Not that I’m advocating for it, but it’s completely legal for Biden to order the assassination of Trump and Vance. So yeah, US democracy is dead.
I hope the American people will resist any draconian measures there are bound to be, whether with civil unrest or other forms of protest.
resist any draconian measures
Really bro.
I bet you wore a mask and took a dozen jabs during that pandemic and like being a sheep.
No it isn’t and it never was.
Supreme court said it was if it’s an official act
Yeah, but who decides what’s an official act? I think that ruling was only ever meant to benefit republicans
The Supreme Court does, they just said that
Exactly. This makes the entire thing a joke.
The court will decide acts are official when convenient (read: supports their guy).
The Federalist Society needs to be outlawed as a terrorist organization.
Add the Heritage Society and most social media to that list
An assassination isn’t “an official act”, plain and simple. The Supreme Court ruled on one specific case. They allowed it then. A different case could be ruled illegal. Which it would 100% be done, be it a republican court, a democratic court, or some magical unbiased one from fairy land.
That isn’t how the Supreme Court works. An insurrection isn’t an ‘official act’ either btw but here we are. I recommend you look into court precedent.
Ok correction, it’s not legal, the president can just never be punished for it, as he is immune in order to act swiftly and boldly or whatever the fuck the SC came up with as an excuse to make America a Christo-Fascist state.
Not true, the Supreme Court decides it on a case by case basis. And murder of a political opponent would land Biden in jail faster than you can say “one Missisipi”. And rightfully so. That’s why he didn’t do anything of the sort - because he is not a criminal.
I’m not saying that he should be doing it or that it makes sense. But no, it is very clear from the decision that he would be immune. He has absolute immunity for core powers and presumed immunity for all official acts, which the court left very vague, but didn’t deny would include assassinating political opponents. The dissenting opinion made it very clear that this was the case.
With that said, in some way you are right. If Biden did it, it would be appealed and the SC would rule that in this specific case he isn’t immune, whereas if Trump did the same, it would be appealed and they would rule that he is immune. Because the SC is corrupt and doesn’t care about precedent.
The decision they made wasn’t a precedent, they allowed it as a case-by-case basis. So Biden wouldn’t be able to point to Trump and say “he did it! So it’s legal!”.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts
Just to add some more fun quotes:
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
With just a couple more assassinations, they might be more cooperative!
When you figure out that the United States was established by wealthy white males who owned slaves, had a revolution due to “no taxation without representation” but then purposefully ignored to repent the 99% until major reforms over the years, it makes sense.
The first set presidential elections were only voted by a handful of Americans. Not the women. Not the slaves. Not the natives who were here first. The landowning white men.
When we claimed England is a tyranny but abolished slavery and gave universal aufferage before we did, I think we lost that argument. America was built by out of touch white men, and it has always been ran by out of touch white men.
Rebecca Latimer Felton, the first woman elected to the US House, “spoke vigorously in favor of lynching African Americans, under the pretense of protecting the sexual purity of European-American women.”
I’m not above being petty, so lemme just say she looks exactly as I expected.
Bang on. She really does.
Like a fucking old troll filled with nothing except for hate?
His last name is Trump! Actually I don’t know what they used to call him before but this is his last one hopefully.
This implies that Trump is a Lich. That is a terrifying thought.
It’s amazing the stories that Americans tell themselves about the American Revolution. They pretend that the “founding fathers” were heroic idealists standing up for honorable values against an evil despotic regime. The truth is much more complicated.
