• Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 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
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 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
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 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
              ·
              5 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
                5 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.