Hacker News

points by chasd00 15 hours ago | 0 comments

The very foundation of Democracy is at stake!! …again for like 30 years straight now.

My step dad use to quote bible verses to me trying to prove Obama was the literal antichrist. Before that it was the evil Bush and his oil cronies. Now it’s Trump, in two years it will be someone else. Same as it ever was.

[–] cowlevel 14 hours ago

It is though? Like, every single election, someone runs on the platform of abolishing democracy. Every single election, it's important that person doesn't win, or there won't be a democracy any more.

By all rights there shouldn't be one already, but we're lucky the democracy abolitionists are fairly incompetent.

[–] sejje 14 hours ago

So last election, Kamala Harris was the platform of abolishing democracy?

Or, alternatively, did we cease to have a democracy?

[–] jeremyjh 14 hours ago

We are very substantially less democratic than we were in 2024. The admin has broken laws regarding impoundment and war powers, just to name two. The executive has no legal power to determine funding allocations, or to commit to wars long-term. Yet both have happened and are still happening.

Using the DOJ to interfere in state elections they have no jurisdiction in, and having masked men abduct people and ignore court orders regarding their disposition is just about as authoritarian as it gets.

Those are all new things that have substantially eroded - or removed all together the idea of democracy in less than two years.

[–] cowlevel 14 hours ago

On the other hand, it's possible to argue that America is still democratic, since it voted for all the stuff that's now happening. It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election, and it would become irreversibly undemocratic if a president actually stayed in office after losing an election.

[–] sejje 13 hours ago

That's not gonna happen.

If one side shuts the other out of power, that's when we'll finally get the civil war many have been predicting for a long time.

Hopefully the framework to limit power can stay in place, in spite of all the calls to change it, abolish the senate, pack the court, make sure to punish/"hold accountable" red voters, etc.

[–] Hikikomori 6 hours ago

>It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election,

Jan 6, fake electors scheme, etc. This time it will be a lot worse.

[–] ImPostingOnHN 13 hours ago

> it's possible to argue that America is still democratic, since it voted for all the stuff that's now happening

It's possible, but not very credible, to argue that in a situation where direct democracy doesn't exist.

The closest we have to voted for these things rather than voted for these people is polls, which overwhelmingly illustrate that most people oppose those things.

We'll know more after the election, if people supported those things.

> It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election

Yes, the current president tried exactly that, in a violent insurrection, and has interfered in national elections since regaining power.

[–] cowlevel 12 hours ago

People keep polling against the things that are happening, but in elections that actually matter they keep voting for them, so...

and it's probably not just election tampering, because polls close to elections also show support.

[–] jeremyjh 10 hours ago

No one voted for what is happening now, because crimes like these were not on the ballot and were not promised in advance. If you vote for a president in a system with three equal branches and then they liquidate the other two - no one voted for THAT.

Was voting for a narcissistic treason weasel predictably going to lead to this? I would say - and did say - yes, without question. He already incited a violent insurrection once, rather than admit he lost an election. But people voted for cheaper groceries and deporting violent criminals.

As difficult as it is to believe, there are many tens of millions of people who think that Trump is a smart business man because he was portrayed that way on The Apprentice. They think the promises of this known huckster and flim-flam man were worth the bandwidth spent delivering them to televisions. They think that FOX News opinion show personalities are qualified to administer the country's government. They didn't vote for fascism, because they don't know what that word means. Many could not even reliably number the branches of government or describe them accurately.

[–] throwitaway222 13 hours ago

I mean Karen Bass just said there's no need for an Election for the governor, it's Xavier Baccera. He's the governor already according to her. "You don't need an election on November 3. A Republican cannot win in this state."

[–] cowlevel 12 hours ago

In Alaska the GOP has filed a lawsuit saying the election was rigged but only if they lose (since it hasn't happened yet). I wish I was making this up.

[–] BobaFloutist 12 hours ago

Do you think she meant there shouldn't be an election, or was simply alluding to the incredibly predictable result we all know to expect?

[–] throwitaway222 9 hours ago

Personally, and this is just my opinion, but many people are aware of the reporting on CA laws and how it's actually impossible to prove voting irregularities because they separate the voter from the vote. And to have people with the attitude she has, it only makes me lean towards - they know the irregularities are real.

[–] cowlevel 7 hours ago

Every time voters have been audited they've found less than 100 false votes across the whole country.

[–] throwitaway222 2 hours ago

They can't audit the votes!

[–] 15155 12 hours ago

How did she do in the primaries?

[–] Arodex 6 hours ago

Well, you'll see after the midterms... You know, the one where the DOJ is looking to cancel the election in Alaska, where Texas GOP officials are trying to stop the election, where Homeland Security Investigation officers are sent to a sitting Representative's home at dawn and the president is boasting she has forfeited her seat...

Totally normal stuff in a democracy, don't we agree?

Just imagine the shittiest country that you can think of. Now imagine everything I described above happening in that country. Now imagine how you would react to that, and how it would be covered in the news and punditry.

[–] 0xDEAFBEAD 12 hours ago

>every single election, someone runs on the platform of abolishing democracy

So was this person Romney in 2012? McCain in 2008? Kerry in 2004? Gore in 2000?

Any one of those presidents would've abolished democracy?

Somehow we picked the right candidate every time?

The average constitution lasts about 18 years. The US constitution has lasted almost 250. Statistically, that's quite unlikely if a candidate ran on a platform of abolishing democracy in every election.

[–] Arodex 6 hours ago

>The average constitution lasts about 18 years

What

[–] 0xDEAFBEAD 6 hours ago

"By our estimate, national constitutions have lasted an average of only seventeen years since 1789"

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lifespan-written-constitut...

Most countries are not as politically stable as the US. We're very privileged in that way.

[–] jackb4040 14 hours ago

Well it's important to you. It's evidently not important to the people you vote for, the people who fundraise off of this hostage situation, the people who have had trifectas multiple times during this era and have not even used them to permanently secure the "democracy", let alone the overwhelmingly popular policies with their base that would guarantee they win ever election but piss off their donors.

[–] basilikum 14 hours ago

How many of them openly attacked and rejected to democratic process itself? How many of them did not accept the result of an election?

[–] 10111001 14 hours ago

> The very foundation of Democracy is at stake!! …again for like 30 years straight now.

There's a very easy method to tell if someone making that claim is a liar: ask "what major ideological compromise are they making to save democracy?" if the answer is "none" or close to it, they're full of shit.

'Cause if fascism is really our doorstep, you'd think they'd be gunning for the broadest, most indefatigable anti-fascist coalition possible; instead of the narrowest, most pure one they think they can get away with.

[–] lkbm 13 hours ago

I mean...I think people who oppose GMOs, permitting reform, hydroelectric, and nuclear power do care about the environment, despite actively working against it. People who oppose developers building more houses do want more affordable housing, despite actively working against it.

People, including individuals, aren't single-minded, rational, or scientifically literate.

In the case of anti-fascism, many on the left earnestly believe that a far-left candidate is the solution because their bubble tells them that their views are dominant. After all, they and many of their friends aren't excited to vote for the moderates, but would vote for someone more left.

I'll sacrifice a lot of things I care about for leadership that would shore up democracy (I'm not sure how, though fixing redistricting is a big one), but it's seen as normal and admirable to refuse to compromise.

[–] 10111001 12 hours ago

You raise good points, and I think there are actually at least two phenomena here:

1. The liars: people cynically playing up fears of "losing democracy" as a political tactic to support some other political programs. I think this is especially obvious from candidates, activists, political operatives, etc. -- people sophisticated enough and engaged enough to know and think about what they're doing in a serious way.

2. The un-serious people: those you describe. Basically irrational people who believe a jumble of things without exercising the ability to prioritize or disengage the contradictions.

I don't think the boundaries between these phenomena are hard ones (e.g. you can often push un-serious people into liar territory by challenging them to prioritize).

[–] Arodex 6 hours ago

Yeah, it is not as if Trump was planning (more) massive war crimes, against Iran in particular, right now. (I mean , on top of the ongoing war crimes in the Caribbean Sea.) I am completely exaggerating here, right? It is not as if the secretary of war had fired another top ranking military officer without offering any explanation:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hegseth-fires-the-pent...

Or it isn't as if top oil executives are changing their business trip plans to the United Arab Emirates:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-chevron-cancel...

No need to think anything important is going to happen with an insane president (did you know that "dumb" ends with a "b"? Did you know that?) surrounded by incompetent sycophants.

We can all see the equivalence here: some people said that Obama was the antichrist, some people say now that Trump is senile, violent, racist and unhinged. Clearly they are both wrong. Both sides. Clearly. It is obvious that both are decent, educated men who just carry their elected duties.

[–] Arodex 14 hours ago

Oh, yeah, Bush wasn't that bad, right? Just hundreds of thousands of deaths and crippled veterans, and the complete destruction of global order that opened the door to Russia invading Ukraine. "Just worth a shrug", you say while you pass by a crack addicted veteran while on you way to pay 30% more for gas and food. "It wasn't worth getting worried about."

What a level-headed, reasonable know-nothing you are, sitting above all this unreasonable jockeying.

I am not surprised though, you live in a culture where people can lecture others that the Bible told them Obama was Satan. You don't know what actual politics is anymore.

[–] saila 14 hours ago

I’d add the so-called “Patriot Act” to the list of damages from the GW Bush era. Massive consequences that can’t be shrugged off with some both-sides nonsense.