[deleted]
I’m told three marked bullets work wonders.
[deleted]
Submitted 6 months ago by ddplf@szmer.info to [deleted]
Comments
nintendiator@feddit.cl 6 months ago
SuspiciousUser@lemmy.world 6 months ago
we have systems for putting people like him in jail but we just didn’t want to do it
conditional_soup@lemm.ee 6 months ago
So, giving the public a means of dealing with tyrannical leadership, either through intimidation or something more, is literally and unironically one of the intended use cases for the second amendment. That’s not to say you won’t face prosecution, but there it is.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Whoosh
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 6 months ago
He’s just a symptom of the real problem, which is that he exposed himself as a nazi a long time ago and still got reelected.
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You can impeach a president for any reason. You don’t need a crime or such committed, all you need is congress to do it.
Be careful what you wish for though since the other party could do “tit for tat” with the president you support.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 6 months ago
not like it changed, he was impeached twice, didn’t mean shit. he’s a felonious racist rapist, doesn’t mean shit.
mipadaitu@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The house voted on impeachment, but the senate has to remove him, or decide on a punishment.
If it was bad enough (by that, I mean if he starts taking away the ability for the senate to have power) then he would be removed.
dx1@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That gets to the root of the problem. We have “checks and balances” designed around the idea that separate institutions would check the excesses of each other. Even if you don’t accept the “Republicans and Democrats work for the same people” theory, well, now all three branches of government are majority Republican, and not even in a way where there’s significant internal division or strife, so it’s just a bulldozer. The stupidity of not including popular recall votes in the Constitution - or really, just not having a mechanism for popular referendums, vetoes, etc. - is I think its biggest fault. The “representative democracy” model is inherently flawed because you can corrupt representatives, while corrupting an entire population, while not impossible, is a hell of a lot harder.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Check and Balance was intened to stop bad individuals, not an entire political party working in unison to destroy the system.
rumba@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Be careful what you wish for though
No, I’m calling BS. They’ll impeach anyone they think they can get away with it on. They investigated the shit out of Biden. They’re not being held back by some for of fear of tit for tat decorum. That’s wildly inaccurate.
For it to succeed, it would require congress to agree which they won’t because they’re conspiriting. And if it did get him out, then we get Vance who is also a Nazi. Protest, Resist, put up an fight, and wait in hopes that he’s bad enough that the right and left people can field some half decent candidates and stop being nazi’s
Alternatively, we’re now making/selling a lot of armbands.
jason@discuss.online 6 months 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
Norgoroth@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Second amendment
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Couldn’t keep a:
34 count felon Child rapist Fraudster Tax 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 6 months ago
Tax dodger
and draft dodger lol
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Forgot that. Added.
clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 6 months ago
[deleted]xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
not true. congress could definitely remove the president… they just won’t do it because they’re too fascist themselves….
hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Just to be clear, your solution to saving democracy would be for the military to usurp a president who received the majority of the vote less than six months ago?
miridius@lemmy.world 6 months ago
USA hasn’t been a democracy for decades. It’s hard to pin it down to a certain tipping point but I’d hazard it was when you decided that corporations are people and buying politicians is free speech.
VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Hold your ponies. The US is very much still a democracy, if a flawed one in many ways. The US has always been a country run by the wealthy elites, as are most countries in the world.
Buying politicians works, especially in the US, regardless of party. Democrats and Republicans are both the parties of big business and capital interests.
Besides laws around spending money for political purposes, the media landscape has revolutionized over the last 20 years. The role social media has played in Trump‘s ascendancy can’t be overstated. Trump spent less than Kamala Harris in this election and still won, because of his exceptional way to use media to his advantage.
door_in_the_face@feddit.nl 6 months ago
Sometimes a voting population needs to be protected from the consequences of their vote, right? A good chunk of the German voting population in the 1930 voted the NSDAP and Hitler into power, and we can agree that it would have been for the best if that party and its leadership had been deposed ASAP. Now, the US isn’t quite that far down the slide yet, but they’re certainly slipping, and the worst part is that the checks and balances that are supposed to keep a president in line are also failing. Not to be alarmist, but we’re in for a wild ride.
hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Your first question is pretty philosophical. All I can say, is that most representative governments place a huge emphasis on giving the people the power to write their own collective destiny.
