• Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Has failed. Has failed. Has…

    You’ll catch up. Whatever.

    Edit:

    Well, I dont think there are any shortages of checks, to the corrupt politicians.

    And there certainly is balancing going on, the balance of billionaires bank accounts going up.

    There yoi have it. The world famous checks and balances in america.

    • breecher@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yeah, more like infamous. Basically all other Western democracies have looked at the US system and thought “yeah, we are going to do something else”, except for the ones who were militarily pressed into adopting something akin to the US constitution.

  • nialv7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 hours ago

    “Famed”? Lol

    It can only work if the government wasn’t partisan. Kinda impressive it took this long for the facade to fall off.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 day ago

    Supreme court, July 2024: “the president is the god king, and cannot be beholden to laws of mere mortals”

    The Guardian, July 2025: “i don’t know guys, checks and balances seem to be failing, don’t you think?”

    checks and balances were already fucked but whatever was there was finally shot dead and thrown in a ditch like a Noem family pet a year ago, dickheads, what the fuck are you talking about

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 day ago

    The AskHistorians podcast called it, in the aftermath of January 6 riots. They did not explicitly compare January 6 with the fall of Roman republic, but explained why the republic fell. The institutions got too corrupt in spite of checks and balances. The concept worked many times and was threatened before, until the breaking point had been reached. Brutus proclaimed he saved democracy after assassinating Caesar, but the crowd booed and heckled him because Caesar was popular and could actually get the job done, unlike corrupt politicians who typically make excuses not to do what the people want, because the elites would not want to ruffle their feathers of their patrons and their own interests.

    People are not dumb. If politicians are doing what the people want, populism would never be a thing.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      If politicians are doing what the people want, populism would never be a thing.

      Populism works to get politicians elected because it is nothing more than politicians telling the people what the people want to hear.

      Populism has nothing to do with actually doing what is in the best interests of the people, it’s about making the people believe that their interests are going to be served.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Populism is getting a bad rap, but more often than not, it is triggered when people feel under pressure from worsening cost and standards of living. If we follow Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the base requirement of security of food and shelter has to be addressed first, before more conceptual self-realisation needs and other abstract ideas are thought of. If you are constantly worried about how to put food on the table, or how to pay the rent, you would not have sufficient time to think more abstract ideas like exploring the nebula, algebra, democracy, rule of law, checks and balances, etc.

        Demagogues rile up populism to get into power, because there is genuine frustration among the people on not having their basic needs being met. Needless to say, populism is still democracy. Here in Europe (or in anywhere really), experts have already repeated numerous times that in order to prevent the further rise of far right, just build more houses. But of course politicians don’t want that, because they themselves are landlords or have financial stakes in keeping property and rent prices high. Unfortunately, demagogues twist the genuine concerns and frustrations, and exploit the desperate situation people are in to gain power.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Checks-and-balances rely on:

    1. Voter interest in civic participation

    2. Careerist politicians and bureaucrats

    If voters have no civic interest and prefer masturbatory prejudices to serious consideration of civic duty, and if ‘careerist’ politicians are given immense power and wealth for stepping aside (either by retirement or by simple non-action when in office) thus rendering self-castration of their office personally meaningless to their career path/personal fortunes, checks and balances don’t mean shit.

    All systems are reliant on a population’s willingness to obey and enforce their rules. We in the US, apparently, have very little appetite for that anymore.

  • lukaro@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I spent the first 3/4 of my adult life listening to all politicians and deciding who I thought had better ideas for the issues that concerned me. The last 12 years have taught me that there are simply to many fucking republicans. That wouldn’t be a problem but every single last one of them are worthless pieces of shit, more interested in cruelty than accomplishing anything decent.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The last 12 years have taught me that there are simply to many fucking republicans.

      So many that they’ve been bleeding into the Democratic Party.

      Felt like I was taking crazy pills when Kamala Harris spent the back half of October leaving her very popular VP candidate on the side of the road while doing a whirlwind tour with… Liz fucking Cheney. Between that, importing all of Keir Starmer’s UK campaign staffers, and letting Michael Bloomberg manager her social media, it’s a wonder she didn’t do worse.

      That wouldn’t be a problem but every single last one of them are worthless pieces of shit

      Waking up every day and saying the Pledge of Allegiance on a pile of Ayn Rand novels will do that to you.

      • FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I honestly think that she should’ve won but the repubos cheated, as they do every time. There’s no way Trump swept every single swing state. All the polls showed it’s be a tight race but for Kamala to lose so utterly? Now, I’ve made fun of election deniers in the past, I see the irony. But its suspect.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I honestly think that she should’ve won but the repubos cheated, as they do every time.

          When Republicans cheat and win, Democrats stomp their feet but insist there’s nothing they can do.

          When Republicans cheat and lose, Democrats say “demographics is destiny!” and ignore the problem until the next election cycle.

          There’s no way Trump swept every single swing state.

          Eh. Harris was a dogshit campaigner who inherited a dogshit campaign from a senile neoconservative hack with underwater approval numbers. Had Walz been at the top of the ticket (or Pritzker or Baldwin or maybe even Klobacher or Warren) things might have gone differently. Their political instincts were miles better than Harris’s, which is why they stomp all over her in the 2020 primary.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            No, statistically what happened was about impossible not to mention a shit ton of votes for Donald Cuck that only voted for him and ignored all the other candidates. You can’t tell me that many voters only voted for the President and ignored all the other Republican candidates.

            Besides all the legal voter suppression there was likely some tabulation machine manipulation. Maga had also infiltrated all levels of the voting system to make sure it was “fair” aka stop the blue no matter what.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              You can’t tell me that many voters only voted for the President and ignored all the other Republican candidates.

              If you actually interview the voters themselves, its very easy to see why they loved Trump and hated the rest of the party. Like, their social media routinely says as much. Their favorite news and entertainment channels say as much. They say as much. This is a cult of personality, not unlike with Reagan in '80/'84 or Nixon in '72, where split-tickets and blank bottom ballots swept both Republican Presidents and Dem House Majorities into power.

              Besides all the legal voter suppression there was likely some tabulation machine manipulation.

              Oh absolutely. But that’s been fucking liberals over since Operation Eagle Eye. Democrats simply don’t seem to care. From Michelle Obama to Stacey Abrams to Pete Buttigieg, when they’re asked what they can do to resist voters disenfranchisement, the answer is always “Vote Harder”.

              The “when they go low, we go high” strategy appears to be little more than wishful thinking, as democrats chant “demographics is destiny” in states where more and more of the residents are cut off from the elections process.