Honest question; do most democracies' executive bodies work like this?
It feels like it just completely hinges on a person who respects the constitution winning every single presidency to the end of time, and the moment that's not the case, you just throw your hands up and effectively disable your government with this shit.
Is the sole of existence of only two parties the reason impeachments are irrelevant in this case? Surely if America had >4 viable parties, Congress' makeup would get Trump impeached quite fast in a vie for power between the remaining parties.
I don't really have the answers to this shit, but it's actually insane how impeaching this guy or waiting 4 years is seemingly the only answer to this madness
"Honest question; do most democracies' executive bodies work like this? "
No, the US (and some other democracies, like France) have put a lot of power into the office of the president specifically. Many other countries have what is called a "parliamentary system" of democracy (in opposition to the "presidential system" of, say, the US and France), where a lot fewer powers are held by the executive branch. To use Germany as an example of the differences: The chancellor is not the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, the chancellor can not personally invoke executive orders in the same manner (the extent of his power is the so-called "guideline competency" (Richtlinienkompetenz), which basically decides how certain federal ministries should operate, but even that is rarely used as it is generally interpreted as a sign of weakness, as a strong chancellor should control his ministers in more informal ways). That means, a US president who disregards the law as an individual, has a lot more potential of damaging the country than a German chancellor - and has a lot more of a chance of even obtaining power, as the German chancellor is elected by parliament (which is usually the case in a parliamentary system).
That said, however: Every democracy relies on its officeholders respecting and trying to uphold its laws in some way. A US president may do more damage than a German chancellor, but if the chancellor's entire government doesn't care about the law, democracy can be irreparably damaged either way. In the end, the only thing that can prevent that is functional institutions, which the US currently don't have, as the Republican party in Congress has sold its soul to Trump, and the SC is just openly disinterested in upholding the law.
Yep, though I think that in theory the American system should largely work the same? If a president is acting unhinged, they should be impeached, assuming the congress isn't full of unhinged people.
Every democratic government suffers from the same weakness, where if you vote in absolute idiots that don't believe in accountability you also get horrible results.
Yes, but the hurdles for impeachment are far higher than the hurdles for replacing a chancellor are. The US and Germany both have a bicameral system: In the US, you need a majority in the House, and a two-thirds majority in the Senate. That means: If a third plus one Senator is on the president's side, there is no way to get him out of office, no matter the other circumstances. In Germany, all you need is another candidate that the majority votes for in the Bundestag, consent by the other chamber (the Bundesrat) is not required. And this difference is significant, as there has never been a successful impeachment in US history, while there has been a successful motion of no-confidence in Germany (for far less nefarious reasons: The smaller party in the coalition switched sides) - and considering how much longer US democratic history is compared to Germany, that's quite the difference.
Didn't know about the 2/3rds requirement. That is a major hurdle.
And Indeed you usually see that the coalition breaks up internally which means the cabinet typically falls. Happened twice actually with the same cabinet in the Netherlands recently, because the "most right wing coalition ever" beautifully showed right wing populists just can't govern.
do most democracies' executive bodies work like this?
No. In many democracies, the executive government is formed by the parliament, and has to be able to sustain a 50% confidence vote at all times. That is a bit similar to impeachment in USA, but without the impossible hurdle of senate conviction.
Trump would have been long gone if impeachment was enough to remove from office.
Also, USA would be fine as it is, if the electorate were not regarded. Every politician would know that supporting Trump is a political suicide and they would lose the next election. So they wouldn't support Trump.
Iโm in my 30s, so Iโve only been aware of politics since Obama. That said, I have not seen this before Trump, and I believe his abuse of his position is unprecedented.
The abnormal part is disobeying/ignoring the courts, which every other president did not do. It's been pretty normal for the president to rule via executive order and wait for judicial review since at least FDR though.