A military takeover based on the desires of a minority of citizens would violate that principal. I don’t think any reasonable person can call it saving democracy.
VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Sometimes a voting population needs to be protected from the consequences of their vote
Who should have the power to make that decision?
Do you want a benevolent king at the top that can dissolve parliament, dismiss government, call for new elections, make parties illegal, and censor the press?
Or maybe have something like an electoral college?
Or the army coups, if things get too far?
The ultimate check on power is the people. A general strike, large scale protests, and occupation of public buildings can topple a government. Institutions from military, police, local government, government agencies, and so on value their positions and won’t go down with a sinking ship.
AA5B@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The military has rules limiting what they can do, especially against acting within the US, and every service member is supposed to disobey illegal orders.
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
Second Amendment.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Lemminary@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The nuke is a bad example of the sheer power of the modern American military. It’s also a bit outdated. That legal mechanism was drafted when many other modern weapons and tactics were not even dreamed of. Just a couple days ago the US military announced its strongest armor yet.
But I agree: your assault rifle may save you from others with an assault rifle, but it won’t do shit if the military comes for you.
nomy@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
That’s a non sequitur though, unless you’re suggesting a tyrant would nuke the population he wanted to rule.
fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
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 6 months 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.
fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
You’re totally right, the US government and business elite were content to make money from both sides of the conflict right up until Dec 7, 1941 and the subsequent DoWs from Germany and Italy (once the US declared on Japan). They may have favored Britain and France in trade/indirect support somewhat before that, but that was more a result of historical diplomatic and economic ties, rather than any issue with the German political system.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Impeachment. That’s it.
But you’re also forgetting that in the US states have a significant amount of power. For example the President cannot cancel elections. If a state cancels elections they just don’t get counted.
There’s a lot in that particular area that shields people from federal government stupidity.
Soggy@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They can ignore election results though, or fraudulently certify them.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
If they ignore election results then they’re illegitimate and the country is free to descend into chaos.
eric5949@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Bro we have the oldest still in use codified constitution in the world and haven’t updated it in 40 years, really longer. What exactly made you think this fucked up system was anywhere close to resilient?
y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Lol its called the 2nd amendment we just gotta wait for the new Luigi to drop
Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Be the change you want to see
squid_slime@lemm.ee 6 months 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.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 months ago
100 years? We very nearly reached 250.
FelixCress@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Op is referring to 100 years of “upkeeping democracy”. I guess he was able to pick 100 from 250.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 months ago
40% of the time it’s democracy 100% of the time
Professorozone@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Apparently that’s what America wants. You mean for a possible future where it’s a bad thing?
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It’s not illegal to be a nazi in the USA BUT it’s worth noting that Trump is more garden variety fascist than Nazi. He’s not looking to create the ubwrmensch.
GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Trump is the dancing monkey who will sign whatever they put in front of him. Plenty of people in his sister sphere are itching to kill.
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 6 months ago
None of which makes them nazis.
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Yet
Tagger@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Really because the rest of us have been watching you be wildly volatile for years now.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
LOL. This state was founded by slavemasters who were the original proto-nazis. Ofc there’s no law against it.
_stranger_@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Let’s just say the amendments are sorted by importance.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There are a few tools in the constitution.
Merlwyb673@lemm.ee 6 months ago
This is the result of ever-expanding executive power.
eran_morad@lemmy.world 6 months ago
2A
Psythik@lemmy.world 6 months ago
This x1000.