A major goal of the 7 Years War was about controlling the colonies in the Americas. Had the French won those wars, the modern people of North America would probably speak French. Look at how many US places still have French names, and especially are named after the French king: Louisiana, Louisville, St. Louis, Mobile, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Detroit, Lafayette, Arkansas, Illinois, Calumet, Decatur, Boise, Montpelier, etc. But, the French lost the war, so the English took over all that territory. Fighting that war was incredibly expensive, but it was worth it for the English because they now controlled a whole new continent with all its resources. To pay for that war, they levied taxes. The English colonists in the US, who were largely the beneficiaries of that part of the war, decided they didn’t want to pay those taxes, so they rebelled. They got the benefit of a continent won for them by English armies, but without having to pay the bill for that fight. Now, again, it’s complicated. The English armies were integrated with the colonial armies. George Washington was initially an officer in the British army (and was part of starting the French and Indian wars, which became the 7-years-war). The US colonists were part of the force that fought against the French and their native allies.
Anyhow, it was complicated. But, the end result was that after a war that took place both in Europe and in the Americas, the British crown had a huge debt. I have no idea what proportion of that debt was due to the part of the war fought in Europe vs. the part of the war fought in the Americas, but overall there was a big debt and the English crown tried to tax whoever they could to pay for it.
Was the English king a tyrant? Sure. Did the Americans have fair representation in the English parliament? Probably not. But, their main reason for rebelling was the same one that is nearly always the cause of rebellions: the rebels are in an area that’s wealthy for some reason, and they don’t want to have to share that wealth with the rest of the country / empire. In fact, it was suspected that the colonists chose not to send representatives to the colonial assembly partially because they knew that if they did that it would undermine their “without representation” argument, and the real issue was that they simply didn’t want to pay taxes.
As for the English system being tyrannical, the reality is that it has been a very slow, gradual change from an absolute monarchy to a ceremonial one. The English crown is significantly less wealthy than Elon Musk, and arguably has a lot less influence on British politics than Musk does on American politics.
By the letter of the laws, the British system is still more classist and controlled by money than the American system. But, is that true if you look at the actual real way that power is used? It doesn’t seem like it to me.
I particularly enjoy the bit about how after the French helped us win our revolution and took some revolution home in a doggy bag. We reneged on our debt claiming “Our deal was with the king.”
Not to mention that the civil war was lost through the presidential election of 1876 even though it was won in battle before that. That election was so corrupt that the Union conceded a lot to get their president, including removing Federal forces from the South on the promise that the South would protect Federal rights of minorities, blacks, etc. (among other things) The North pulled out and the south reneged without consequence (the KKK was the strong arm then) until the Civil Rights act in the 60s. That’s only roughly 60 years ago. Most of the institutional segregation from before then is still firmly in place.
Funny and true. I like it.
Remember when the US-Government dropped fucking poison Gas von striking Miners?
Maybe this whole US-Idea was not that great to begin with.
Remember when they bombed a neighborhood in Philadelphia?
Holy fuck.
Remember when they burned children alive because their parents may or may not have modified some firearms.
Clownocracy
FWIW most clowns are hard-working, skilled individuals who bring joy to people’s lives.
Are you a clown?
Today we’re all clowns.
I know you’re probably joking buttttt, I know a ton and can say it’s a mixed bag … Many clowns are like Santa’s and magicians…they’re not the most forward thinking and take themselves waaaay too seriously. Most new age and haunt clowns are cool peeps. It’s the old school “clowning art” gate keepers and the evangelical clowns that tend to be insufferable. Heavy mean girl vibes.
I was actually wondering because i dont know much about clowns, it’s interesting, iv heared only about some Gracy or Gacy clown but forgot what was the thing about him
Well, it is nearly dead now.
The majority voted for the candidate I don’t like. That means democracy is broken.
Trump said the exact same thing in 2020 and was rightly condemned for it. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Get used to it.
He literally said you won’t need to vote again. Fucking brain-dead take there.
Threatening to use the armed forces against your political opponents is generally considered not a great sign for a democracy as well.
If only we had any historical examples from, say, the past century, showing that the way to stop fascism is NOT by voting the socialdemocrats/liberals into power…
Sorry. Can’t upvote your post coz its on 66 and this really does give “execute order 66” vibes
Yes democracy will be broken since Orangeman promised that this will be the last election you will ever need to vote in. Congrats.
