It’s interesting when people don’t like the outcome, democracy is at threat.
2 Likes
Lindsay Graham
The rule about the sitting presidents nominating SC vacancy replacements.
If you think everything is humming along as it always has, like I said, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
1 Like
No one on here has provided a road map to a Trump autocracy. A huge waste of time. At least I’ve thought about the details and found the op’s argument lacking. Come back when you have original thoughts on this subject.
Graham seems slimy and opportunistic, he stated he feared Trump. I searched but couldn’t see where he said he feared for his seat.
As for not functioning, what did not function during impeachment.
I get you didn’t like how they voted, that is democracy at work, not everyone gets what they want from the elected majority
What if Pence had chosen to not certify the election in 2020? JD Vance is on record as saying he would not have certified the election. We got lucky, and we might not get so lucky in the future.
Processes and institutions are only as strong as the people who represent them, and the new batch of idiots have no interest in going against whatever insanity Trump comes up with. When people like Aileen Cannon and certain Supreme Court Justices can effectively erase criminality, these institutions are at grave risk.
Pence did certify and the courts found mainly against trump in the stolen election cases.
Your democracy did work. If in the situation that didnt happen the VP did not certify they would be exercising their part of democracy yes? And there is a check and balance on the VP?
Why spend time worrying about a process that worked and what might have happened.
Your argument is like saing, “I was driving too fast and almost skidded off the road, but my tires just barely held, so I guess I don’t have to check them to make sure they’re still ok or worry about driving more carefully in the future. “
How do they erase criminality!
We have seen presidents erase criminality which is part of your democracy.
What did Cannon do? Could it have been dealt with by a higher court?
Hate sells more than love.
One runs on hate
The other runs on love
Republicans figure out how to get excited by branding what would be “taken away” from them if they did not act. Dems thought they could rally everyone with “love wins, be kind, etc”. When you are in a fight against the other, the former beats that ladder.
Almost, the process was tested and it worked.
If as everyone was saying there are risks to democracy and we need change should the President and House address those risks and implement or debate change.
If change not achievable then lead the nation and establish narrative for change, or maybe it wasn’t quite the issue or risk some thought it to be.
The election suggests that its not the issue people in the LR think it is, or perhaps people were worried about other things and enough of them chose the simplistic Trump offering.
Dennis Richardson told us to focus on what Trump does, rather than what he says, as he makes lots of off the cuff Trumpian statements, many of which are not gpign to result in anything.
The process has been tested, and has cracked in places, but held in others. Now the people who tested it previously have regained power and telegraphed their intent to continue to push or exceed the limits. What remains to be seen is if the system will hold again, or if the conditions now will be more conducive to failure.
Claiming that everything is fine because we haven’t collapsed yet, so nobody should be worried about the future, is exceedingly simplistic and shortsighted.
What is not fine?
People think that Cannon has over reached and favoured Trump. but Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga who had the authority under federal law and internal court procedure to reassign a new judge to this case, did not.
When tested a conservative court reversed her ruling, indicating the system is robust and holding up.
Last year, Judge Cannon wrongfully intervened in the Department of Justice investigation into Trump’s withholding of classified documents, barring the DOJ from using the seized materials in the continued investigation. Her ruling was ultimately reversed by a conservative court, citing she had no authority to intervene. She claimed to be protecting his reputation as former president of the United States, but the court responded with, “To create a special exception here would defy our nation’s foundational principle that our law applies ‘to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.’” It’s clear she did not adhere to the mandate of equal justice under the law.
What in the system do you want changed to protect the USA from autocracy or is a case of who you want changed?
When you think compromise and respect are signs of weakness, then it is not hard to understand why more than half the country and our resident contrarians truly believe they support “normal”.
If I had to boil it down to one word, insecurity. It takes many forms, but at the end of the day, these people seek dominance and control to make them feel their interest is first and foremost, always. That is the democracy they seek.