Few things frustrate more than a fellow leftist who still refuses to arm themselves in today’s climate. I truly believe that the world needs fewer guns, but read the room for fuck’s sake. There are far too many people in the US that want our kind dead, simply because we exist. All they need is for their God Emperor to say the word.
T156@lemmy.world 6 months 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.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 months ago
We have the Bill of Rights which limits the government’s authority.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
To be fair, that’s a piece of paper. If the President violates that and isn’t impeached then there’s nothing physical to stop him.
meliaesc@lemmy.world 6 months ago
This guy has been impeached twice and convicted of 34 felony charges. So we actually need something physical to stop him.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
HAHAHAHHAHAAH
you were making a joke, right? Because Trump right now is using the constitution and the bill of rights and everything like it in his personal bathroom as toilet paper.
We’re 2 days in and it’s already a giant shit show world wide and we have 4 more years to go.
You better brace yourself for what’s coming
notfromhere@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
He’s got to golf at some point.
endeavor@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
That is what the people of america want. They look at what bernie sanders offered, said he was a radical commie totalitarian terrorist and went for trump overwhelmingly.
edgemaster72@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Not that it would be used, but the 25th Amendment is another avenue to removal of a President.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Yeaaa… thats pointless when President and Vice President are elected together, so they are almost always the same ideology.
MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
The premise was removing your mask after the election, so in that case the 25th would be the appropriate solution. But that’s only for extreme cases because you need the entire cabinet to agree.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Depends how you define “instruments”. For example, there was a recent survey that we have something like 500 million, uh, instruments.
patatahooligan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
“100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy”? That’s not even true in a very minimal definition of democracy, let alone if we also mean equal rights for all. Just off the top of my head:
The vote of racial minorities was not protected before 1965.
COINTELPRO was a thing just over 50 years ago, targeting whatever political group was considered undesirable by the FBI. The FBI was found to be using unlawful surveillance targeting protesters for the inexcusable killing of a black man by police as recently as five years ago.
Last election there was an attempt to overturn the election results. It’s not taken as seriously as it should have because it failed, but it was literally an attempt to overthrow democracy. It’s important to note that Trump was allowed to run for president and the case against him was dropped as soon as he got elected. I’m pointing it out because the system was already there to protect him and it’s not something that he caused through his own actions as president.
There are so many unwarranted invasions of other countries, assassinations, and human rights violations that I don’t even know where to link to as a starting point.
Don’t forget the [large scale surveillance] both within and without the country.
And then there’s all the undemocratic qualities of unregulated free market capitalism. Politicians are lobbied. News outlets belong to wealthy individuals who often have other businesses as well. Social media too. Technically, you get to cast a vote that is equal to everybody else’s. But your decision is based on false data, and your representative is massively incentivized to lie to you and enact policies that server their lobbyists and wealthy friends instead. Do we all really have equal power?
So if you mean democracy in a very literal and minimal sense, that the people have some sort of power through their vote, that’s technically still going on. If you mean in it a more general sense, where people have fundamental rights that are always protected regardless of race or other characteristics, and where power is not unfairly distributed between individuals and racial groups, then again not much has changed. Because that was never the case. If you think fascism was universally condemned then you just hadn’t realized how widespread and normalized it always was. Maybe fascism is growing. Maybe it’s becoming more blatant. But it was always there.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 6 months ago
Where would ancient Greek democracy fall in this spectrum?
merc@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
They had slaves, so it wasn’t particularly democratic.
patatahooligan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I don’t know if there’s a meaningful way to treat that as a spectrum and to place political systems on it. I mostly pointed out the different definitions one might use so that people wouldn’t read my examples of rights violations and think “what’s that got to do with democracy?”.
Also, there’s no ancient Greek democracy. Greece was a bunch of city-states, each with its own political system. I know that in Athenian democracy there were slaves, and as you would image they didn’t get a vote. Neither did the women. If it existed today it would probably not even be called a democracy by western standards.