What would be the best way to build a dictatorship in the usa? The president obviously has little way of doing this

What would be the best way to build a dictatorship in the usa? The president obviously has little way of doing this.

Go back in time and convince Washington to stay president for life when it was offered to him.

Set up a MacArthur scenario, but instead of having him drawn out in hearings have the citizen population surge forth to the validity of his plans.

It would be extremely difficult. The American constitution and tripartite system of government is intentionally and very cleverly designed to prevent a dictatorship. You would have to dominate or neutralize at least 2 separate branches of government, plus maintain ironclad control over the military, which pledges allegiance to the constitution and not to any man or government.

make america so impoverished that people are starving or find a source of wealth more important than citizen productiveness

Increase nationalism, create a culture that believes the constant false accusations about the opposing party are believed with no evidence so when your party does it it will go unquestioned, stoke fear and uncertainty so people give up freedom for security readily, deny science, and move wealth from the middle class to the upper class to ensure that everyone except the elite is desperate and destitute.

Tocqueville mentioned at some point that the American Congress will stand until it realizes that it can bribe its own electorate with its own money. That also reminds me of Obama at some point saying "What matters about a government isn't how big or how small it is, but if it works". Well then, what system is more efficienet than a dictatorship? What you'd need is a charismatic presidential candidate that represents (or at least claims to represents) the lowest classes, the proles, the downtrodden, the victims of the economy, whatever whatever. His entire platform will be "a more fair society". He will want to greatly expand government competences in order to create a "more fair society". If Congress blocks him, either have the candidate have a lot of control in the party, or have his party see the merits of bribing the poor with the money of the rich. In more radical cases (this is perhaps end game shit), you can have the president complain openly about how corrupt, dysfunctional and "unfair" congress is. Have him complain about the intervention of the big bad companies and how all skepticism about "muh small gubmint" is not based in legitimate classical liberalism but in protecting the interests of the companies. Then, when the people are riled up enough against congress, have said presidential candidate organize a referendum to abolish congress altogether, or to reduce their power so much they're basically there for show. Then have him have a referendum to extend his presidency another term, because Roosvelt did it so why not him? Then another, and then a referendum to get rid of term limits altogether. By then the institutions of the state are already so concentrated and so bloated (because "muh fair society, muh redivision of wealth) that he can simply abolish elections without any difficulty.

t. lawfag who had an Ameriboo professor.

And not just the dictatorship of one man, but a tyranny of the majority or the corruption of any branch of government, as the Federalist Papers show quite clearly.

Basically the vast majority of the population would have to abandon the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and current system of government entirely.

You may accuse me of being /pol/, but opening up the borders and pardoning illegal immigrants is potentially a very important step in this. Like it or not, but most immigrants from Mexico to America have below average wealth. This allows the bloating of the supposed "victims of the economy" (read: allows expansion of loyal voting cattle).

>what system is more efficienet than a dictatorship?
Dictatorship is one of the least efficient forms as everything needs to go through one person.

We already have, every amendment except the second is a joke right now.

>It would be extremely difficult
For you.

Do you have any soldiers living in your house against your will? No? Then it's working fine.

>Basically the vast majority of the population would have to abandon the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and current system of government entirely.
Not per se. America has this problem a lot less than many countries in Europe (parliamentary systems especially [as opposed to presidential systems like America, or France in Europe]), but the US constitution (and pretty much every modern constitution except the German one) was not made with modern style political parties in mind (and even then Germany only forbids political parties from joining the Bundestag if they have

Military coup, or someone use the "state of emergency" excuse to take the power. It's not going to be easy though

>SHE WOOOON IT ISNT FAIR

If you didn't have the freedoms you claim you don't have you wouldn't be allowed to have said that

Win the retard 4 way civil war scenario as anyone but the pacific states.

this, people forget how much Washington was loved when he was around. He could have totally pulled it off.

>mfw French Communard tanks blitzing through the American Union while Sydicalist Mexico invades the Pacific States
Feels good man

Military coup against a government they view as illegitimate that leads to a marriage between the Executive Branch and the military high command. The Commander-in-Chief emphasizes commander over chief.
Power of Congress and/or Senate gets reduced to being little more than an advisory committee, and judges are replaced by patsies for having 'revolutary' (or 'counter-revolutionary' based on your flavour of dictatorship) sympathies/ties.
If you can find way to consolidate power under one of the three branches of government you might have a plausible route of abolishing or subverting the other two- at least for fiction.

>We already have, every amendment except the second is a joke right now.

What did he mean by this?

Become a major corporation, now you control the entire country.

You're describing problems with parliamentary systems, of which the US is not one. The US system was expressly designed to avoid the problems of parliamentary systems such as those found in the UK. Madison, Hamilton, Mills, et al.

If as many people voted as bitched afterwards maybe you wouldn't have Trump now.

>Allowing all the southern part of your country to be conquered by mexican.

Just a syndiecuck thing.

>You're describing problems with parliamentary systems, of which the US is not one
True, but that doesn't mean presidential systems are immune to this. Party politics is slowly taking over presidential systems as well. Two examples:
1. Obama spent a lot of his time whining about how bipartisanism ruined his presidency because Republicans hate him. Sounds like parties in America are getting stronger.
2. Look at France, and how much shit Macron was able to reform at such a rapid pace with next to no opposition. Do you think that's entirely unconnected to the party he founded having the majority in the Assemblée?

