Several White House officials revealed to NBC News that President Donald Trump is growing increasingly “worried” over Canada regarding its ability to defend its borders, with one official saying that Trump’s concern stems from his “vision of ‘solidifying’ the Western Hemisphere,” the outlet reported Sunday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 149 points 8 months ago (21 children)

I fucking hate my president, but the whole government is complicit.

Supreme Court? Nah, team fascist.

Congress? Nah, team fascist.

Where the fuck are the SEPARATION OF POWERS and CHECKS AND BALANCES we learned about in civics class?

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 93 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Turns out checks and balances don't mean shit if no one actually defends them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago

    If congress, supreme court, and executive are majority same party — there’s no power left to check or balance.

    If we had ranked choice voting, we might not be in this mess. Everything devolving into a two-party system has led us to this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    If your country survives this, you are due a serious overhaul of your supposed checks and balances and, more generally, of your political system. Too much assumes common decency, which the rest of your political and economix systems have been working hard to eliminate.

    Electoral college? Hyper powerful president? That stuff needs to go.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Despite all the (phony) reverence for the document in the U.S., the Constitutional Convention fucked up, badly. The Founding Fathers disliked political parties, considering them divisive, so they drew up a system that assumes that all office-holders are independent. That system is supposed to leverage the mutually-opposing interests of the representatives to check and balance each other. It simply can't work if a group of people with aligned interests control multiple branches of government.

    They signed their new constitution in 1788, and by 1792, Alexander Hamilton formed the first political party. Whoops.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    You forgot the Democrats, are also on team fascist. Other than a few they are on board being the complicit corporate owned opposition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I didn’t mention Republicans either. I mentioned Congress as a whole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Congress is currently led by... Republicans Supreme Court is currently majority... Republicans President is... Republican

    The Democrats that should be loudly opposing in every stage of government for the most part aren't.

    I am agreeing with your point but there should be another side but they are paid by the fascist donors to be complicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    No kidding? It’s almost like the system was built to function this way from top to bottom. I’m surprised it’s taken this long for people to notice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago

    Alexis de Tocqueville pretty much predicted this 200 years ago when he did his study on democracy in the US. He pointed out that there was nothing in place to actually enforce the separation of powers and it would take only one despot to throw the whole thing in the trash. The only thing that would surprise him today is how long it took for America to reach this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Before Trump, politicians at least played the “game”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I don't really see it. The U.S. has never been a particularly good example of a functioning democratic system. Hell, gerrymandering is a prime example of that, and it dates back to the 1800s.

    It's cute that anyone thinks that anything short of a coup is going to actually make a difference at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    A coup on a national scale, too. Way too many hands in this fascist cookie jar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The entire system needs changing. I live in a country where anyone's free to start a political party, and a part needs around ~4% to make it into parliament. We have eight parties in our parliament and I still don't feel adequately represented. I don't condone it, but I definitely get why people don't feel like voting over there. That is entirely by design.

    I also really don't get how gerrymandering is a thing that's legal. Absolutely bonkers. Everyone's vote should count. Sure we have districts but they don't have any bearing on the national vote, in that regard it's purely for division of labour.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    Reagan with relaxing corporate oversight and then Bush with the Patriot act and lastly Trump packing the Supreme Court really made a fascist's utopia out of a system that barely had any accountability to start with.

    Not to mention Citizen's United.

  • source
  • parent