this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
553 points (93.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36511 readers
2260 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ddplf@szmer.info 71 points 2 days ago (6 children)

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?

[–] drthunder@midwest.social 2 points 9 hours ago

The ruling class was able to get along well enough up until the US Civil War, at which point the slavers decided they were willing to tear the country apart to keep on slaving. I include this because the Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow and how we did things over here. Fascism started bubbling up in the early 20th century because industrialization and capitalism polluted everything and made people work awful hours and all that, and liberalism and conservatism hadn't fixed it. There was a serious coup attempt forming in the early 30s called the Business Plot, but they went to a war hero Marine general who told them to fuck off and told the federal government about it.

At least in the US, we're in this situation now because authoritarians have been working toward it since the 60s (the Powell Memo was written in 1971 I think) and they've taken advantage of how terribly the Constitution is written, along with consolidation of wealth and stoking backlash to all the civil rights movements to get people to back them. The worst part is that it's a feedback loop: since Reagan took power, Republicans campaign on "look how bad the government is!" and make the government worse once they're in office, which feeds their cause.

tl;dr capitalism makes living conditions terrible, people abandon liberalism and conservatism for socialism/communism/etc and fascism, liberals don't want much to change, fascism lives or dies based on how much conservatives sell out to/ally with them. The fact that we're doing this all again shows to me that liberalism is a dead ideology and capitalism is going to kill us if we don't kill it first.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 109 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The founders probably imagined no self respecting person, oligarch or otherwise, would want to live under authoritarian rule.

Turns out the 21st century bourgeois is full of pussy ass bitches.

[–] rhombus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

They never could have imagined our modern society at all. The amount of power and influence held by just a handful of private citizens couldn’t have been accounted for in the 18th century.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I'm just speaking from a matter of principle. They don't have to know the conditions to conclude living under a kings rule in any condition is unappealing.

[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 13 hours ago

I mean they waged a bloody revolution against Kings, and inequality has increased a thousand-fold since, so wtf are we doing?

[–] alleycat@lemmy.world 60 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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 not let it get this far. Tough shit for the US, though.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 36 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ddplf@szmer.info 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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).

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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. 🙃

[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 18 hours ago

If they hadn't capped the number of representatives at 435 over a hundred years ago, we wouldn't be in the situation where a vote from Wyoming carries 3.7 times more weight than a vote from California. By my math, if the 435 cap was abolished, we would have 143 more electors generally sprinkled among the more populous states. I still agree that the EC is outdated, but it's not even operating the way it was designed.

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.

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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)

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If people democratically voted to end democracy, what are we suppose to do?

[–] Forbo@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tamal3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The rest of the world doesn't deserve it...

[–] Bz1sen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Well some part of the world wanted this and did a lot to achieve this. But yeah, most don't deserve what's probably to come