Several people have offered you examples. Your seeming refusal to recognize them doesn’t make them nonexistent.
Pres. Obama was supposed to be able to nominate a SCOTUS justice, Congress refusal to allow that was not just a result people “don’t like.” It was a failure of the system to function as designed.
SCOTUS justices receiving millions of dollars in gifts and travel from wealthy donors who have cases in front of the court is not just something some people “don’t like.” It’s a failure of the system to function as intended.
Yes, VP Pence’s certification of the 2020 election is good, but the fact is that the man currently getting ready to enter office didn’t want him to fulfill that function, and has since chosen a different VP who has stated he wouldn’t have fulfilled that function if he had been there.
Donald Trump stole numerous classified documents, over which he had no legal claim, stored then in a manner inconsistent with the laws governing classified information, and repeatedly lied to the DoJ about it, including enlisting subordinates in his lies. That’s not just something people “don’t like.” It’s a failure of the system to function as designed, and yet another indication of the intent of the guy getting ready to go back into office.
So, yes, part of the mounting concern is the “who” is coming into power, but part of the concern is whether or not our processes are stout enough to withstand a more direct assault from a team of people who learned some lessons from their first go around.
I think we all understand by now that you’re fine with everything as it is, nothing to see here, etc. You’re not really doing much to convince anyone else here of that opinion.
2 Likes
I have discussed multiple example where your democracy worked even when people were doing the wrong thing eg conservative court over ruling cannon it worked. Many people have been convicted over Jan 6 the system worked, sure in a perfect world the crime wouldn’t happen in the first place.
The courts categorically rules against stolen election cases, it worked.
The sc justice pick was difficult but some folks thought they could have fought harder in the senate;
The documents case, could the judge I referred to earlier have removed Cannon? She has not. I dont know why but this is an example of where you are getting some less than perfect outcomes
I think in general your system is standing up to the stresses put on it, how it goes over next four years will be interesting. While I think felons should not be in government, no one proposed a change to the constitution, at least have the discussion even if you cant close the deal.
Im not fine with it, I think it is working with imperfections. Thomas could take the gifts, ethically shouldn’t
The system appears fine, he could have been investigated and indicted, the article does not discuss why that did not happen or whose job it was.
I am not and have not said I am trying to convince any of you of anything.
This is simply my pov that the democracy is working mostly with less than perfect outcomes, but has not completely failed.
Perhaps more courageous leadership at times was and is required, the system suppose is as good as the people in and leading it
1 Like
I think you missed the most important one: that an entire party representing roughly half the voting population only accepts the result of an election if they win. A democracy is really just an agreement to abide the results of elections and live under the rule of the elected. Not accepting the results of an election originated with the man on his way back to the oval office. And he convinced his followers to not accept it either. And many of them are prepared to (and did) commit violence when they lose. That’s a broken agreement, a broken fundamental tenet of a democracy. We got a taste of it on J6. What would have happened if Trump lost this time around? It seems like we only bought 4 more years of peace because one side still accepts the results. Anyone claiming “12 years of trump/vance” ignores the last 40 years of elections. Americans either elect the incumbent or change parties. 100% of the time. We’re fickle. And even if they don’t lose then, they will lose eventually. And the result will not be accepted. What happens then?
You seem to have changed your tune. And you’re not American correct? Why do you care so much?
Sure that door blew off that Boeing Jet, but it landed as intended. No need to worry about it.
The attitude I’m taking is that Trump and co. are wannabe autocrats, but I’ll wait until they achieve some more concrete steps in that direction to get really worried.
I keep the worrying at bay by telling myself:
- Trump is lazy when it comes to getting anything done
- Trump is incompetent when it comes to getting anything done that takes any real effort
- Trump has never demonstrated he has the balls of a Hitler or such to actually grab power
And don’t forget. Many on here have said that Trump is on his last legs and don’t expect he’ll even make it through 4 years.
I don’t believe that, but he is not going to get a 3rd term and we’ll see who the next president is.