• HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    checks and balances is not a lie it just does not work when folks don’t do their job. its like they did the patriot act because bush jr. didn’t do his job. No system can work when a significant amount of the components are bad actors.

        • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          I wouldn’t say democrats are in on it. I would say democrats are being lead by the same strings. It all ties back to the money. GOP and DNC alike are results of private interests. Now, how the private interests align cant really be known but it is something to think about. I mean its safe to assume thier only function is to amass more wealth but then we are just talking about capitalism.

          Truth is, normal people arent part of the equation they are a remainder that gets deemed negligible or shuffled to the side. Its absurd, really, when they are the driving force but to consider them anything other than a statistic is against all modern theories of capitalism.

          This is probably the wrong venue for this discussion but I just wanted to say, I dont think democrats are in on it but are just as much chess pieces being moved around as the GOP are.

          • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I can get behind that… They are both regime whores with specific functions.

            They dont call to shots, they execute daddy’s master plans.

          • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Dems are in on it too. Look at insider trading and Nancy pelosi. There is money to be made by them so they’re not in a hurry to change things either for the greater good.

            • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              The fact that everyone is stuck on Nancy Pelosi when there the list of people making money off their station in government goes on and on. Mostly just sexism.

              • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Nah just perfect example because of the wealth she’s accumulated. All of them are shitty people only looking out for themselves.

    • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I read: “checks and balances do not work”

      They arent working. Att least the checks and balances we have now.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Yeah you can’t be taught about future failures of a system. The only way for it not be able to not be working is for humans to not be in the equation of government. Which is one of the reasons ai taking over does not scare me. Either they kill us all. Win for the planet. Or they run things properly. Win for everybody.

        • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          They dont teach future failures but they do teach the robustness of our checks and balances.

          Which turns our to be not very.

          • HubertManne@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Its incredibly robust. Its lasted over two hundred years through several constitutional crises. Its possible it might even survive this. Whats happening now required complacency of a majority of both houses of congress, a large swath of the judiciary, plus the executive. Thats pretty damn robust. Its like saying a bridge is not robust even though its stayed up when some of its supports got destroyed but once over half of them were taken out it finally started to crack.

            • kreskin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              27 minutes ago

              sure but there are holes in our entire constitutional process that you can drive a truck through. They work in certain cases, but in others they may as well not exist. Like ,impeachment barely works. And god knows a lot of our presidents should have been impeached. And the will of the people is not implemented by our government and hasn’t been for a long time, if ever.

            • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              It didn’t last over two hundred years. It failed utterly in 1861 and wasn’t restored until 1865. That was only 160 years ago.

              It probably would’ve failed again in the 1930s but the Roosevelt Democrats were able to take control of both the legislative and executive branches and make the checks and balances irrelevant, and then the rest of the world bombed itself into the dirt, allowing America to become fat and rich enough that you didn’t notice the rot.

            • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              “Watches an orange buffoon turn the government into a authoritarian regime.”

              Its incredibly robust!

              Same time, “the American experiment”, “a young democracy”, “27 constitutional ammendments”, etc.

                • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 hours ago

                  Youre missing the point, government was suppose to be designed to fend off shitty people destroying it.

                  Edit:

                  Listen, Im taking this position not because Im particularly enthusiastic about it but really just trying it on for size.

                  Is there anything else you would like to add to bolster your position? Im sure these is more nuance and I havent hit on it yet.

                  • HubertManne@piefed.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    10 hours ago

                    fend off some shitty people from destroying it. Not a majority of elected positions. Again your expectations of robust go beyond anything that is feasible. With a monarchy one monarch can bring it down. Despite the orange buffoon he would not be able to do it without all the congress collaborators. His first term was actually a constitutional crises we got passed. Barely.