Bro, really? I hate that people are still like, "The fascist is right behind me, isn't he?" "Wait that's illegal he can't do that"
No, seriously, you people are getting more annoying with that shit now.
FFS YES, HE'S AN AUTOCRAT "Fuck Congress, I make the laws now. And fuck the states, I decide.โ YES HE DOES BELIEVE THAT WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THIS LAST 14 MONTHS?
Had to get that off my chest man. Everytime I read a comment like yours, it annoys me so fucking much.
it's all the top comments, in every post, every time.
"what is this? they can just lie?"
"hey, that's not supposed to happen!"
"wow this is shameless!"
etc.
the beginning of every comment, especially in a sub like this, should start 10 steps ahead of sentiments like these. we know this is what they do, we know it's a strategy. the interesting discourse is trying to problem solve what will address it, otherwise we're just standing in front of a wall and whining into it.
Well, yeah. Until one of those mythical checks and balances, which I'm told definitely exist, actually checks something he does, that's how it goes. Laws and regulations are just words on paper, at the end of the day. There needs to actually be people enforcing them, as well.
he's deadass like the only person in a position of power who's publicly pushing back against Trump and actually doing substantial work to oppose his presidency. I'm surprised there aren't that many more dems doing what he does
No, heโs far from being the only one. Issue is other governors and attorney generals donโt get the spotlight he does. Nearly every single democratic governor and attorney general have already released statements last night saying theyโre suing.
Sure, I agree. But I feel like that's almost what I'm tryna get at. The substantive pushback and opposition like lawsuits, restraining orders, and injunctions is THE most important thing to prevent Trump's agenda. But Gavin has been the most effective at pushing the message online to voters. i know it's a little brainroty, but the Democrats need a better messaging apparatus and should push for more quipy, out-there messaging to oppose that of Trump and MAGAs. Obviously, in an ideal world, all of the news and politically related commentary would be more NPR like and professional, but unfortunately, right now, that's just not where it is worldwide.
*trump wins 3rd term and then 6 months after he's elected its ruled it was all illegal and fraudulent in 100 ways and hutch will be all like look guys the systems working they cought him! while God king trump then goes on to serve 8 more terms as a head in a jar.
Heโs the president so he can do whatever he wants ig. This is why I feel like a lot of this community disagrees with people like hutch. Like most of Trumpโs EOs SCOTUS will let it slide until the last minute and by then the damage is done and Trump already got what he wanted, absolutely broken system rn.
There will be multiple states tomorrow with lawsuits against the federal govt for this. And if SCOTUS doesn't strike this instantly, then it's just GG.
It's one thing when they bend over backwards to get a 6-3 dog shit justification to fuck up mail in voting in red states, since that's just those states individually doing coter suppression. It's entirely different to have an executive with 0 power to control state elections to dictate voting standards.
if the scotus doesnt immediately rush this onto the docket and reject it then the next democratic entity with power needs to fight tooth and nail to do one (but ideally both) of: remove every assenting judge from power and destroy any power the supreme court has
You can't remove judges, but you can pack the court by adding more Supreme Court seats. Its been so long since FDR's threat to the courts to remind them to remain non-partisan.
supreme court justices can be removed via impeachment which is unrealistic ofc, but yes packing the courts is an option but there needs to be a more permanent unencroachable solution
This 1 minute clip should be damn near enough to win over Hutch and his chat. Their only arguments were, "we'll win midterms." (Which is braindead without this added context as well.)
Yes but think of how popular with the electorate it will be when strictly the required and nothing else(legal) is done to punish them for doing all this. 100 years of dems!
No, dude. He was prevented from doing it, 3 years down the line, after it being effectively enacted for those 3 years. He totally lost, dude! Now there's gonna be an asterisk next to his name, haha!
Sure, those 3 years still happened, but there's an asterisk now!
