824
submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by udc@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 35 points 4 weeks ago

So what. You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship. Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.

[-] Hegar@fedia.io 73 points 4 weeks ago

Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.

Once people who've sworn to end democracy are given the power to end democracy, then it's game over for democracy.

Preventing a corrupt criminal who's a known agent of a hostile foreign powers from becoming president is a healthy thing to do.

[-] PixxlMan@lemmy.world 10 points 4 weeks ago

If the electorate in a democracy want to end democracy, then it's game over. You can't save that.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 4 weeks ago

As would be preventing officials voted into office in a democracy but sooner. There is still a chance as of now as he has not stopped elections yet.

[-] TotallynotJessica 21 points 4 weeks ago

nah, it's over. It was gg for elections in November, and so many people like you didn't realize this. It's to late to prevent this. All we can do now is rebuild.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 4 weeks ago

We realize and so do you since you talk of rebuilding.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 60 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Congratulations, you just discovered the paradox of tolerance.

And, yeah, essentially, in order to survive, a democratic society cannot allow those who seek to destroy it to participate in the democratic process.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 5 points 4 weeks ago

Nope. I have been aware of the paradox of tolerance for awhile and its a little shoehorning to put this situation into it. Your talking about a case of allowing an elected official to take office not tolerating speech.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 4 weeks ago

An elected official who repeatedly stated and demonstrated his intention of preventing any future elections and destroying democracy.

An elected official, therefore, who should never have been allowed to run for office in the first place (this isn't the only reason he shouldn't have been allowed, of course, in a sane country he'd also been unelectable due to his criminal record, lack of any semblance of mental health, and intellectual insufficiency, but it's the most important).

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 4 weeks ago

Ill agree he should not have been able to run but that was a failure of congress or in other words other people elected under the democracy to office. Not allowing him to run would have been great but not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 weeks ago

not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous

It would have been many orders of magnitude less disastrous than the alternative.

Sure, cutting off your cancerous hand would've been traumatic. But survivable.

Now, however, said hand is so far up your arse that it's ripped apart your colon in several places and you're bleeding to death while experiencing horrible agony, and spraying all your neighbours with blood and feces.

You could have recovered from getting rid of Trump, but there's no coming back from what you've allowed him to do to your country, and the world.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 4 weeks ago

No. No it would not have. Your talking about doing something trump has not done yet. It would accelerate the problems by putting us at worse case in january of 2025 rather than in late 2026.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 weeks ago

something trump has not done yet

Have you been living under a fucking rock‽

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 4 weeks ago

no. I have not he has not prevented elected officials from taking office.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 weeks ago
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 34 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship.

Given the current state of affairs, I'm not clear how a Permanent Biden-o-cracy was supposed to be worse.

Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.

Well, thank god we don't officially lose our Democracy for another eighteen months.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 10 points 4 weeks ago

its worse because it would be 18 months sooner. Its like climate change. It won't help if we were at 5 degrees now instead of 1.5. That would not fix it.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 4 weeks ago

Its like climate change.

Weird you would mention that in the context of a presidency that's effectively set himself to the task of nationally Rolling Coal.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 11 points 4 weeks ago

its hard to mention anything he is not making worse.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 weeks ago

It has always been a dictatorship of the rich.

This is just taking the mask off.

[-] Guidy@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago

I wanted the traitor coward Merrick Garland to do his motherfucking job and prosecute that POS and throw him in federal prison while making him completely unable to appear on any ballot.

Thanks for asking.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

Garland did what he was hired to do. He slow walked the investigations so biden could run against trump again because biden knew he couldn't beat anyone better.

[-] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

That's right, if it's allowed to happen, it's pretty hard to come back from that

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
824 points (100.0% liked)

News

31974 readers
2354 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS