• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      The US political system has countless weaknesses, but Trump has shone a light on one of the deepest weaknesses inherent to all democracies — what happens if/when the majority support fascism, authoritarianism, a holy war to genocide X, etc (not the case atm, but Trump having more than 1% of the vote is insanity).

      You could argue that moral citizens should take up arms against tyranny, but that appears to be what the majority of MAGA’s believe they are doing, and would be anti-democratic, so you’re ultimately just hoping that the more moral and ethical are better at slaughtering the least moral and ethical — not much of a failsafe if you ask me.

      I guess my point is that I’m not surprised we have no evidence of other intelligent life, and the great filter preventing universal colonisation seems to simply be life itself…

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The majority don’t support it. Fascists never do. They get by with about 20% of the population directly supporting them, another 10-20% having reservations but being more afraid of leftists removing their cushy position in a stratified society, and a final 10% or so centrists who vote for their side because they voted for the other side last time.

        Trump lost the popular vote both times, and only got in once because of a poorly conceived electoral college system. The German Nazi Party got 44% of the vote in 1933–much of that with voter intimidation–and then an old guy with a family title handed him the chancellorship. Mussolini never had a vote in his favor at all–his party led violent protests against the existing Prime Minister, and the King handed the job over to Mussolini.

        They don’t win at democracy. They win by exploiting holes in the democratic process and the failure of liberalism to make things better for people.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s like the Paradox of Intolerance. In order to remain free and democratic, we need to disqualify candidates who would take away that freedom and would void our democracy. Not even counting all the myriad of crimes he’s been guilty of, just based on his words and his platform, he should be disqualified. We have to be intolerant of intolerance.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Philosopher Rainer Forst resolves the contradiction in philosophical terms by outlining tolerance as a social norm and distinguishing between two notions of “intolerance”: the denial of tolerance as a social norm, and the rejection of this denial.

      I think viewing tolerance as a social contract perfectly sums up this situation. We allowed Trump to run for president when he had said some crazy shit, but hadn’t yet tried to overthrow the government. As soon as that happened, the social contract was off. No do overs.

      • spider@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Trump acts like a mob boss, and Al Capone died in his Florida mansion of complications from syphilis.

        Wouldn’t it be great if history repeated itself?

    • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Definitely seems like he hurt himself gripping something. Caught a falling knife would make sense if he ate anything that required cutting. Maybe held a frozen railing and lost skin?

  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It’s the same group of dopes who have latched onto the ignorant “we’re not a democracy, were a constitutional republic!” who are now arguing that disqualifying candidates that the cotus disqualifies is denying them their right to vote for whom they want.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Always tell those people that we are a federal presidential constitutional republic or fpcr for short. Then tell them that is a form of democracy.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve debated it plenty, it appears they either cannot grasp the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy. I’ve even had plenty try to argue that directly electing the president (effectively a representative for the whole US on the world stage) would make us a democracy and no longer a representative democracy. lol

  • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    I love Steven Greenhouse. ‘Beaten down worked up’ set the groundwork for many discussions I had with my coworkers on worker rights. Also, he warns us against Niki Haley and her high heels.

    With that being said I think she is a larger threat to labor rights than any other candidate for the GOP. Trump being the largest threat to democracy.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unfortunately, I think Project 2025 is the equalizer when it comes to who is worst and why. As long as the Republicans are dead set on forming a christofascist dictatorship it may not matter which Republican dictator we hypothetically get for domestic issues. And I’m not confident that any of them would be better on international issues either.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you’re not worried about the 2025 stuff, look at the Supreme Court, how little it took to quickly and fundamentally shift that to a broken body with absolutely zero integrity - now times that dangerous transition with every single aspect of government.

    Your relatives who vote for trump are literally voting for the end of American democracy. They’ve had there’s, they are going to die sometime soon, and they are tossing a match over their shoulders into the gasoline soaked mass they created behind them.

  • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Imagine leaving the White House like Trump did, and to live in a place where this orange guy is a serious contender to occupy the presidency once again after four years.

    Maybe this democracy is not worthy of protection. With all due respect, American democracy may need way more than stopping Trump’s second term.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s not much of a solution, either. Don’t like what American democracy is doing now? Just wait until it doesn’t care about having pretenses to invade other countries, or even use nuclear weapons.

      • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sure as hell I will not try to fix the thing. It’s sad, but maybe Americans will have to do it to truly learn something this time. It’s not like the rest of the world feels safe with America’s attitudes towards war anyway.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Right now, however, I worry that the supreme court’s rightwing supermajority, in its anticipated rush to prohibit states from kicking Donald Trump off the ballot, will turn the constitution into a suicide pact.

    When the court considers that case, the six conservative justices might focus on their concerns about infuriating rightwing voters, their political soulmates, if they rule that the constitution requires that Trump be disqualified as an insurrectionist.

    He unarguably gave “aid or comfort” to the January 6 assault on the Capitol, which was essentially a coup attempt that sought to prevent the rightfully elected president, Joe Biden, from taking office.

    If the supreme court’s six rightwing justices allow Trump to stay on the ballot, they can do so only by turning their backs on the methods of constitutional interpretation that they have repeatedly trumpeted: textualism and originalism.

    But the two constitutional scholars who led the way in arguing that Trump should be disqualified – William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen – are highly regarded conservative members of the Federalist Society.

    In decades past, the US supreme court did not shrink from issuing decisions that offended and angered millions of Americans, whether it was enraging many white southerners by barring school segregation in Brown v Board of Education, or infuriating millions of women by overturning Roe v Wade, or angering a wide swath of Democrats by cutting short the vote count to deliver victory to George W Bush over Al Gore.


    The original article contains 1,569 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 85%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • theprogressivist @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Cry some more. The constitution was used to remove him. If you have problems with that, then take it up with the founding fathers. Per the 14th amendment, NO CONVICTION is required. Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY.

      • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY following the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic.

        All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.

        • theprogressivist @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Not if you’re a fucking insurrectionist. Refer to the 14th amendment. No conviction is required. Plain and simple.

        • StinkyOnions@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY following the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic. All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.

          So, per your own logic, the fundamental principles of Democracy require people to have representation and are subjected to the rule of law. So, with Trump being removed from the ballot using the 14th amendment, which, in your own words he is being subjected to the rule law. Which makes his removal Democratic? No?

          • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Yes, I’m being nit-picky. All I was trying to say was the original phrasing was “democracy at large says an insurrectionist cannot run for office” which is untrue. It is a US implementation of democracy specific case.

            Another country could have no restrictions on candidates and it would be completely democratic for an insurrectionist to run for office.

    • criitz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      We all saw everything that happened. The man tried to steal an election he lost and incited an insurrection. If you don’t believe that you’re captured by propaganda.

    • menthol@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      the man hasn’t been charged with a crime

      He has literally been charged with dozens of crimes. Have you been living under a rock? Do you just make shit up when you need to defend your orange garbage bag person?

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      the man hasn’t been charged with a crime.

      He’s been charged with 91 felonies and been found guilty of Insurrection in two courts in Colorado. He is not an innocent little snowflake.

      https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/17/colorado-judge-rules-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-can-still-run-for-president-00127909

      https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ruling

      Pretending he has not been charged is misinformation, and I’m removing this comment based on that.