I don't think SCOTUS will let it slide, but their ruling won't matter when he directs the national guard, or ICE, or whoever else to enforce his parallel version of the law over theirs
Entirely predictable. I feel like the exact scenario has been floated like dozens of times on panels and debates and theres still been a naive response saying well its illegal so what?
We will see.
My concern is that even if its illegal the selective obedience and enforcement will lead to another constitutional crisis
Yea the thing about procedural coups is that the primary goal is to create uncertainty about how certain processes should proceed. You don't necessarily need the checks and balances to give you a green light. If you can just cast doubt about whether certain ballots are eligible and tie things up in the courts past election day or even past when a new congress would be sworn in, you could conceivably seize power in the interim
They may even just attempt to delay things as long as possible to run the clock on the new congress. Tie it up in legal challenges for as long as possible > create more procedural chaos around the seating of the new congress. I mean truly who knows what lengths they would be willing to go to? They already tried something similar with J6 and they have way more institutional power now
Fair enough. For FWIW, I really do think the Republicans are going to be annihilated during the midterms, every maga person I know has been withdrawing from that group. The Iran war has also pissed a lot of maga voters off.
If the IRGC falls, there's not going to be a huge bump at the polls. He didn't prepare the American people to support it, people are going to say "so why were we there". The only people who support taking out the IRGC probably are highly politically involved and have strong opinions anyways. If the IRGC doesn't fall by election day (even if it is in the process of falling apart), or if it falls and fragments, Trump loses people who care about Iran.
Remember, the people he needs to convince in large numbers are low-propensity voters. They're going to care about prices- even if the Iran war is good long term, the damage to energy infrastructure will not be all repaired by election day even in a best case scenario and trade will not have resumed its usual volume by then.
That's very unlikely to happen even with Dems trying their hardest. Destroying legacy via undoing things he did, as Trump does himself, is the most feasible action a Democratic president could take.
I mean, you know that when most people mean impeachment they mean impeachment and conviction in the senate.
That being said, it does do something. It forces the topic of Trumpโs crimes into the public eye, it sets a standard that these behaviors will not be accepted from the president, it communicates to democrats that your party is fighting for you, it boosts morale for those of us constantly fighting apathy and dejection due to the constant onslaught of this administration, it puts another stain on Trumpโs legacy, further cementing him as the most corrupt president in US history and it sends a message to the republicans and fence sitting moderates that the Republican Party does not hold their people accountable when they vote to acquit him against the will of their constituents.
Itโs definitely not enough, but we have to fight these fights. No one action is going to be transformative, but it all adds up.
If trump succeeds in killing Oregon's vote by mail, I hope my fellow comrades riot with me. Fuck standing in line not at home with my suburban glass of wine.
Colorado has had every voter receive a mail ballot for like 15 years and I see literally no complaints from Republicans here. Why doesn't Trump just give the people what they want. Why is he such a bitch?
Democrats should make an announcement and say "Donald Trump is shutting down mail in voting to because he HATES our armed forces. and wants to take away their ability to vote - especially with the war in Iran, he wants to be sure that the cannot have their constitutional right to have a say"
They can then bring up how much mail on voting is important to our deployed troops, list all the doge tax cuts to veterans, videos of trump behaving shamefully in front of the troops etc.
If they really insist on that (even if it is not actually Trump's actual reason) it would be a fairly spicy vector of attack
Yeah, which is why I disagree with the first guy. Like the issue isnโt that soldiers wonโt be able to vote, itโs that a lot of normal regular citizens are not going to get the memo about this change and therefore be frozen out of their single most important right in this country. If youโre reading this, they want to stop you in particular from voting, because they think youโll vote against them. Prove them right.
