The very foundation of Democracy is at stake!! …again for like 30 years straight now.

My step dad use to quote bible verses to me trying to prove Obama was the literal antichrist. Before that it was the evil Bush and his oil cronies. Now it’s Trump, in two years it will be someone else. Same as it ever was.

▲

cowlevel 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is though? Like, every single election, someone runs on the platform of abolishing democracy. Every single election, it's important that person doesn't win, or there won't be a democracy any more.

By all rights there shouldn't be one already, but we're lucky the democracy abolitionists are fairly incompetent.

▲

sejje 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So last election, Kamala Harris was the platform of abolishing democracy?

Or, alternatively, did we cease to have a democracy?

▲

jeremyjh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We are very substantially less democratic than we were in 2024. The admin has broken laws regarding impoundment and war powers, just to name two. The executive has no legal power to determine funding allocations, or to commit to wars long-term. Yet both have happened and are still happening.

Using the DOJ to interfere in state elections they have no jurisdiction in, and having masked men abduct people and ignore court orders regarding their disposition is just about as authoritarian as it gets.

Those are all new things that have substantially eroded - or removed all together the idea of democracy in less than two years.

▲

cowlevel 2 hours ago | parent [-]

On the other hand, it's possible to argue that America is still democratic, since it voted for all the stuff that's now happening. It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election, and it would become irreversibly undemocratic if a president actually stayed in office after losing an election.

▲

sejje 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not gonna happen.

If one side shuts the other out of power, that's when we'll finally get the civil war many have been predicting for a long time.

Hopefully the framework to limit power can stay in place, in spite of all the calls to change it, abolish the senate, pack the court, make sure to punish/"hold accountable" red voters, etc.

▲

ImPostingOnHN an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> it's possible to argue that America is still democratic, since it voted for all the stuff that's now happening

It's possible, but not very credible, to argue that in a situation where direct democracy doesn't exist.

The closest we have to voted for these things rather than voted for these people is polls, which overwhelmingly illustrate that most people oppose those things.

We'll know more after the election, if people supported those things.

> It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election

Yes, the current president tried exactly that, in a violent insurrection, and has interfered in national elections since regaining power.

	▲	cowlevel 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		People keep polling against the things that are happening, but in elections that actually matter they keep voting for them, so... and it's probably not just election tampering, because polls close to elections also show support.

▲

15155 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How did she do in the primaries?

▲

throwitaway222 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean Karen Bass just said there's no need for an Election for the governor, it's Xavier Baccera. He's the governor already according to her. "You don't need an election on November 3. A Republican cannot win in this state."

	▲	BobaFloutist 2 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Do you think she meant there shouldn't be an election, or was simply alluding to the incredibly predictable result we all know to expect?
	▲	cowlevel 29 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In Alaska the GOP has filed a lawsuit saying the election was rigged but only if they lose (since it hasn't happened yet). I wish I was making this up.

▲

jackb4040 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well it's important to you. It's evidently not important to the people you vote for, the people who fundraise off of this hostage situation, the people who have had trifectas multiple times during this era and have not even used them to permanently secure the "democracy", let alone the overwhelmingly popular policies with their base that would guarantee they win ever election but piss off their donors.

▲

basilikum 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How many of them openly attacked and rejected to democratic process itself? How many of them did not accept the result of an election?

▲

10111001 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The very foundation of Democracy is at stake!! …again for like 30 years straight now.

There's a very easy method to tell if someone making that claim is a liar: ask "what major ideological compromise are they making to save democracy?" if the answer is "none" or close to it, they're full of shit.

'Cause if fascism is really our doorstep, you'd think they'd be gunning for the broadest, most indefatigable anti-fascist coalition possible; instead of the narrowest, most pure one they think they can get away with.

	▲	lkbm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean...I think people who oppose GMOs, permitting reform, hydroelectric, and nuclear power do care about the environment, despite actively working against it. People who oppose developers building more houses do want more affordable housing, despite actively working against it. People, including individuals, aren't single-minded, rational, or scientifically literate. In the case of anti-fascism, many on the left earnestly believe that a far-left candidate is the solution because their bubble tells them that their views are dominant. After all, they and many of their friends aren't excited to vote for the moderates, but would vote for someone more left. I'll sacrifice a lot of things I care about for leadership that would shore up democracy (I'm not sure how, though fixing redistricting is a big one), but it's seen as normal and admirable to refuse to compromise.

▲

Arodex 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh, yeah, Bush wasn't that bad, right? Just hundreds of thousands of deaths and crippled veterans, and the complete destruction of global order that opened the door to Russia invading Ukraine. "Just worth a shrug", you say while you pass by a crack addicted veteran while on you way to pay 30% more for gas and food. "It wasn't worth getting worried about."

What a level-headed, reasonable know-nothing you are, sitting above all this unreasonable jockeying.

I am not surprised though, you live in a culture where people can lecture others that the Bible told them Obama was Satan. You don't know what actual politics is anymore.

	▲	saila 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’d add the so-called “Patriot Act” to the list of damages from the GW Bush era. Massive consequences that can’t be shrugged off with some both-sides nonsense.