Powers are still a lot better divided in presidential systems, but the stronger political parties get the less that matters. The only advantage is that it's theoretically possible to have one party dominant in the legislative chamber and another dominant in the executive because presidents have an independent democratic mandate, but as we've seen recently in both France and the US it's also clearly possible for the executive and legislative to be of the same color despite independent democratic mandates.

The first point goes against your argument and is historically consistent with what has happened in the past. It's nothing new.
The second point is about France, whose system is very different from the US system.

The tripartite system in the US creates centres of power within each of the three branches which are usually in conflict with each, even when the highest positions are within the same party. It uses human nature (the worst of human nature) as balancing forces, which is explicitly what the Founding Fathers wanted.

The illustrate this point, witness the daily battles between the president (Trump, of the Republican party) and the Senate Majority Leader (Mitch McConnell, also of the Republican party). Not to mention the confrontations between the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, who are also both ostensibly "of the same party" but hate each other's guts.

The Republican has one of the strongest locks on all three branches of government (and majorities in state governors and houses too) yet has been unable to pass a repeal of Obamacare or a DACA amnesty. This shows how fragmented power is within the US system and how hard it is to achieve total control even by a party that dominates the whole system.

Establishing a one-man dictatorship within such a system would be impossible. The whole system would have to torn down somehow, perhaps by a massive nuclear war or alien invasion.

Almost there.

If that person is a dick or just incompetent it all goes to hell. And there is no way of always getting decent competent monarchs.

ask AIPAC

Efficient isn't the same thing as competent though.

In USA you builds dictatorships in other countries to protect your freedoms.

For starters, the big difference between France and the US in this regard is mostly that France is a unitary state rather than a federal one, which is entirely irrelevant in the discussion of (horizontal) separation of powers. And the fact that France ALSO has a prime minister, which is supposed to internally separate the power of the executive with the PM being loyal to parliament and the president having a direct democratic mandate but I digress. Secondly
>The illustrate this point, witness the daily battles between the president (Trump, of the Republican party) and the Senate Majority Leader (Mitch McConnell, also of the Republican party).
That's mostly in-party conflict. A candidate of X party that has a strong grip on said party and has that party mostly represented in the legislative chamber de facto controls both branches of government, and the US is by no means immune to this. Again, the constitution doesn't even mention parties because when it was written parties (at least in their modern incarnation) weren't a thing.

Like I already mentioned earlier, US parties are weaker than European parties and that's a good thing, but unless Americans actively work to keep it that way (and the way I'm seeing it they're actively wroking to not keep it that way) the potential of one or a group to have two branches of government on lockdown grows exponentially. Personally I think political parties in general are cancer and we somehow need to create a system that can function without them.

how the fuck is this traditional games

Become beloved by all and declare yourself emperor. Worked once before. Though not in that order.

All hail Norton, Emperor of all the Americas and Protector of Mexico.

Northon really stood no chance, what with him going out on his way to be an Emperor of all inhabitants of the US, including the nonwhite ones.

The fact that you can sit here and bitch about is proof otherwise.

I love it when these kinds of people bitch and freak out about "total dictatorships" or some total powerhouse totally against them yet there they are, allowed to yell and riot all they want.

I mean would neonazism exist if jews actually had as much power as they are bitched about having, the same with femenists. If you are a rebel group hellbent on destroying the totalitarian dicktatorship then how the fuck are you even allowed to stay alive, one would think if these unified totalitarians existed they would be putting these loudmouth assholes out like candles.

Hitler was an insider if the elite ( they aren't Jews but atheists) and gone rogue' so yes its possible

>The president obviously has little way of doing this.
Looked at the news lately? He's got a pretty good way of doing this, and it's called Twitter.

This, and really drive home the us vs them mentality of superficially different major political parties. Make the political system more and more of a caricature of it's checks and balances roots. Continue until you can make people rabidly willingly to elect the worst representative in decades to just not have the superficially worse opponent elected. Have the winner act so monstrously stupid and self destructive that the next president can 'save' the country by doing away with the broken system of the Executive branch.

The third amendment is still pretty strong, although the first and second have been under constant attack for a while, and the others can be ignored at will.

Eh, the citizen vote is essentially a popularity contest that runs concurrent with the actual election being conducted by the electoral college, whom are under no obligation to actually do as the voters wish.

Which actual makes it more shocking that Clinton lost, given she has absolutely no qualms about cheating, and has connections in addition to comparable money to Trump.

>I mean would neonazism exist if jews actually had as much power as they are bitched about having
Of course they would. It's not really that uncommon to have people that disagree with the system, even if said system is tyrannical.

Except Twitter, as a private company, could just remove his account at any time.

Yeah, I'm sure silencing the PotUS would be good publicity for Twitter and definitely wouldn't result in a loss of consumers.
The electoral college ceases to exist in the electoral cycle after it plays kingmaker, especially in an election ad contentious as the last. People's faith in the system is already at historic lows, and there would have been problems if someone as divisive as Hillary was crowned despite the results of the vote.