is "immune".

How is he able to do all that if there are checks and balances in place? There isn't, Putin IS entirely "immune" outside of a close confidant turning betrayer.

My point of contention is once you give a leader THAT power, dictatorial rule will be the inevitable next step: Even if you think you can "vote them out", and the US has a pretty shite record of instilling benevolent leadership, internal or external. The point, my boy, is that your original post that "you can vote them out so they aren't a dictator yet" is just being ignorant to what the OP was asking.

Putin has, effective, office immunity. Imagine Trump with office immunity, do you believe him to be some sort of benevolent rogue, or he'd give up power in 4 years like he did in 2020? I'm curious not in your definitions of things, I'm curious as to how you ratify "I can vote them out therefore not a dictator" with a leader who holds complete immunity due to the office they hold?

The thinking is incongruent: I'm not arguing "putin isn't a dictator, evil malevolent monster", I'm arguing that your bar of "If I can vote them out, they ain't a dictator" is woefully inadequate and is just preparing to instill a Putin.