So last election, Kamala Harris was the platform of abolishing democracy?
Or, alternatively, did we cease to have a democracy?
So last election, Kamala Harris was the platform of abolishing democracy?
Or, alternatively, did we cease to have a democracy?
We are very substantially less democratic than we were in 2024. The admin has broken laws regarding impoundment and war powers, just to name two. The executive has no legal power to determine funding allocations, or to commit to wars long-term. Yet both have happened and are still happening.
Using the DOJ to interfere in state elections they have no jurisdiction in, and having masked men abduct people and ignore court orders regarding their disposition is just about as authoritarian as it gets.
Those are all new things that have substantially eroded - or removed all together the idea of democracy in less than two years.
On the other hand, it's possible to argue that America is still democratic, since it voted for all the stuff that's now happening. It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election, and it would become irreversibly undemocratic if a president actually stayed in office after losing an election.
>It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election,
Jan 6, fake electors scheme, etc. This time it will be a lot worse.
That's not gonna happen.
If one side shuts the other out of power, that's when we'll finally get the civil war many have been predicting for a long time.
Hopefully the framework to limit power can stay in place, in spite of all the calls to change it, abolish the senate, pack the court, make sure to punish/"hold accountable" red voters, etc.
> it's possible to argue that America is still democratic, since it voted for all the stuff that's now happening
It's possible, but not very credible, to argue that in a situation where direct democracy doesn't exist.
The closest we have to voted for these things rather than voted for these people is polls, which overwhelmingly illustrate that most people oppose those things.
We'll know more after the election, if people supported those things.
> It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election
Yes, the current president tried exactly that, in a violent insurrection, and has interfered in national elections since regaining power.
People keep polling against the things that are happening, but in elections that actually matter they keep voting for them, so...
and it's probably not just election tampering, because polls close to elections also show support.
> People keep polling against the things that are happening, but in elections that actually matter they keep voting for them, so...
Since the usa isn't a direct democracy, this isn't actually true. People vote for representatives, not things.
As for what happens to the representatives which have, since the last election, done things people oppose? We'll find out in a week or so! Looks like most people won't be voting for them.
They'll be back in the election after.
No one voted for what is happening now, because crimes like these were not on the ballot and were not promised in advance. If you vote for a president in a system with three equal branches and then they liquidate the other two - no one voted for THAT.
Was voting for a narcissistic treason weasel predictably going to lead to this? I would say - and did say - yes, without question. He already incited a violent insurrection once, rather than admit he lost an election. But people voted for cheaper groceries and deporting violent criminals.
As difficult as it is to believe, there are many tens of millions of people who think that Trump is a smart business man because he was portrayed that way on The Apprentice. They think the promises of this known huckster and flim-flam man were worth the bandwidth spent delivering them to televisions. They think that FOX News opinion show personalities are qualified to administer the country's government. They didn't vote for fascism, because they don't know what that word means. Many could not even reliably number the branches of government or describe them accurately.
Well, you'll see after the midterms... You know, the one where the DOJ is looking to cancel the election in Alaska, where Texas GOP officials are trying to stop the election, where Homeland Security Investigation officers are sent to a sitting Representative's home at dawn and the president is boasting she has forfeited her seat...
Totally normal stuff in a democracy, don't we agree?
Just imagine the shittiest country that you can think of. Now imagine everything I described above happening in that country. Now imagine how you would react to that, and how it would be covered in the news and punditry.
I mean Karen Bass just said there's no need for an Election for the governor, it's Xavier Baccera. He's the governor already according to her. "You don't need an election on November 3. A Republican cannot win in this state."
In Alaska the GOP has filed a lawsuit saying the election was rigged but only if they lose (since it hasn't happened yet). I wish I was making this up.
Do you think she meant there shouldn't be an election, or was simply alluding to the incredibly predictable result we all know to expect?
Personally, and this is just my opinion, but many people are aware of the reporting on CA laws and how it's actually impossible to prove voting irregularities because they separate the voter from the vote. And to have people with the attitude she has, it only makes me lean towards - they know the irregularities are real.
Every time voters have been audited they've found less than 100 false votes across the whole country.
They can't audit the votes!
I guess I have less faith than you in the ability of the CA state government to coordinate a vast, sophisticated conspiracy without letting slip any evidence or having any participants whistle-blow.
I suppose you're a bigger believer in government competence than I.
[dead]
How did she do in the primaries?