I mean… you’re kind of right, but this is a “read the room” situation.
And yet not everyone votes or even has a chance to vote in this democracy. And don’t get me started on the college of representarives. Seems pretty broken to me.
Congrats for getting the most downvotes on Lemmy I’ve ever seen. Which you absolutely deserve by the way, in my opinion.
What a stupid fucking take given this whole election.
This is either bad faith or supreme levels of stupidity.
Probably supreme levels of stupidity, caused by bad faith. Most people don’t get this dumb without a little elbow grease.
KȮNTEKST Z F Ð WIK!!!
spoiler
CONTEXT IS FOR THE WEAK!!!
The majority voted for the candidate I don’t like. That means democracy is broken.
Don’t worry, the US democracy was already broken. That became painfully clear when Trump started whining about not winning the popular vote when he was elected the first time. Being able to lose while having the support of the majority of voters is proof enough:
Hillary: 65,853,625 votes
Trump: 62,985,106 votes
Not every vote has the same weight, which is just completely bonkers and proof that your archaic system is due for a retrofit. Let’s just hope it won’t get chucked away entirely in the coming years.
FYI, Trump DID also win the popular vote this year. Perhaps it’s time to retire this argument.
Why? Trump won fair (proverbial at least, I don’t think all the misinformation that has been spewed on X counts as ‘fair’) and square this year, but that doesn’t mean your system isn’t flawed. Votes from certain states still carry less weight due to improperly distributed electors. Same happened with Gore vs Bush by the way.
What part of “he won the popular vote” did you not understand? Across all states, more people voted for him than for Harris. Even if there was no electoral college, he would still be president.
Unless you’re arguing that electoral college votes should be redistributed in a way that ensures the winner will always be a Democrat…
Across all states, more people voted for him than for Harris.
I never said otherwise.
Unless you’re arguing that electoral college votes should be redistributed in a way that ensures the winner will always be a Democrat…
No, I’m saying that your system needs to be fixed so every vote has the same weight, that’s all. The fact that the term ‘popular vote’ exists at all is the flaw. Who won this year is irrelevant to the argument.
I think us non-USians are alluding to the clusterfuck of only having an either/or choice. That’s not how democracy works in most democratic places. There’s only ever two runners and riders that stand any real chance of winning over there. Most people would call that a fixed race.
While there technically might be more choices available in other places (for instance, in Germany there’s usually at least 2-3 smaller parties that have a legitimate chance to make it into the Bundestag), de facto it still boils down to the two major parties (conservatives and social democrats) duking it out amongst themselves, and voting 3rd party is merely a matter of choosing who their junior partner will be. It might help sway the resulting coalition’s direction on some minor issues but the overall direction is still very much decided by the 500 lbs gorilla.
Someone downvoted you for spitting facts? Interesting. The two US parties are both right of centre, which gives an immediate imbalance. Small parties can have some bearing on their senior partners policies, like you say. I’m assuming Germany has local elections, mayoral elections etc. surely some of the smaller, more niche parties, pick up seats in those if they happen. Trends identified by smaller parties will get picked up by bigger parties, so they serve their worth there, too.
Results of the last German Federal election:
It’s really not 2 major parties and their junior partners anymore.
Nice. I was hoping it might look a bit like this. Thanks for researching / posting.
Unfortunately, the day after Trump was elected, coalition talks between the non-nazi parties in Saxony, a German state, failed. Which means there is no likely way to build a government coalition without a re-election or admittting the far right party in that state now.
And the day after that, the center-left federal government coalition broke apart, leaving it without a majority, which will trigger an early federal election next year.
And with current sentiments, the result of that election will likely pose the exact same problem Saxony now has, but for all of Germany.
Someone downvoted you for spitting facts? Interesting.
Certainly not the first time this has happened.
It’s wild. No matter how fond you might be of your opinion you’ve got to kick it to the curb when facts unravel it.
