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.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Worse… The House makes the impeachment charge, that’s a 50% majority vote.

    THEN it goes to the Senate for conviction where you need a 2/3rds majority to remove them. 67/100.

    That’s the body which can’t do anything because they’re blocked by a 60 vote super majority to over-ride a filibuster.

    So you get 218 in the House, goes to the Senate, needs 60 votes to end debate and proceed with charges, then 67 votes to convict and remove.

    Trump’s first impeachment got 48 and 47 votes.
    His second was 57 votes.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

    If he had been convicted, he would have been inelligible to run in '24.

    • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The founders probably imagined no self respecting person, oligarch or otherwise, would want to live under authoritarian rule.

      Turns out the 21st century bourgeois is full of pussy ass bitches.

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        They never could have imagined our modern society at all. The amount of power and influence held by just a handful of private citizens couldn’t have been accounted for in the 18th century.

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

          I’m just speaking from a matter of principle. They don’t have to know the conditions to conclude living under a kings rule in any condition is unappealing.

        • in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          I mean they waged a bloody revolution against Kings, and inequality has increased a thousand-fold since, so wtf are we doing?