• HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yeah you can’t be taught about future failures of a system. The only way for it not be able to not be working is for humans to not be in the equation of government. Which is one of the reasons ai taking over does not scare me. Either they kill us all. Win for the planet. Or they run things properly. Win for everybody.

    • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      They dont teach future failures but they do teach the robustness of our checks and balances.

      Which turns our to be not very.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Its incredibly robust. Its lasted over two hundred years through several constitutional crises. Its possible it might even survive this. Whats happening now required complacency of a majority of both houses of congress, a large swath of the judiciary, plus the executive. Thats pretty damn robust. Its like saying a bridge is not robust even though its stayed up when some of its supports got destroyed but once over half of them were taken out it finally started to crack.

        • kreskin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          sure but there are holes in our entire constitutional process that you can drive a truck through. They work in certain cases, but in others they may as well not exist. Like ,impeachment barely works. And god knows a lot of our presidents should have been impeached. And the will of the people is not implemented by our government and hasn’t been for a long time, if ever.

          • HubertManne@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I can’t see impeachment given its severity as being something lots of presidents should have been. It has to be difficult. Now I could see a less severe recall that was easier to enact. Granted the constitution certainly could be improved to me as a modern person with the knowledge I have. I mean I would love the house to be a parliament and the executive to be a tribunal. I wish it mandated that once someone is elected to body that no one who is related up to first cousin to be elected to the body and im sure many folks would have much more. The real problem is how do you change or make a new one that is only good ideas and who decides on good ideas. like if we voted on a new one it should likely be line item but even then I would fear what maga would vote for or not vote for.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          21 hours ago

          It didn’t last over two hundred years. It failed utterly in 1861 and wasn’t restored until 1865. That was only 160 years ago.

          It probably would’ve failed again in the 1930s but the Roosevelt Democrats were able to take control of both the legislative and executive branches and make the checks and balances irrelevant, and then the rest of the world bombed itself into the dirt, allowing America to become fat and rich enough that you didn’t notice the rot.

        • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          “Watches an orange buffoon turn the government into a authoritarian regime.”

          Its incredibly robust!

          Same time, “the American experiment”, “a young democracy”, “27 constitutional ammendments”, etc.

            • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              23 hours ago

              Youre missing the point, government was suppose to be designed to fend off shitty people destroying it.

              Edit:

              Listen, Im taking this position not because Im particularly enthusiastic about it but really just trying it on for size.

              Is there anything else you would like to add to bolster your position? Im sure these is more nuance and I havent hit on it yet.

              • HubertManne@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                23 hours ago

                fend off some shitty people from destroying it. Not a majority of elected positions. Again your expectations of robust go beyond anything that is feasible. With a monarchy one monarch can bring it down. Despite the orange buffoon he would not be able to do it without all the congress collaborators. His first term was actually a constitutional crises we got passed. Barely.

                • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  23 hours ago

                  I think a direct result of how poorly we dealt with trump after the first administration is the second administration. In the interest of appearing like things are functioning properly we brushed off making drastic moves like making the DOJ be more aggressive toward the trump admin. At least then we could have had more to show for it. Except, since people like you believe the system is working as intended things continue to break down.