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 country just elected this guy knowing that this is what he would do. That’s democracy.
Efficient propaganda is not democracy
But gullible people voting or not certainly is.
I’m told three marked bullets work wonders.
So, giving the public a means of dealing with tyrannical leadership, either through intimidation or something more, is literally and unironically one of the intended use cases for the second amendment. That’s not to say you won’t face prosecution, but there it is.
we have systems for putting people like him in jail but we just didn’t want to do it
We have the second amendment, but I don’t know how bear arms will help.
ARM THE BEARS!
BEAR FLAG REPUBLIC!
Not really.
In some countries, they have this idea of Defensive Democracy which would allow the government (via court ruling) to ban political parties that are deemed to be a threat to democracy.
In post WW2 Germany, the nazi party was banned, and later a “far-left” (aka: Marxist-Leninist) political party was banned during the cold war, because they meet Germany’s definition of being anti-democratic.
Unfortunately, the US constitution does not have this concept of Defensive Democracy.
I mean we do have impeachment… but we all know how that is (doesn’t work at all).
You say “unfortunately” but do you really trust the GOP with this kind of power?
Had the defensive democracy been in place after the civil war, we could have banned Confederate symbolism, the Dixiecrats and the then Democrat party.
A new conservative party would probably have been created.
The problem with any government system is that it’s still operated by humans. It would have become corrupted but hopefully with a system in place to overturn the corruption.
Had the defensive democracy been in place after the civil war, we could have banned Confederate symbolism, the Dixiecrats and the then Democrat party.
And then accomplished what? I mean many more people should’ve been executed or spent their life in prison, that’s for sure, but after the civil war there wasn’t a threat to democracy to defend against.
I’d say there definitely was a threat to defend against, because shortly after the end of Reconstruction, the Klan effectively suppressed the vote of black people in the South and they couldn’t vote for a hundred more years.
That seems outside the scope of the conversation. Remember that we were talking about defensive democracy; the Klan thing was straight up terrorism and not an issue of anti-democracy positions being allowed in politics.
PS: I just learned about this today while looking things up for this convo so I might be overlooking something or straight up wrong.
I mean, if implemented properly, it can work.
Do you think Germany should legalize nazi salute and swasticas, because of “potential abuse” of the power that was used to ban those things? (Those things mentioned are currently illegal in Germany btw).
I mean there’s no right answer here, but do note that the same power of the state to ban Nazi symbolism and rhetoric is also used against pro-Palestinian activists, and this is from a perfectly democratic Germany. If people like the AfD come into power expect many more kinds of speech to become illegal.
The mechanism was the election.
I mean, sure, impeachment and whatnot, but it’s not like people didn’t know who this guy was. I can give other institutions a whole bunch of crap for not getting rid of the guy the first time, but when you’ve given him a Supreme Court supermajority, both chambers of Congress and the presidency AFTER he attempted a coup I’m gonna say that’s on you, guys.
The mechanism was the election.
NSDAP was elected.
Exactly my point.
The mechanism was the election.
That’s making the very bold assumption that there was no interference in said election. In fact, we know for a fact that there was, we just don’t know the extent of the interference and whether it changed the outcome. The reason we don’t know is because it wasn’t investigated (or if it was, it wasn’t publicized), so I’m going to take the stance that it’s very possibly on the outgoing administration, actually, for not making a bigger stink about it.
we just don’t know the extent of the interference and whether it changed the outcome.
We do.
There was close to zero in the polls. (Democratic and Independent poll watchers would’ve reported that, and I’m not seeing any of such reports)
The real interference was the far-right propaganda funded by unrestricted spendings thanks to Citizens United ruling.
We’ve always had interference, its just that now its getting more and more extreme, especially after Citizens United, exacerbated by modern technology (like social media that people use almost 24/7).
There was also rampant disenfranchisement prior to the election, whatever Trump’s comments about Elon were referring to, and the bomb threats on election day, just to name a few. Maybe it all amounted to literal nothing, maybe it changed the outcome, but I don’t think we’ll ever know. Trump did a fantastic job of priming the country for 8 years to consider claims of election interference to be wild conspiracy theories and made the democratic party unwilling or unable to question anything without sounding like loons, so here we are.
interference
If system relies on candidates not using legally allowed methods of advertisement (aka ‘propaganda’) that are deeply ingrained into every field of media and commerce, then probably there’s a problem with the system in the first place. Many popular musicians, games or products gained popularity by the same kind of ‘propaganda’ working by the same mechanics yet people were always okay with that.
See, you think that doesn’t make it sound like desperate deflection after having handed the country to the nazis, but it does. I was here during the campaign, I saw how that went.
Nah, man, there is no amount of interference that justifies Trump having a fart’s chance in hell of not losing every single state in a country unwilling to hand the keys to these guys 1932-style. Beds were made, sleeping in them is to happen.
It just sucks that the rest of us are under the covers getting dutch ovened as well.
Nah, man, there is no amount of interference that justifies Trump having a fart’s chance in hell of not losing every single state in a country unwilling to hand the keys to these guys 1932-style.
Let’s say, hypothetically, Trump had personally walked into every polling place, took every ballot that was cast and replaced them with copies that included a vote for him, and then waved his hand Jedi Mind Trick style and made everyone who knew it had happened immediately forget. Obviously this amount of interference would cause him to win the election regardless of how voters voted.
This is obviously an absurd example, but the point I’m trying to make is, saying ‘No amount of interference justifies this outcome’ is similarly absurd and simply normalizes and discounts the interference that took place.
There were certainly a surprising and disheartening number of people voting for Trump, but we will likely never know what the outcome would have been if there hadn’t been any fuckery going on.
Yes we do. This election has no more evidence of being stolen at this point than the previous one did when the nazi weirdos were banging that drum. You’re free to do the MAGA rounds, though, but I doubt you’re going to get the same traction. Don’t quite see anybody storming the MAGApitol at the moment.
Not that it changes anything, because you let it happen and now it happened, so the end result is the same, however you want to cope with whatever part of responsibility you personally have on the matter.
We’re ignoring the constitution already.
14th Amendment. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The man is an adjudicated insurrectionist. Congress just ignored their duty.
So yes, there “are” protections. Said protections are simply being ignored.
Can’t be a very good protection if it can just be ignored. I was under the impression that in the US, the constitution is strictly executed, though it looks like even that is a lie
People who say they follow the Bible are usually lying too. And anything that’s allowed to be left up to interpretation and still be called “law” is bound to be corrupted when convenient and ignored when convenient.
It’s like the ICC and UN. They just make suggestions. Whether they are followed or effectively enforced depends on who’s in the dock.
The problem with 14th amendment is that the people who wrote that never specified an enforment mechanism. So we don’t know how to properly invoke it. Any attempts to invoke it would just result in the supreme court spontaneously “invent” a method of enforcement. They could say that the supreme court get to decide if someone is ineligible, then rule that trump is eligible because the supreme court doesn’t have enough evidence to prove trump was involved in Jan 6, or just declare Jan 6 to be a “protest” not insurrection.
I mean “No man shall hold office who committed insurrection” seems like a mechanism in and of itself. Dude just can’t run/be on a ballot. We just have two branches of government bought and paid for by the insurrectionist and America’s richest and most fanatical scum who refuse to follow the law.
I mean “No man shall hold office who committed insurrection” seems like a mechanism in and of itself.
Who decides who is an insurrectionist?
Simple majority in Congress? Well then Congress can just outlaw the minority party
Supermajority in Congress? Well look at the senate vote for the second impeachment. That doesn’t work either.
Courts? They have a 6-3 supreme court.
States? Then we end up with red states blocking democrats from the ballot by falsely declaring them to be insurrectionists.
Public Opinion? How do you even measure that? Voting? Well look at November 5th.
Criminal conviction of insurrection? Well trump never got convicted of anything involving insurrection.
So here we are…
100 years? We very nearly reached 250.
Op is referring to 100 years of “upkeeping democracy”. I guess he was able to pick 100 from 250.
Impeachment, but that starts with a 218 vote in the House and the House is on his side.
deleted by creator
So you actually need majority to PREVENT the collapse of democracy, and if you don’t have it, you’re fucked? How the fuck did this country even manage not to succumb into dictatorship for such a long time?
If people democratically voted to end democracy, what are we suppose to do?
People democratically sat on their asses and didn’t bother to fucking vote. More people abstained from voting than actually voted for either candidate. The real winner of the election was apathy. We deserve whatever fucked up outcome we get.
Worse… The House makes the impeachment charge, that’s a 50% majority vote.
THEN it goes to the Senate for conviction where you need a 2/3rds majority to remove them. 67/100.
That’s the body which can’t do anything because they’re blocked by a 60 vote super majority to over-ride a filibuster.
So you get 218 in the House, goes to the Senate, needs 60 votes to end debate and proceed with charges, then 67 votes to convict and remove.
Trump’s first impeachment got 48 and 47 votes.
His second was 57 votes.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
If he had been convicted, he would have been inelligible to run in '24.
If enough people in a democracy decide that they want a dictatorship instead, then there is no stopping it, because rules don’t matter at this point. The trick is to don’t let it get this far. Tough shit for the US, though.
I mean imagine if you could impeach the president without a majority. That would be the death of democracy. Just to put things in perspective: The GOP democratically won both houses of Congress and the presidency and because of DNC incompetence also has the Supreme Court. Them being able to do whatever the fuck they want is, in a way, democracy working as intended. It’d be weirder (and much more undemocratic) if there was a way to remove a sitting president without the Supreme Court or Congress.
It’d be weirder (and much more undemocratic) if there was a way to remove a sitting president without the Supreme Court or Congress.
Turns out there is, in fact. It just doesn’t involve governmental process at all. You’re quite correct that it’s undemocratic. (See: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy)
This only proves that two-party system is just an authoritarianism with rotation. There’s always a ruling majority and the winner takes all.
Things would be different with at least the third party. 2 out of 3 parties would agree that the party no.3 is a fucking malice and rule him out.
Two party system wasn’t in the constitution, its an emergent property of FPTP voting method. FPTP + Electoral College means we get this fucking bullshit.
TLDR: There’s no “two-party system”, that’s just the result of FPTP. Nuke the FPTP system, replace with Ranked-Choice ballot (and also delete the Electoral College, that shit is outdated AF).
Very much on the electoral college, it made some measure of sense when the electors would have to ride a horse from California to DC maybe but that died a century or so ago.
From a smart ass perspective though, I just want to point that the TLDR portion actually has more words than the block above it. 🙃
From a smart ass perspective though, I just want to point that the TLDR portion actually has more words than the block above it. 🙃
Lol I started to use “TLDR” as a replacement for “In Conclusion”, because the concluding paragraph is supposed to summarize what you wrote anyways, so those terms are interchangeable.
Third party would most likely make things better but there’s no guarantee it would help in the situation you’ve set up. If two of the parties are fine with an actual Nazi in the White House and between them they control over half the votes then we’re still in the same situation.
Well the country didn’t previously have a legion of mouth breathing retards screaming at the top of their lungs about micro-aggressions and declaring that the nation was illegitimate. I’d also question your metrics for deciding now that he’s an openly Nazi dictator, other than parroting what you hear from other
peoplesocial media accounts.Yes it had, and that legion even stormed the fucking capitol.
I believe this is where the second amendment comes into play. Luigi was on to something.
The mechanism is impeachment. It’s broken because of polarization.
The USA has had a literal Nazi party since the 50’s. If they let George Lincoln Rockwell run for president while calling himself a nazi why would they do anything?
Maybe there’s an assumption that it’s not 1950, it’s 75 years later now. But if people don’t really know their history, they are doomed to repeat it. As an American, I feel that the average ordinary citizen is not very educated in history. And no wonder, how we treat the education system in this country.
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime?
Well you’d need 60; 53 is enough to do a lot but you can’t amend the constitution or override filibusters.
Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?
Usually when the army “saves the day” by removing a democratically elected president undemocratically we call that a military coup and it’s considered, to put it lightly, a bad thing.
America isn’t at all volatile as a democracy; as you surmised, it’s on the robust side (sans nonsense like citizens united). However, there’s not much that can be done when the anti-democracy guys won democratically not just the presidency, but also all government posts that would be able to stop them.
