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.
But Trump hasn’t proven unpopular; that’s why he won reelection. If the ruling party has a majority and the PM has their party’s support, nothing would happen in most other systems either.
The popularity of both of the imperial genocidal candidates is the result of centuries of conditioning and the collapse of the education system and free press. It’s a cyclical problem. We vote them in, they keep us stupid, we vote them in again.
The popularity of both of the imperial genocidal candidates is the result of centuries of conditioning and the collapse of the education system and free press. It’s a cyclical problem. We vote them in, they keep us stupid, we vote them in again.
Didn’t say he was. Just saying if he did such crazy things that even the crazies drop out, he could be removed. That’s extremely hard in the US. You’re basically stuck with the moron for four years.
In theory, if he went so far over the line that he became very unpopular, then Congress members would fear for their reelection chances if they didn’t publicly break with him. But with him attacking democracy itself, Congress may be more afraid of him than they are of voters. It’s a deeply troubling time.