You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.
Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?
I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.
The mechanism is the three branches of power providing checks and balances and voting. But when the people elect them to all three branches. It kinda defeats the purpose
Trump has admitted he rigged the election
Where did you hear that?
This is insane… But also his discourse is so incoherent that one could argue he was being sarcastic or something.
Don’t join the felon’s defenders. We’re in this deep in part because people dismiss what they don’t want to believe from him as jokes.
The insurrectionist is telling us his crimes. Bragging about them even. He’s proud of them.
Trump has said that Elon “knows those computers better than anybody … And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide”.
First of all, we know that to be false because we know Elon doesn’t know shit about computers. But, aside from that, there are multiple possible interpretations of what he meant, anything from “Elon rigged the election” to “Elon ensured the integrity of the election”.
My policy is “Don’t believe anything Trump says about anything”. I don’t change that policy when he says something that I want to believe is true.
Wanna see a letter from several computer science PhDs to Kamala Harris presenting plausible evidence that MAGA hacked the voting machines?
https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/letter-to-vp-harris-111324.pdf
That’s not what that letter says. It says that operatives may have gained access to the software used to count votes, and if that happened they may have been able to probe that software for weaknesses.
What it doesn’t say is that there was a subsequent, second breach of the voting machines in which doctored software was then installed.
It’s like someone gaining access to blueprints for a bank vault. Yes, that theoretically lowers the security of the vault, but it doesn’t prove that a bank heist has taken place, just that a heist is more likely to be possible now.
Okay so what do you do when the mob gets the blueprints for the bank vault, and then a few weeks later the Don brags about all the money he stole?
The Don who lies constantly about everything? Who didn’t even say “we stole the money” but more, “Elmo is good with bank stuff, and we have lots of money”? The same guy who wouldn’t know how to read a blueprint, and would probably just post a picture of the blueprint on social media to generate controversy and traffic? The Don who, if he actually had broken into the bank, wouldn’t be able to shut up about it, and would be bragging about it non-stop, probably by doing live-streams from within the bank vault?
You don’t assume that he hit the bank. You follow your normal security procedures, and check that what you expect to see in the vault is what you actually see in the vault. Then you just ignore the blowhard.
But the people in charge didn’t check. Harris was told to ask for a recount, and she didn’t.
If the people responsible for security won’t do their due diligence, drag is going to play it safe and assume they fucked up.
Also Benjamin Franklin said that he believed constitution should torn up and redone every 30 years. We shouldn’t even be using it 200 years later.
I know about Jefferson and his 20 year automatic sunset phase for laws at all levels, except for Constitutions, charters, and other founding documents that can be amended. Hadn’t heard that Franklin wanted to sunset the Constitution itself as well. Not sure that we would have lasted this long if Franklin had gotten his way there. I do think that Jefferson and Madison were on the right track with the federal, state, and local laws though. Tyranny of the dead and all that.
Are you ready for some tearing up and redoing of constitution now?
Do you really want to do that now knowing who would put an autograph there?
No, I’m ready for something else though are you?
I’m flattered, but I’m not in the mood right now. I’ll be in my corner worrying about constitution redoings…
Couldn’t keep a:
34 count felon
Child rapist
Fraudster
Tax dodger
Grifter
Deadbeat
Wife beater
Philanderer
Classified documents thief
Obstructionist
Out of office… so why would they be able to keep a Nazi out?
Depends how you define “instruments”. For example, there was a recent survey that we have something like 500 million, uh, instruments.
Congress removed a ban on arming and funding Nazis in order to arm Nazis in Ukraine, the last president violated domestic & international law to openly arm a genocide, and NATO has been openly pushing the Nazi agenda since its founding with Hitler’s former commander.
All that is to say, if you think it’s just a Nazi president or this is a recent change, you’re deeply underestimating how entrenched Nazis are in the current system, and you don’t appreciate just how many politicians are at least sympathetic to Nazis.
The system is not going to turn on itself and suddenly start fighting against the people who’ve crafted it to do this for the past 80 years. It can’t be reformed. It must be destroyed.
This is the result of ever-expanding executive power.
What do you mean by “nazi”
Well isn’t that the reason everyone uses on why America needs so many guns. So they can stand up to the government? But seems it ment standing up to a government giving more people rights not one taking them away.
Apparently that’s what America wants. You mean for a possible future where it’s a bad thing?
He knew it from the beginning. People didn’t listen.
I mean, did he propose a solution?
Yeah, don’t have political parties.
To some extent, political parties are naturally occuring . The group dynamics of a legislative body will naturally result in groups forming around specific issues and even philosophies. But there is definitely a strong argument to be made that we’ve made them far too official, and far too entrenched.
He also didn’t want to be president or have his face on money. They really just ignored the dude.
I guess ignoring Washington’s wishes foreshadowed what the US would eventually become.
