You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.

Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?

I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Our government leans heavily on decorum and good faith. Trump’s success has been due to his refusal to adhere to decorum and good faith. Our system doesn’t know how to handle that other than shaming and shaking fists so Trump gets free reign to do whatever he wants.

    • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Its not just government its all social systems. Cheating only works if the large majority follow the rules. This is sorta what civil disobedience is about. Its to show that hey, guess what, we could all just start ignoring norms.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Yes they do, but why bring this up now? No President has claimed to be a Nazi. Trump is a big supporter of the Jewish state.

    • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      Yeah, he’s not even likely to annex Austria in a foreseeable future. And he doesn’t seem to have claims on Sudetenland either.

      So no, not a nazi, nuh uh, nazism is only when perfectly replaying the Third Reich mission.

    • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      So you actually need majority to PREVENT the collapse of democracy, and if you don’t have it, you’re fucked? How the fuck did this country even manage not to succumb into dictatorship for such a long time?

      • drthunder@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        The ruling class was able to get along well enough up until the US Civil War, at which point the slavers decided they were willing to tear the country apart to keep on slaving. I include this because the Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow and how we did things over here. Fascism started bubbling up in the early 20th century because industrialization and capitalism polluted everything and made people work awful hours and all that, and liberalism and conservatism hadn’t fixed it. There was a serious coup attempt forming in the early 30s called the Business Plot, but they went to a war hero Marine general who told them to fuck off and told the federal government about it.

        At least in the US, we’re in this situation now because authoritarians have been working toward it since the 60s (the Powell Memo was written in 1971 I think) and they’ve taken advantage of how terribly the Constitution is written, along with consolidation of wealth and stoking backlash to all the civil rights movements to get people to back them. The worst part is that it’s a feedback loop: since Reagan took power, Republicans campaign on “look how bad the government is!” and make the government worse once they’re in office, which feeds their cause.

        tl;dr capitalism makes living conditions terrible, people abandon liberalism and conservatism for socialism/communism/etc and fascism, liberals don’t want much to change, fascism lives or dies based on how much conservatives sell out to/ally with them. The fact that we’re doing this all again shows to me that liberalism is a dead ideology and capitalism is going to kill us if we don’t kill it first.

      • alleycat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        If enough people in a democracy decide that they want a dictatorship instead, then there is no stopping it, because rules don’t matter at this point. The trick is to don’t let it get this far. Tough shit for the US, though.

        • Forbo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          People democratically sat on their asses and didn’t bother to fucking vote. More people abstained from voting than actually voted for either candidate. The real winner of the election was apathy. We deserve whatever fucked up outcome we get.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        I mean imagine if you could impeach the president without a majority. That would be the death of democracy. Just to put things in perspective: The GOP democratically won both houses of Congress and the presidency and because of DNC incompetence also has the Supreme Court. Them being able to do whatever the fuck they want is, in a way, democracy working as intended. It’d be weirder (and much more undemocratic) if there was a way to remove a sitting president without the Supreme Court or Congress.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          It’d be weirder (and much more undemocratic) if there was a way to remove a sitting president without the Supreme Court or Congress.

          Turns out there is, in fact. It just doesn’t involve governmental process at all. You’re quite correct that it’s undemocratic. (See: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy)

        • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          This only proves that two-party system is just an authoritarianism with rotation. There’s always a ruling majority and the winner takes all.

          Things would be different with at least the third party. 2 out of 3 parties would agree that the party no.3 is a fucking malice and rule him out.

          • evidences@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            Third party would most likely make things better but there’s no guarantee it would help in the situation you’ve set up. If two of the parties are fine with an actual Nazi in the White House and between them they control over half the votes then we’re still in the same situation.

          • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            Two party system wasn’t in the constitution, its an emergent property of FPTP voting method. FPTP + Electoral College means we get this fucking bullshit.

            TLDR: There’s no “two-party system”, that’s just the result of FPTP. Nuke the FPTP system, replace with Ranked-Choice ballot (and also delete the Electoral College, that shit is outdated AF).

            • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              Very much on the electoral college, it made some measure of sense when the electors would have to ride a horse from California to DC maybe but that died a century or so ago.

              From a smart ass perspective though, I just want to point that the TLDR portion actually has more words than the block above it. 🙃

              • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                14 days ago

                From a smart ass perspective though, I just want to point that the TLDR portion actually has more words than the block above it. 🙃

                Lol I started to use “TLDR” as a replacement for “In Conclusion”, because the concluding paragraph is supposed to summarize what you wrote anyways, so those terms are interchangeable.

              • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                13 days ago

                If they hadn’t capped the number of representatives at 435 over a hundred years ago, we wouldn’t be in the situation where a vote from Wyoming carries 3.7 times more weight than a vote from California. By my math, if the 435 cap was abolished, we would have 143 more electors generally sprinkled among the more populous states. I still agree that the EC is outdated, but it’s not even operating the way it was designed.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Worse… The House makes the impeachment charge, that’s a 50% majority vote.

        THEN it goes to the Senate for conviction where you need a 2/3rds majority to remove them. 67/100.

        That’s the body which can’t do anything because they’re blocked by a 60 vote super majority to over-ride A filibuster.

        So you get 218 in the House, goes to the Senate, needs 60 votes to end debate and proceed with charges, then 67 votes to convict and remove.

        Trump’s first impeachment got 48 and 47 votes.
        His second was 57 votes.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

        If he had been convicted, he would have been inelligible to run in '24.

        • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          The founders probably imagined no self respecting person, oligarch or otherwise, would want to live under authoritarian rule.

          Turns out the 21st century bourgeois is full of pussy ass bitches.

          • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            They never could have imagined our modern society at all. The amount of power and influence held by just a handful of private citizens couldn’t have been accounted for in the 18th century.

            • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              12 days ago

              I’m just speaking from a matter of principle. They don’t have to know the conditions to conclude living under a kings rule in any condition is unappealing.

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          ^ this.

          The president isn’t in charge. He’s existing within boundaries created by the wealthy.

      • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        Well the country didn’t previously have a legion of mouth breathing retards screaming at the top of their lungs about micro-aggressions and declaring that the nation was illegitimate. I’d also question your metrics for deciding now that he’s an openly Nazi dictator, other than parroting what you hear from other people social media accounts.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    But who will wield these instruments? It’d be more relevant if he made an effort to hide his nature before the election.

    Right now the majority voted fascism with open eyes.

    • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      The army or the police should immediately jump in and arrest Elon after the second salute, when it became obvious the guy knew what he was doing. And yet he saluted 3 times and half the country is extremely enthusiastic about that.

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        You’re calling for military generals to have the power to remove the government? Effectively a military dictatorship?

        That seems unwise.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Elon isn’t a government official, there would be nothing unwise about arresting him for things most people would get arrested or at least questioned by the police for.

        • gressen@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          The right to free speech is faulty if there are no repercussions from breaking the law.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            Again, the first amendment protects the right to free speech and association; as far as American law is concerned, Elon didn’t break any laws.

            • gressen@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. You said that forbidding a Nazi salute would be against the first amendment. I’m only saying that IF Nazi symbols were to be outlawed then the freedom of speech should not equal to freedom from breaking the law.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                14 days ago

                IF Nazi symbols were to be outlawed then the freedom of speech should not equal to freedom from breaking the law.

                It does, though, because such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect lawful speech; it protects all speech and the American government just barely carved out an exception for inciting violence. These amendments are part of the constitution, which stands above and restricts the rest of American law. If you made a law saying that Nazi symbols were illegal, your law would (at least theoretically) be illegal and struck down in court and people would retain the freedom to use Nazi symbols. You might take issue with that, but if only legal speech was allowed then… the government could just make any speech it doesn’t like illegal.

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        … and half the country is extremely enthusiastic about that.

