I disagree, if it’s corrupted, then it’s broken. If you have a system where there’s redundancies and backups but they all fail due to the same issue then that’s a bad design.
So, checkit yo, built-in to the system is an open-ended upgrade path that avoids bloodshed. All you gotta do is get representatives of 50 states to agree to it.
If you’ve got a better system than that serving 400 million politically, ethnically, religiously, economically diverse people in practice, in the real world somewhere, let’s see it.
You don’t, of course but if you just want to shit on this one because reasons, simply indicate your preferred method to end all corruption and how you’d like to implement it without bloodshed.
If you come down of your high horse for a moment you’ll realise the person you replied to is talking about how if a single person can take America from a broadly functioning society to having jack booted thugs murdering people on the streets and deploying the army to quell dissent and alienating the entirety of their network of alliances and trade partners in the space of two weeks something in the vaunted “checks and balances” has gone wrong.
As if we all aren’t painfully aware of what that thing is and how it has almost nothing to do with the “system” being shit upon.
No governmental system, real or imagined, is going to work that well when led by a demented, sociopathic, pathological lying rapist felon, backed by a thoroughly brainwashed cult and the entirety of the largest fucking industries on the planet.
So, sure The Constitution was deliberately written in such a way as to allow that, as one of our commenters would have it. Bullshit. It’s not “the system”, as in the Constitution. It’s a lot of things, but it’s not that.
This is a nation under unceasing attack by known psychological warfare methods for a decade at least, and rupert murdoch for thirty years. You’re pissing on the wrong thing. Wrongly.
If you had a popular vote instead of your weird ass elector thing, then Hillary Clinton had been president in 2016. That would have been the end of Trump.
Refusing to acknowledge any potential structural problems at the heart of American democracy and blaming everything on outside forces is naive beyond belief.
Are you talking about aging infrastructure? Perhaps infant health? An unhealthy gun culture? No? Then name the fucking structural problem you think you know about.
Jesus christ. Just off the top of my head: 2 party duopoly, corporate & lobbying influence, the electoral college, corporate personhood, lack of term limits for everyone except the president, gerrymandering, the supreme court (and the political appointees), lack of true representation in either the house or Senate.
2 party duopoly,
The constitution says President is determined by who gets the most votes. Tell me what the structural problem is with that. Yes, it has become a duopoly despite the warning from George Washington in his farewell address to not let it get that way. And it wasn’t that way for fairly large periods of time. It’s not structural, is what I’m saying.
corporate & lobbying influence
Agreed it’s a problem, tell me why the structure doesn’t allow us to fix it.
the electoral college,
Well, yeah. This was an amendment forced through by the pre-republicans (a.k.a. The Slave States) and meets the criteria of a structural problem. 150 years is a long time in the US but it’s still possible to unfuck ourselves based on the structure of the government. It requires thoughtful, selfless leadership. You see the problem. And it’s one of our own - much later - design.
corporate personhood,
Is bullshit. The corrupt SCOTUS (which took decades to create) interpreted the structure to allow this. It doesn’t. They’re “wrong”. (And evil, and idiots, but I digress). Not structural. Corruption.
lack of term limits for everyone except the president,
Yes and no. Term limits for representatives and senators exist. But they can be elected as many tines as they choose to run. That’s kind of structural, but only because the voting public are such pithed cult members.
gerrymandering,
Not structural. A corruption of the structure that persists. It should be specifically prevented, but they hadn’t gotten that far in 1789. 200 years later, yes conditions had changed.
the supreme court (and the political appointees),
What about them? That they’re appointed by the government? You’d prefer popular elections for Secretary of Labor? I dunno.
lack of true representation in either the house or Senate
is this separate from the Slaver’s College or something else?
All of them are fair points for things that need improvement, but the structure allows for that improvement, it doesn’t prevent it. The constant omnipresent methods for subverting that structure (i.e. propaganda) and naked corruption are present everywhere in the world and are not unique to the US.
I disagree, if it’s corrupted, then it’s broken. If you have a system where there’s redundancies and backups but they all fail due to the same issue then that’s a bad design.
I’m going to counter that it’s working exactly as designed and “The People” never had anything to do with it.