Who would have thought a government created in model of a constitutional monarchy would do this?
Oh right, all the people who opposed the US constitution. People forget the Anti Federalists every time.
Except most of the Anti Federalists weren’t arguing against the specifics of the model, they were arguing against a centralized government at all. Which had literally just failed.
Next you’re gonna tell me a constitutional monarchy isn’t a centralized government.
It is though?
Correct.
I think they’re implying you’re making a distinction without difference. OP states the Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution, which was largely modelled after the constitutional monarcy of England. You clarified that they didn’t object based on the system’s model, but rather on the basis of all centralized government being bad. Their response is basically saying, yeah man, the Anti-Federalists were against centralized government , that’s what I said.
I am inferring that OP believes that they had the right of it in the first go, no centralized government is preferable to any centralized government, specifically because of how centralized governance encourages the consolidation of political power into parties.
I’m not nearly well versed in this time period to dissect that argument in detail, but I believe your rebuttal that their plan had been tried under the Articles of Confederation and found wanting, hence the whole debate about the Constitution to begin with, is a fairly succinct counterargument to the position I am sketching out on their behalf (read as: the strawman I have set up).
All of which is to say, I’ve expended entirely too much mental bandwidth on this interaction and need to go touch some grass for a bit.
We have the Bill of Rights which limits the government’s authority.
To be fair, that’s a piece of paper. If the President violates that and isn’t impeached then there’s nothing physical to stop him.
This guy has been impeached twice and convicted of 34 felony charges. So we actually need something physical to stop him.
HAHAHAHHAHAAH
you were making a joke, right? Because Trump right now is using the constitution and the bill of rights and everything like it in his personal bathroom as toilet paper.
We’re 2 days in and it’s already a giant shit show world wide and we have 4 more years to go.
You better brace yourself for what’s coming
He’s got to golf at some point.
That is what the people of america want. They look at what bernie sanders offered, said he was a radical commie totalitarian terrorist and went for trump overwhelmingly." You are fucked in the head as a people and you absolutely deserve your country to be a shitshow cause you like it that way.
But who will wield these instruments? It’d be more relevant if he made an effort to hide his nature before the election.
Right now the majority voted fascism with open eyes.
The army or the police should immediately jump in and arrest Elon after the second salute, when it became obvious the guy knew what he was doing. And yet he saluted 3 times and half the country is extremely enthusiastic about that.
I thought it was twice? I mean, that doesn’t detract from your point, and I don’t even disagree. I just want to make sure the details are set straight.
I saw a full clip on reddit. First time was just as bad, because he did it spontaneously, with no “throwing hearts”. He just heiled out of nowhere.
America doesn’t have a law forbidding the Nazi salute. It’d be against the first amendment.
The right to free speech is faulty if there are no repercussions from breaking the law.
Again, the first amendment protects the right to free speech and association; as far as American law is concerned, Elon didn’t break any laws.
Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. You said that forbidding a Nazi salute would be against the first amendment. I’m only saying that IF Nazi symbols were to be outlawed then the freedom of speech should not equal to freedom from breaking the law.
IF Nazi symbols were to be outlawed then the freedom of speech should not equal to freedom from breaking the law.
It does, though, because such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect lawful speech; it protects all speech and the American government just barely carved out an exception for inciting violence. These amendments are part of the constitution, which stands above and restricts the rest of American law. If you made a law saying that Nazi symbols were illegal, your law would (at least theoretically) be illegal and struck down in court and people would retain the freedom to use Nazi symbols. You might take issue with that, but if only legal speech was allowed then… the government could just make any speech it doesn’t like illegal.
You talk about amendments as if they couldn’t be amended.
… and half the country is extremely enthusiastic about that.
There’s the reason nothing is done about it. It’s probably not actually half, but enough people didn’t speak up early enough, and so this has become the loudest voice in the room. Unless, and until that changes, the whole world is in for a rough ride.
This isn’t Germany where they can just arrest nazis. First amendment (unfortunately) also apply to hate speech. 🤷♂️
You’re calling for military generals to have the power to remove the government? Effectively a military dictatorship?
That seems unwise.
Elon isn’t a government official, there would be nothing unwise about arresting him for things most people would get arrested or at least questioned by the police for.
Yes they do, but why bring this up now? No President has claimed to be a Nazi. Trump is a big supporter of the Jewish state.
Yeah, he’s not even likely to annex Austria in a foreseeable future. And he doesn’t seem to have claims on Sudetenland either.
So no, not a nazi, nuh uh, nazism is only when perfectly replaying the Third Reich mission.
They mean ‘fascist’. Fascists are not automatically anti-semitic.
2A
Assuming American is a democracy is the first mistake. killing the native population, viewing non land owners, poc and many more as lessors. Let’s not forget who wrote the constitution.
I don’t think you know what being a Nazi looks like.