        There’s the reason nothing is done about it. It’s probably not actually half, but enough people didn’t speak up early enough, and so this has become the loudest voice in the room. Unless, and until that changes, the whole world is in for a rough ride.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        I thought it was twice? I mean, that doesn’t detract from your point, and I don’t even disagree. I just want to make sure the details are set straight.

        • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          I saw a full clip on reddit. First time was just as bad, because he did it spontaneously, with no “throwing hearts”. He just heiled out of nowhere.

  • itsnotits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago
    • with a 100-year* tradition
    • throwing down its* key ideology
    • Are* 53 out of 100 senate seats
    • make the* country fall
    • yarr@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      I am learning that in modern America, Nazi is just anyone they don’t like.

      • febra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Actively spreading hate towards the LGBTQ community and making some of the most marginalised people isn’t nazi enough for you? What a sick world we live in.

        • VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          This very liberal use of Nazi and fascist as a epithet has devalued its meaning.

          Hate is not enough. The Nazis did far more than spread hate. National-Socialism was much more coherent and thought through ideology than Trumpism/MAGA is today.

          Nazi might be useful as an expression of anger and resentment, but it’s not conducive to serious analysis or discourse regarding the situation.

        • yarr@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          I would agree that Nazis were anti-gay. Is anyone anti-gay a Nazi? What’s your definition of Nazi?

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days 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.

  • Auli@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Well isn’t that the reason everyone uses on why America needs so many guns. So they can stand up to the government? But seems it ment standing up to a government giving more people rights not one taking them away.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days 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

      • endeavor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days 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." You are fucked in the head as a people and you absolutely deserve your country to be a shitshow cause you like it that way.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        This guy has been impeached twice and convicted of 34 felony charges. So we actually need something physical to stop him.

  • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days 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?

    • door_in_the_face@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days 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.

        • kadup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          a huge emphasis on giving the people the power to write their own collective destiny.

          A functional democracy is not a dictatorship of the majority, and people from the US love making this mistake. It is true that the president gets elected by a majority vote… but this person now represents everyone, including the minority that opposes them. They do not have the right to sink the ship and kill everyone because the majority thinks that’s a good idea.

          It is natural that their government will make decisions aligned with their voters (in theory) but they shouldn’t be allowed to actively undermine the rights of everyone else.

          No matter how inflated your perception of your “flawless” constitution and democracy is, this is something many countries understand pretty well and yours struggles with.

          • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            If you honestly think a military junta would be more representative of the American people than Trump, then I don’t know what to tell you.

            Also our president is not elected via majority (or plurality) vote. This has been one of the major complaints about the American political system since 2000, so I gotta wonder how much you’re paying attention.

            • kadup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 days ago

              If you honestly think a military junta would be more representative of the American people than Trump, then I don’t know what to tell you.

              Good thing I never made such claim and absolutely nothing on my comment reaches that conclusion, then.

              Also our president is not elected via majority (or plurality) vote.

              The details about your horrendous electoral system are irrelevant to the point, which by now is very clear you didn’t understand.

              You’re not doing much to fight the stereotype of americans lacking basic reading comprehension though.

                • kadup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 days ago

                  The point is that you don’t know the first thing about American politics,

                  You couldn’t even comprehend the point being made, misinterpreting it so fundamentally I genuinely - non-ironically - believe you struggled reading the words being written.

                  and are wholly unqualified to make any comments about it.

                  And yet, what I wrote is an aspect of democratic structures so fundamentally basic it wouldn’t even matter if the US was the target of the comment. Funny how that is.

        • door_in_the_face@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          Yes, but it is a question that is pertinent to the situation. What do you do if a population elects someone that starts undermining their democracy? I understand that forcibly taking that person’s power away is in itself anti-democratic, but if their actions are even worse, then it would be justified right? A smaller anti-democratic act to stop the larger anti-democratic effort where they’re dismantling the democratic system that put them in power.

      • VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days 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.