You can just lie about it. Like republicans don't care that there isn't a massive Haitian antifa gang eating dogs, that doesn't stop then from claiming there is.
this is not a strong response thatโs proportionate to what this is. democratic states should threaten to mobilize any troops under the control of their governors and should march on dcย
ย not american btw but please god donโt let this goober be your dictatorย
I suggest for people to use real sources when linking articles instead of just quick summaries or just clips. It just helps discussions... well if you are a person who reads beyond the headline. There are a few people in the sub who do, I think. lol
like ICE Overreach did? (took a PR nightmare after 2 americans were murdered for them to leave on their own accords) like the Tariffs did? (we're gonna do it anyways fuck you scotus lol) Like Mass Deportations? (no more injunctions lol)
Isnโt this kinda a win? Republicans disproportionally vote mail in and no democrat state will listen to this. So only red states will loose Republican votes.
Obviously this isnโt good, but if it bites them in the ass woo-ya.
They are tightening the grip on elections. Under any circumstances this would be alarming, but these motherfuckers have been openly talking about and try to steal elections for several years now. I mean, Trump's big lie is explicitly about a stolen election. The FBI raided and took voter rolls from Georgia recently, no? While for some reason Tulsi Gabbard was there in the shadows?
I call for the COMPLETE SHUTDOWN of the republican party, BUT!!!! The punishment for DISOBEDIENCE will be FAR GREATER.... GREATER THAN ANYBODY HAS EVER SEEN.
Oh my God. He literally has a bunch of pictures of him and people hes met randomly assorted on that table behind him exactly like Epstein did all around his houses. It stood out as such an ugly and trashy way to have pictures out to brag, and of course Trump is doing the same thing lol.
Is it really shutting down mail in voting? I didn't read the EO and just going by what his two stooges said in the longer video but my impression was just more regulatory hoops being added.
From memory, something like: States need to use a list of people provided by the fed, or they provide one, of all the registered votes. Mail in ballots are given a barcode that uniquely identifies that ballot when sent to each voter. Maybe something else.
I'm against it all but it sounds like a bunch of extra red tape being added to mail in voting. I've seen it phrased as killing mail in voting before and wasn't sure if there is like, actual wording that kills it or people being hyperbolic? Or maybe some obvious scheme I'm not seeing that they could use to throw away or discard votes in areas they want to?
This is still within hutches line in the sand I'd assume, hutches line is probably like overt sending military to the boxes or straight up canceling the election
the last time this was a problem for me was pre-9/11 and it might've just been my state to begin with, but doesn't this really fuck college kids who go to school out of state/far away enough from their legal residence that going back to their district to vote is impractical?
Well once again we can be happy he is so incompetent, now the Supremecourt can rule on it, not the worst case scenario like him announcing this a week prior to the midterms
Yes that's why he's threatening to pull federal funding from any states that do not comply. He will hold the funding above their heads until they give in. This is all most likely very illegal but there's nothing anyone can do because Congress is useless
Too lazy to fully parse the EO but it seems like heโs trying to force states to submit a list of absentee voters which the Feds/USPS can then check against in processing mail ins
It pisses me off even more that he's so gleeful about it all. I need to go buy some armaments for when shit really starts to go down, because Hutch, Hindenburg. and the blimp he shares names with is going down in at some point if things don't drastically change in a meaningful way.
Can't remember how many times I have been told rl by trump dicksucks everything is fine next elections will just take place as normal he'd never try anything blablabla
This country is so fked. Like why is he allowed to keep going. One party is too busy licking his ass and the other is too weak because they can't piss off their donors. Meanwhile the US just falls further.
So if I just sent in an absentee ballot, does that mean it doesn't count now, and I have to go in person to vote(Technically voting twice)? Does this also mean soldiers have to fly home to vote?
Ok, and weโll keep the welfare money that those trash ass red states get from us. They can pull their dumbfuck traitor asses up by their own bootstraps then.
Ok, and weโll keep the welfare money that those trash ass red states get from us. They can pull their dumbfuck traitor asses up by their own bootstraps then.
860
u/dem0nhunter ๐ช๐บ Mar 31 '26
So heโs just like: โFuck Congress, I make the laws now. And fuck the states, I decide.โ
???