Keep that in mind for when they come after your own sacred cows.
Republicans literally wrote a playbook on how they’re going to do it called Project 2025 ya dunce.
It’s clear Americans need to learn the hard way just like Europe did a long time ago.
Germany is heading that way again. Maybe we all haven’t learned the real lesson yet.
Maybe we all haven’t learned the real lesson yet.
Capitalism always trends towards end stage no matter how much you reform it?
There is no lesson to learn. Humanity itself is fascist. We are the problem
the folly of democracy:
Democrats were voting to avoid a repeat. Republicans were voting to avoid jail time. The latter was a bigger motivator to get off the couch.
Yeah, a two party system with two right wings only.
That wouldn’t work.
Anybody got that American political plane meme handy?
This one?
🫡
You just leaked the design of the next-generation of Boeing 737s
You know it was funny I had to fly on a Max recently (not like we get a choice when buying the ticket) and the plane had all the MAX stuff removed, it was funny to sit in an attempt at a coverup.
One wing is cheaper than two!
MAX profits!
US is system is so bad. The constant pandering to “founding fathers” as if it’s even possible to have strong enough vision that it would last 200+ years and refusal to innovate past the ridiculous two party system is just sad tbh.
Yet nothing will change because you can’t change these things without a revolution apparently.
Not to mention that the founding fathers would hate what has become of American politics…
YOU FREED THE WHAT?!
Some states have already replaced First Past the Post voting actually
Everyone has made their bed, now everyone has to sleep on it.
Yup, stop whinning that your girl didn’t win the race and just make the best of it.
Yall got housing? Fancy.
Kleptocracy
You guys should have listened to Thomas Paine, the only founding father with a clue and a set of principles.
Topical.
Why, what did he say?
- political institutions should promotoe individual rights and social equality
- critqued organized religion
- the government should serve the people
- wrote the famous line “These are the times that try men’s souls” during civil war
- people have the inherit right to reform and/or dismantle oppresive goverments
- all individuals possess inalienable rights (human rights basically)
That’s what I gather from his wiki and some chatgpt queries. Never heard of him before (not an american) but honestly — I’m a big fan now.
Sounds nice enough, but not really like an outsider position among the Founding Fathers. OP seemed to be saying that Paine differed substantially from the others in some way, which I would be interested to learn about (not American either, I only have cursory knowledge of the Founding Fathers).
Paine was far more radical than the rest of them, and wrote scathing critiques of them that caused him to become extremely unpopular before he died.
Didn’t all the founding fathers and every president since then say all of the above?
We need to praise people more by what they do, than what they say I reckon
If we had a more representative electoral system, more of the non voters would be engaged by the political process. More voters always has lead to more democratic votes.
Why is the democratic party saying no to these easy extra votes when they fail to replace First Past the Post voting in states they control between elections?
“We won it last time! Why change now? Besides, proportion representation only leads to more parties and that’d mean we’d have to… cooperate.”
Heaven forbid we would have to compromise instead of ramming legislation only we like through to pass.
What??? We literally saw democracy play out. You can’t even use the excuse that he lost the popular vote, he won every type of democratic way we have.
You know what wasn’t democracy? Installing candidates into primaries over democratically popular candidates. Hillary in 2016, Biden in 2020 and Kamala in 2024. In every single one of these primaries, they did everything they could to shut down anyone popular who showed any sign of having a backbone, even though they killed democracy as it happened.
What we saw was a backlash to a stifling of democracy. Democracy won last night.
Trump has threatened to end democracy in the US. So yesterday may end up being the last time anyone in the US gets to vote.
I wouldn’t call that a win for democracy.
There is zero proof that he’ll be a dictator. My source is that he was president for 4 years and was not a dictator.
The only thing you’re basing your claim on is an offhand joke he made about fully shutting down the borders on the first day, then opening them back up with better safeguards. If you watch the whole clip, you’ll understand that.
No. You’re clearly highly uneducated on American politics or just trolling.
Great comeback.
If you’re referencing Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, he wasn’t “democratically popular” in either race. That simply is not supported by polling or election results. He was well behind Clinton by all metrics. Then in 2020, he was briefly “winning” because several similar candidates were splitting the center-left lane. The moment the center-left lane narrowed, Sanders’ lead evaporated.
It’s SOP for candidates to more or less clear the field for an incumbent president. This is partially because of a perceived effect from a strong primary challenger weakening an incumbent. So Democrats were just doing what both parties have been doing for the last half century.
The change from Biden was in response to clear reactions from the US electorate. The electorate saw Biden’s debate performance and was not impressed. There wasn’t time to run a process, so Kamala was the obvious choice given a non-ideal situation. But the electorate got what it wanted in terms of an option that wasn’t elderly.
I am not sure you remember but the media reaction to Bernie doing well initially was major outlets like CNN reacting with fear, loathing, and uncertainty. And it impacted rhe course of an election. You had anchors yelling about how Sanders will result in public executions in central park during the primary.
Bernie Sanders won 3 out of 5 primaries that occurred before the DNC called it for Biden in 2020 with Buttigeg picking up 1 other. In 2016 Sanders won 23 races and was at 43% of the popular vote despite extreme pushback by the DNC. He was democratically supported cause he had people voting for him. Democratically.
And sure but with some of the worst polling numbers Biden, did not need to or should have thought he had incumbent advantage. Mud had a better approval rating.
And the change was from that and a protest vote of 100,000 voters voting against Biden in a primary that had no other option that’s was being ignored until the rich donors realized the polling wasnt gonna get better after the debate proved he was not fit for office.
There was time but the argument was made that it would be difficult and all the donations already made could be immediately given to Harris as she was already on the ticket, thus letting the money flow (which the DNC outspent Trump 2:1)
They got what they wanted which was a younger centrist willing to do Biden-esque policy without question that they thought would be easy with identity politics and being “not Trump” which is viewed as the main issue and not what issues he represents as a fix for.
Mostly being a willingness to change from status quo.Which is exactly what hasn’t been allowed in races as shown before.
Bernie Sanders won 3 out of 5 primaries that occurred before the DNC called it for Biden in 2020 with Buttigeg picking up 1 other.
I’m not sure how to parse what you’re saying. As far as DNC rules are concerned, they “call” it once all primary races are held.
In 2016 Sanders won 23 races and was at 43% of the popular vote despite extreme pushback by the DNC. He was democratically supported cause he had people voting for him. Democratically.
The Democratic primary uses proportional representation, so candidates don’t win states, they win delegates. Hillary Clinton got 55% of the popular vote, Bernie Sanders got 43%. There are no two ways to slice it, Bernie lost that election by the rules of a democratic election by a sizeable margin. Meanwhile, Hillary was dealing with getting hacked and Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. And you’re forgetting the often adoring coverage that was played to audiences on the left about Sanders.
The selling point for Kamala wasn’t anything in particular about her. She’s the VP and was the only obvious choice. There was no appetite for a contested convention, which was the alternative. It was always going to be an uphill battle, so in a sense she’s also a sacrificial lamb.
I’m not sure how to parse what you’re saying. As far as DNC rules are concerned, they “call” it once all primary races are held.
I believe it means that you weren’t paying attention during the 2020 primaries or the news around them then. The DNC Does not wait and did not. Claiming Biden the Presumptive nominee 38 days after the first delegate picked. Obama took 120 days. To give you an idea of how fast that was, faster than Trump’s nomination in 2020.
You are correct though. The primary eventually went the way it went. He lost it by the rules but there is a reason people don’t feel good about the rules presented and that needs to be dealt with.
I would also just want to finish with the simple, how is pointing out how popular his rallies were be a negative to his electability while being an usurper to someone in social and legal discourse?