    • miridius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days 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.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days 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.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Yes, the President can be impeached and removed by Congress. On the opposite side of the coin a President can veto laws passed by Congress, which Congress can override but it’s harder than passing a law. The problem is when Congress also goes nazi at the same time. In that case we’re fucked. In fact I think Article 97 sub-paragraph E13/W even says, “Such conditions and circumstances shall by Law constitute Fuckage.”

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Cool, but half the country supports this shit. And no, people who don’t vote don’t matter in this context.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Then maybe they should have their own shithole country and stop taking our tax dollars.

      • Freefall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        That is by design. If the “majority” of the country wants the US to be Nazis, that is the direction it will go. That is how a representative democracy works. The flaw was the founders assuming retarded puppets would not be elected by even an uneducated public. But, they also didn’t plan for automatic weapons either. Well, they sort of did, they said we should be rewriting the constitution every so many years so it can evolve with the times, but we chose to enshrine and misinterpret it like a civic bible. Oops.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        I think the US is beyond fucked already. The fact that Bonespurs could get elected president not once but twice is a clear sign that America’s collective intelligence has dropped below Idiocracy level. A complex society can withstand a lot of stupidity as long as there are enough people who can keep the opportunists in their place, but that’s not true anymore. I’m not just talking about people who voted for him, I’m including the several million people who voted for Biden in 2020 but refused to vote for Harris in 2024. They were the safety net that decided to fold itself up and go home. We’re done.

  • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    The mechanism is the three branches of power providing checks and balances and voting. But when the people elect them to all three branches. It kinda defeats the purpose

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Trump has said that Elon “knows those computers better than anybody … And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide”.

        First of all, we know that to be false because we know Elon doesn’t know shit about computers. But, aside from that, there are multiple possible interpretations of what he meant, anything from “Elon rigged the election” to “Elon ensured the integrity of the election”.

        My policy is “Don’t believe anything Trump says about anything”. I don’t change that policy when he says something that I want to believe is true.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            That’s not what that letter says. It says that operatives may have gained access to the software used to count votes, and if that happened they may have been able to probe that software for weaknesses.

            What it doesn’t say is that there was a subsequent, second breach of the voting machines in which doctored software was then installed.

            It’s like someone gaining access to blueprints for a bank vault. Yes, that theoretically lowers the security of the vault, but it doesn’t prove that a bank heist has taken place, just that a heist is more likely to be possible now.

            • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              13 days ago

              Okay so what do you do when the mob gets the blueprints for the bank vault, and then a few weeks later the Don brags about all the money he stole?

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                13 days ago

                The Don who lies constantly about everything? Who didn’t even say “we stole the money” but more, “Elmo is good with bank stuff, and we have lots of money”? The same guy who wouldn’t know how to read a blueprint, and would probably just post a picture of the blueprint on social media to generate controversy and traffic? The Don who, if he actually had broken into the bank, wouldn’t be able to shut up about it, and would be bragging about it non-stop, probably by doing live-streams from within the bank vault?

                You don’t assume that he hit the bank. You follow your normal security procedures, and check that what you expect to see in the vault is what you actually see in the vault. Then you just ignore the blowhard.

                • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  But the people in charge didn’t check. Harris was told to ask for a recount, and she didn’t.

                  If the people responsible for security won’t do their due diligence, drag is going to play it safe and assume they fucked up.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Also Benjamin Franklin said that he believed constitution should torn up and redone every 30 years. We shouldn’t even be using it 200 years later.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        I know about Jefferson and his 20 year automatic sunset phase for laws at all levels, except for Constitutions, charters, and other founding documents that can be amended. Hadn’t heard that Franklin wanted to sunset the Constitution itself as well. Not sure that we would have lasted this long if Franklin had gotten his way there. I do think that Jefferson and Madison were on the right track with the federal, state, and local laws though. Tyranny of the dead and all that.

      • nomy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        That’s a non sequitur though, unless you’re suggesting a tyrant would nuke the population he wanted to rule.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days 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.