959
Yeah, so... (lemmy.world)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 85 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe it's time you guys rewrote your constitution into something more modern instead of treating the old one as a holy scripture handed down from Olympus.

But I doubt that'll ever happen.

[-] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 44 points 2 weeks ago

Trump is about to rewrite our Constitution, just not the way it should be written.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

If he does, at least it'll show that it can be rewritten.

[-] 4grams@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Why do people pretend like a piece of paper matters. Trump has all the power and there are no checks and balances left. Imagine if he breaks the constitution, are zombie Washington, Jefferson and Franklin going to rise from the grave and enact vengeance?

Every rule that’s been broken was unbreakable until it was broken.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 13 points 2 weeks ago

Now is definitely not the time to rewrite the constitution. Could you imagine what the powers that be would do to it?

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

Subscription based rights.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] llamatron@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

I'd like the 1st amendment to be altered slightly. Sure, everyone should be free to speak without government sanction but that shouldn't mean freedom to lie. Fox and the rightwing have been abusing the shit out of it for years.

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

This is a terrible, horrible idea. It would give the government the power to censor anyone and anything, and all they have to do is claim that the thing they are censoring is a lie.

[-] llamatron@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Well treating lies to be as valid as fact has brought you half a population living in their own reality and Trump as president.

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Placing exceptions on the freedom of speech does not mean that lies will get silenced. It means that whatever the government wants to censor will get silenced. Because the government will be the one who does the censoring. Or, if the censoring is not done by the government directly - the government will still be the one appointing the organization who does the censoring.

The freedom of speech must be protected - even if it means letting bad agents spread their lies uncensored. Because if you try to give the government the power to censor them, you'll end up with a new Department of Truth led by Alex Jones (who is now unoccupied)

[-] UrheaKekkola@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago

So basically you want to give trump the power to censor you because he says you're lying?

[-] llamatron@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

How would you tackle the lies or are you happy that Fox is able to conjure up its own version of reality with no pushback?

[-] UrheaKekkola@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

I wouldn't. I would teach people critical thinking skills so they can tell a lie from a truth. How would you determine what is a lie and therefore needs to be censored?

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] ZMoney@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

The document is open to interpretation. It can mean anything you want it to mean. For example, the first amendment is used to guarantee that unlimited amounts of money can be spent on election campaigns. So I'm not sure rewriting the thing would accomplish anything other than forcing the oligarchs to figure out new legal loopholes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 85 points 2 weeks ago

America was built on the ideas of freedom and equality by slave owners who didn't think women should be allowed to vote.

[-] fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, they did give an earnest try at preventing a king from happening, and it did work for a couple hundred years.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Don’t forget they were also terrified of democracy. The Senate is one of the most comically anti-democratic institutions ever concocted. Wyoming has as much power as California. I mean it beggars belief that anyone but a complete imbecile could agree to something like that.

[-] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

It's not democratic from a person level, but it is more democratic from a state level. At the time they hadn't quite figured out if they wanted to be a country or a collection of states that sometimes work together.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Democracy is a system of government whose power is vested by the people (“demos”). Notice that the Senate does not legislate on behalf of people. Instead, it represents the interests of arbitrary often unpopulated land masses. It is as stupid as it sounds and the exact opposite of democracy.

One of the main arguments by Senate proponents during the US founding was that democracy was unacceptable. “Government by the people for the people? What gives these people the right…” etcetera. If you want quotes I’ll dig them up, but that’s the vibe.

“Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. […]

No. In fact, two democracies have never gone to war with each other. Why would they?

Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man's life or property will be secure." - John Adams (1807)

Ah, redistribution of wealth and moral progress, terrifying. In case it’s not obvious from these pathetic quotes, John Adams was a moron.

[-] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Guess I should have said, it's not democratic it's Republican. And the question being what should legislature represent. I'm curious how the EU works as a governing body, is there proportional representation? Or does each county get an equal vote. Sorry for my ignorance.

Also yeah John Adams is a bit of a baffoon there.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The EU uses the 'd'Hondt method' which is a mathematical formula for proportional representation systems.

This is the opposite of the US senate.

It’s important to note that there’s no distinction between a democracy and a republic: a republic just is a type of (representative) democracy.

The United States is a republic, true, but there are aspects of our government that are undemocratic and vulnerable to corruption. The Senate is one of these aspects. The Supreme Court is another, so is the electoral college, and the influence of money, and the enormous power of the chief executive.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago

The first two political parties were formed around that very debate.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Too bad Jefferson didn't rap.

Just had that fever.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Not exactly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

Most places wanted no slavery.

The original tryanny of the minority was the planation owners that would not join beyond the Articles of Confederation unless they could continue with the slavery.

Women were still held down as they had been hisrorically, damn near everywhere. Not realy unique here.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago

But they got it started and we changed some things. We just didn't change enough, or perhaps changed the wrong things.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 55 points 2 weeks ago

My teacher in middle school did specifically call out that it would take a project over several decades to co-opt the system.

Well, they've been going after the judgeships for decades.

[-] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah. That's exactly what happened.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 45 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Regulatory capture and citizens united both exist to undo those checks and balances. No system is immune to corruption.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Interestingly the US system was always more vulnerable to corruption, and everyone knew it. Our executive branch is far too powerful. That’s why when the US has engaged in nation building they never install governments like ours. Germany, Japan, Iraq, etc. the pentagon always insists on a parliamentary system, because they’re better in every way (less prone to grid lock, less prone to tyranny of the minority, weaker executive, etc.).

[-] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 2 weeks ago

When I was growing up, they told us the US was the greatest country in the world. Now that I'm older, I realize it's one of the worst in the Western world in nearly every statistic.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago

So...the us is the greatest at being the worse!

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago

A lot of people are being shown that a lot of stuff that kept their country going was decorum, shame and tradition, not rule of law.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Interesting take on The Social Contract.

But basically when your entire socoety is disingenuous to some extent, shit falls apart eventually.

[-] llama@midwest.social 12 points 2 weeks ago

Turns out it only works if the population doesn't believe they want that.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

You can't really have checks and balances that survive those supposed to safeguard them allowing the system to be dismantled. Not to mention apathy or active wish from the public towards the system being dismantled.

[-] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago

deleted by dictator

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

To be fair we were lied to growing up. Be nice to others and santa.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

7th grade for him saw the government well on its way to setting up the coming storm

[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'd believe it when I see it

[-] AidsKitty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Our laws evolve, as our society evolves, and so must our governmental institutions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I was having a good night I didn't need this reminder

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Checks and balances wasn't about avoiding fascism.

It was to make sure all three branches of governments stayed in power over the body politic.

And they still are in power.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

I was sure that preventing tyranny was part of the deal?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
959 points (98.8% liked)

Political Memes

5520 readers
1650 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS