undefined

points

[-]

> Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned

Correct. But interests need to be animated to have power. Who was arguing that this should be a priority, and a priority now, who is familiar in the White House?

> The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy

This is nonsense.

> halt all impeachment trials

False. Senate Rule 193 sets time limits on debate for impeachment trials [1].

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf/CDOC-1...

by galangalalgol8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You seem to have a singular villain ready to point at. I do not see it. The president reportedly thinks whatever the last person to speak said. So are you proposing a mastermind or simply a catalyst?

As far as vdem goes, Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status.

by JumpCrisscross8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status

I mean, that's interesting from a political theoretical perspective. And if you want to put sacred meaning into it, sure. I'm not sure most people would take a decade-old Swedish institute as a harbinger of whether or not America is a demoracy too seriously (versus other sources, to be clear).

by galangalalgol8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You are right that unless the eiu or others follow suit it would be less meaningful. On the senate conviction, my point is that only 33 senators need to oppose a conviction to stop it. Or to let a veto stand. The smallest states get the same number of senators. If those votes were evenly split, and it was the typical 50-60% turnout. It would actually only be 2-3% of the populace needed.

I do want to know who the bad guy is though.

by JumpCrisscross7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> unless the eiu or others follow suit it would be less meaningful

Even if they do it's book reports.

> On the senate conviction, my point is that only 33 senators need to oppose a conviction to stop it

Yes. The bar is high for removing an elected executive. That's not a sign of not being a democracy.

by galangalalgol7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

We got too deep in the tree. Nixon could have gone a different way. Many of the senators that asked him to leave had constituencies that would have supported their refusal to convict. The 33 gop senators representing the smallest states only represent less than 20% of the population, and they usually win by less than 60% in elections with turnouts less than 60%. That is where I get the 90% from.

by galangalalgol7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Even taking into account that not all small states are right leaning, and theoretically there could be 100% turnout, we are still talking about a situation wjere it takes over 90% agreement among the population to remove a president. That isn't a high bar, that is a complete lack of accountability. It isn't just removal. The whole system was designed by people so terrified of the tyranny of the majority that they neglected to forsee such uneven populations leading to the potential for a tyranny of the minority. The lack of any meaningful consensus for judiciary appointments is also a solid sign of competitive authoritarianism. But we are getting far off on a tangent. I really am intrigued that I'm missing some actor or faction. Will you get downvoted for the hypothesis? Or have you already replied with it and it got shadow blocked?

by JumpCrisscross7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> wjere it takes over 90% agreement among the population to remove a president

...no? Majority of the House and two thirds of Senators doesn't require 90%. Nixon still had way more than 10% of support in the country when his removal from office was imminent.

> have you already replied with it and it got shadow blocked?

I don't think I've written anything that got shadow blocked for many years.

by galangalalgol7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My best guess at who you mean is Netanyahu or Miller? I still think the SA benefits so greatly we should assume their advocacy.

by heraldgeezer8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

[flagged]

by galangalalgol8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I can certainly see potential positive outcomes as you say. Also, this stretches the original war powers resolution from Afghanistan a lot less than most US attacks. Iran does actually support terrorism across the globe. I do worry about implementation.