this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
536 points (92.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36511 readers
1496 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jason@discuss.online 7 points 1 hour ago

We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.

Joseph Goebbels

[–] Merlwyb673@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

This is the result of ever-expanding executive power.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 21 minutes ago) (1 children)

Couldn't keep a:

34 count felon

Child rapist

Fraudster

Tax dodger

Draft dodger

Grifter

Deadbeat

Wife beater

Philanderer

Classified documents thief

Obstructionist

Out of office... so why would they be able to keep a Nazi out?

[–] Emerald@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 59 minutes ago (1 children)

Tax dodger

and draft dodger lol

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 21 minutes ago

Forgot that. Added.

[–] fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The US government is not (and has never been) against fascism for ideological reasons. Fascism and American-style democracy go hand in hand quite well. Our government fought a war against fascists because they disrupted the global trade status quo and threatened US economic prosperity and that of our primary trade partners.

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Technically even the time we did it only officially after the fascists declared war on us first. It was all lend lease, etc before that.

[–] squid_slime@lemm.ee 8 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] Letsdothis@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

What do you mean by "nazi"

[–] T156@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

Normally, it would be the electoral system that would act as the check. But otherwise, it doesn't put any other limits based on political belief and affiliation (other than having allegiances to other political powers). If the majority wanted to elect someone who wishes to abolish the democratic election system, then that is what they will get.

That's possibly for the better. Being able to bar given political alignments or affiliation from office would either need to be so specific so as to be useless (a modern nazi typically has little directly to do with the original), or be broad enough that it'd be a dangerous thing, since it could be used in either direction.

[–] tiny@midwest.social 19 points 7 hours ago

The Constitution assumes the people through the ballot box or through protest would clean up any issues like that

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 27 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

It has impeachment. The list of reasons for impeachment are (quite possibly intentionally) vague. But it has to be done through Congress.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 16 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And when the nazi controls Congress you know how far that'll go.

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's rather obviously flawed in light of the current situation, but that is the mechanism that exists in the constitution.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago

That is true. I can't argue that.

[–] Joeffect@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You mean for the guy who was already impeached twice... And still voted for to be president?

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Well the mechanism for preventing criminals who shit all over the constitution from getting reelected is supposed to be people not voting for him. There's not really much a constitutional democracy can do about voters being fucking morons. Kind of an inherent flaw in the system.

[–] CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

How do you build a system that doesn’t depend on voters not being morons? Everything I can think of, up to and including full-on authoritarianism, has human shittiness as a glaring weak point. The founding fathers assumed that people would, for the most part, act in good faith, and it kept us going for a couple hundred years, but all that is starting to fall apart.

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 hours ago

I am not arguing in favor of authoritarianism or against democracy, to be clear. Just saying there is an inherent risk that if you give the common people power, the common people might do something dumb with it. I'm not aware of a system that removes that risk without other considerable downsides. There are other democratic governments that have fewer structural issues than the US, but none of them prevent the whole "sometimes, voters are very dumb" thing.

[–] Joeffect@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Well the only vast ocean we have left is space... Time to build some ships and make a new country free from all the bullshit... We can do it better this time!!!

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

The problem is he won the election.

The vote is the final check and balance.

49% of Voters are either sympatico or stupid.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And that's the problem with the US election system. In basically any other developed democracy, there are ways to call a new special election. The four years are often the max between elections, not the minimum.

If a new leader proves unpopular, you toss them out and install a new one.

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

But Trump hasn't proven unpopular; that's why he won reelection. If the ruling party has a majority and the PM has their party's support, nothing would happen in most other systems either.

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

The popularity of both of the imperial genocidal candidates is the result of centuries of conditioning and the collapse of the education system and free press. It's a cyclical problem. We vote them in, they keep us stupid, we vote them in again.

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The popularity of both of the imperial genocidal candidates is the result of centuries of conditioning and the collapse of the education system and free press. It's a cyclical problem. We vote them in, they keep us stupid, we vote them in again.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't say he was. Just saying if he did such crazy things that even the crazies drop out, he could be removed. That's extremely hard in the US. You're basically stuck with the moron for four years.

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 hours ago

In theory, if he went so far over the line that he became very unpopular, then Congress members would fear for their reelection chances if they didn't publicly break with him. But with him attacking democracy itself, Congress may be more afraid of him than they are of voters. It's a deeply troubling time.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

The problem is also that the Republican party is a fascist party, so the other check, impeachment, is thoroughly useless.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Fifth columnists love FPTP. It minimises their workload.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Ironically, these are the times the electoral college was supposed to avoid. Also denounced political parties as corrupting. Still likely to have been coopted by now, but the design was to combat lack of education, lack of information, and/or propaganda.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 19 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

We really only have the Second Amendment. I am now on a list.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 8 hours ago (11 children)

Yeah, with every other cool person.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›