What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Grey Fox]

Well I am religious and I consider religion extremely dangerous whenever it is mixed with politics. It drives me nuts that these religious right wingers are so big on opposing Sharia law but at the same time seem eager to create a political system where it could come to power if it just had enough supporters.

They oppose Sharia Law because it's in/come from the Coran & not the Bible, not because it's dangerous.

[celedhring]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

[crazy canuck]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

at some point it moves from democracy to theocracy.  Especially if "worship no gods before me" becomes interpreted as "elect no leaders who do not follow my teachings"

[Berkut]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

No, not at all.

At least, not in the Western sence of the word, where the rights of the individuals are protected from the will of the religious fanatics, even if they muster up a majority.

[crazy canuck]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

No, not at all.

At least, not in the Western sence of the word, where the rights of the individuals are protected from the will of the religious fanatics, even if they muster up a majority.

In theory yes.  In practice, constitutional rights are protected ultimately by a nation's supreme court which in turn depends on the small number of people appointed to that court.

[celedhring]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

No, not at all.

At least, not in the Western sence of the word, where the rights of the individuals are protected from the will of the religious fanatics, even if they muster up a majority.

They just need a larger or more persistent majority (to ultimately change the Constitution or at least get a sympathetic Supreme Court), but it still applies.

IIRC the US isn't a militant democracy (correct me if I'm wrong), so it can theoretically abolish itself.

[Habbaku]

IIRC the US isn't a militant democracy (correct me if I'm wrong), so it can theoretically abolish itself.

Trust me, we're trying as hard as we can.

[grumbler]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

No.  Religions don't "come to power" because they have enough supporters. I am not sure if it is even possible for a religion to "come to power," since I don't even know how a belief system could itself exert any sort of power. 

[11B4V]

The Keebler Elf is such putz.

[grumbler]

They just need a larger or more persistent majority (to ultimately change the Constitution or at least get a sympathetic Supreme Court), but it still applies.

No, because the US doesn't have constitutional rights, it has constitutionally protected rights (and other fundamental rights not expressly protected by the constitution).  Changing the constitution or its interpretation cannot change those rights. 

[Valmy]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

No.  Religions don't "come to power" because they have enough supporters. I am not sure if it is even possible for a religion to "come to power," since I don't even know how a belief system could itself exert any sort of power. 

I was talking about a code of laws. Laws can be empowered can they not?

[Valmy]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

One without a strong tradition of separation of church and state and separation. And I think it goes both ways. Religion needs to be protected from politics and politics needs to be protected from religion.

[Razgovory]

Isn't "a political system where it [religion] could come to power if it just had enough supporters" called "democracy"? 

No.  Religions don't "come to power" because they have enough supporters. I am not sure if it is even possible for a religion to "come to power," since I don't even know how a belief system could itself exert any sort of power. 

If I can make an Ad hom argument against libertarianism, then I don't see why other abstract concepts can't become corporeal and take office.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump was boasting on twitter about a Rasmussen poll showing him at 46%.  Things are not going so well when 46% is a great triumph.  Especially when Rasmussen has him down today at 44% and includes this tidbit:

The latest figures include 28% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 45% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17. (See trends).

I.e. his strong disapproval is higher than strong and weak approval combined.  And this is the pro Trump leaning poll.

According to Rasmussen, Trump hasn't had strong approval numbers over 30% since April.

[crazy canuck]

They just need a larger or more persistent majority (to ultimately change the Constitution or at least get a sympathetic Supreme Court), but it still applies.

No, because the US doesn't have constitutional rights, it has constitutionally protected rights (and other fundamental rights not expressly protected by the constitution).  Changing the constitution or its interpretation cannot change those rights.

Ok so there are rights in the abstract.  But if they are not protected by a constitution and interpreted by a court as being protected then what is their practical effect, other than quibbling on languish?