So, checkit yo, built-in to the system is an open-ended upgrade path that avoids bloodshed. All you gotta do is get representatives of 50 states to agree to it.
If you’ve got a better system than that serving 400 million politically, ethnically, religiously, economically diverse people in practice, in the real world somewhere, let’s see it.
You don’t, of course but if you just want to shit on this one because reasons, simply indicate your preferred method to end all corruption and how you’d like to implement it without bloodshed.
If you come down of your high horse for a moment you’ll realise the person you replied to is talking about how if a single person can take America from a broadly functioning society to having jack booted thugs murdering people on the streets and deploying the army to quell dissent and alienating the entirety of their network of alliances and trade partners in the space of two weeks something in the vaunted “checks and balances” has gone wrong.
As if we all aren’t painfully aware of what that thing is and how it has almost nothing to do with the “system” being shit upon.
No governmental system, real or imagined, is going to work that well when led by a demented, sociopathic, pathological lying rapist felon, backed by a thoroughly brainwashed cult and the entirety of the largest fucking industries on the planet.
So, sure The Constitution was deliberately written in such a way as to allow that, as one of our commenters would have it. Bullshit. It’s not “the system”, as in the Constitution. It’s a lot of things, but it’s not that.
This is a nation under unceasing attack by known psychological warfare methods for a decade at least, and rupert murdoch for thirty years. You’re pissing on the wrong thing. Wrongly.
If you had a popular vote instead of your weird ass elector thing, then Hillary Clinton had been president in 2016. That would have been the end of Trump.
Well you’re right about that. Let’s remember the “Slaver’s College” was a late addition and one we’d all love to see gone.
Refusing to acknowledge any potential structural problems at the heart of American democracy and blaming everything on outside forces is naive beyond belief.
Name the structural problem.
I’ll wait.
Are you talking about aging infrastructure? Perhaps infant health? An unhealthy gun culture? No? Then name the fucking structural problem you think you know about.
Jesus christ. Just off the top of my head: 2 party duopoly, corporate & lobbying influence, the electoral college, corporate personhood, lack of term limits for everyone except the president, gerrymandering, the supreme court (and the political appointees), lack of true representation in either the house or Senate.
Or are we just ignoring all of those?
Okay, let’s look inside:
2 party duopoly,
The constitution says President is determined by who gets the most votes. Tell me what the structural problem is with that. Yes, it has become a duopoly despite the warning from George Washington in his farewell address to not let it get that way. And it wasn’t that way for fairly large periods of time. It’s not structural, is what I’m saying.
corporate & lobbying influence
Agreed it’s a problem, tell me why the structure doesn’t allow us to fix it.
the electoral college,
Well, yeah. This was an amendment forced through by the pre-republicans (a.k.a. The Slave States) and meets the criteria of a structural problem. 150 years is a long time in the US but it’s still possible to unfuck ourselves based on the structure of the government. It requires thoughtful, selfless leadership. You see the problem. And it’s one of our own - much later - design.
corporate personhood,
Is bullshit. The corrupt SCOTUS (which took decades to create) interpreted the structure to allow this. It doesn’t. They’re “wrong”. (And evil, and idiots, but I digress). Not structural. Corruption.
lack of term limits for everyone except the president,
Yes and no. Term limits for representatives and senators exist. But they can be elected as many tines as they choose to run. That’s kind of structural, but only because the voting public are such pithed cult members.
gerrymandering,
Not structural. A corruption of the structure that persists. It should be specifically prevented, but they hadn’t gotten that far in 1789. 200 years later, yes conditions had changed.
the supreme court (and the political appointees),
What about them? That they’re appointed by the government? You’d prefer popular elections for Secretary of Labor? I dunno.
lack of true representation in either the house or Senate
is this separate from the Slaver’s College or something else?
All of them are fair points for things that need improvement, but the structure allows for that improvement, it doesn’t prevent it. The constant omnipresent methods for subverting that structure (i.e. propaganda) and naked corruption are present everywhere in the world and are not unique to the US.
Fine, I take it all back, the US is a perfect democracy with literally no problems whatsoever.
Unless, as I suspect, we’re arguing over the semantics of the word structural.