So based on your 38 days, that would be March 12th (2020-02-03 + 38 days), no? And Biden was indeed declared the winner on a March 12th, but that was in 2024. It took until April 8, 2020 for Bernie to decide to drop out.
I think you are right. I am mixing up the 12th with 2024 however it was not until Bernie dropped out that everyone started calling Biden the winner.
By March media was still calling Biden the nominee and you can find articles claiming Biden as the nominee by March 17th just with a quick Google search. Washington Post called it by March 15th in an article I can’t read from a paywall.
After Biden won South Carolina (a single state) it was already being called as his win and by March 3rd most other candidates dropped and fell in line with Biden creating chaos in super Tuesday polling as voters were told their votes had been pointless.
I agree with you that if you look Biden didn’t actually get the delegates needed to be the Nominee until June and that Bernie Sanders didn’t drop until the 8th of April and his campaign was struggling at that point.
But that divide between what actually happened and how it’s recorded is part of my point.
A large amount of effort was made to push people into a specific option and while it “worked” it does not mean it didn’t come with a cost of voter engagement.
He wasn’t “democratically popular” because the Dems suppressed all support he had. All those news medias that have been hounding on trump being the worst thing since Hitler? Yeah, they used that same power to stifle anyone who had an iota of a chance to get votes
I think you’re forgetting the part where Clinton paid off the DNC’s debts and became it’s only financial lifeline, for which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz abdicated control of party to Clinton’s team long before she secured the nomination.. Or that the AP controversially called the primary for Hillary just before California voted, giving voters the impression the primary was over before voting finished. Or that the DNC argued in court that they had no obligation give Bernie a fair, democratic primary. Or that Representatives Ford and Smith admitted the party did coalesce around Biden in 2020 to block Bernie. Or that polls had Bernie beating Trump by a wider margin than Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020.
Did you forgot the part where it came down to just bernie vs biden in 2020 and people overwhelmingly voted for biden?
I like bernie too, but he wasn’t gonna get the pick
Except it wasn’t just him and Bernie. It was also Warren, so the progressive vote was spit, while the centrist vote was coordinated around Biden. Nice try though!
Biden made more than bernie and warren combined in alot of states. If bernie was meant to be, more people would have voted for him, plain and simple.
You’re right, I forgot that Bloomberg was still in and running a campaign entirely designed to block Bernie. Nothing says, “Democracy,” like an oligarch entering an election and using his personal wealth to undermine another candidate, right?
Bloomberg was a joke. Can blame it on everything you like, bernie was still never getting presidency in 2020. People picked Biden over him.
All these sources of intentional corruption against someone running to improve the lives of all Americans and not just a select few, and you just go “Hmm, but he was losing according to the media that lied to us, so he lost fair and square.”
I see how many people didnt vote for him. How is the media lying about that?
You could argue that media was against him, but the truth is that people in america just aren’t that progressive. I mean hell, look at how terrible the dem turnout was this year compared to last election.
- Refuses to cover his campaign ads
- Refuses to cover his victories
- Internally leaving him off of nationwide polls when data allow him to be counted (CNN infamous called Sanders “Other Candidate” instead of showing him, but counted Andrew Yang)
- Slander about him being sexist when he encouraged women to run for office and only started going in 2016 when he asked Warren to run and she declined.
- Mass media campaign about calling the Jewish senator antisemitic for not being “pro killing children”
So when the media is against you, people see it as a bad candidate, and don’t vote. Even when he was never a monster, but Trump got more air time saying “Mexicans bring rape”.
Democrats aren’t progressives. Maybe if they were, they wouldn’t lose all the time.
“If they just had my opinions (that are unpopular to the US population at large), they would win.”
*Candidate backed by the world’s richest billionaire wins*
.ml users: “Democracy Won!”
Do you think Dems aren’t backed by billionaires? Gates, Bezos, Soros, Oprah, the list continues. But what, the single billionaire throwing $$ at the trump campaign is the big evil baddie? Because he has a few more billions?
