Something odd has happened with American memory
November 11, 2024 12:35 AM Subscribe
“Disinhibition” is a word that has recently migrated from the lexicon of psychology into that of American politics. It refers to a condition in which people become increasingly unable to regulate the expression of their impulses and urges, and this year it very obviously applied to Trump’s increasingly surreal, vituperative, and lurid rhetoric. But it now must also apply to the institutions of American government: with allies on the Supreme Court and with control over the Senate and (most probably at the time of writing) the House of Representatives, Trump will have no one to regulate his urges. from Letting It All Hang Out by Fintan O'Toole [The New York Review; ungated]
To go off the article's reference to Marx: Andrew Jackson was the tragedy, and now, roughly two centuries later, we're getting the farce.
There's a lot of parallels: a vulgar contempt for the coastal elites; a low cunning for populist appeal; demagoguery against ethnic minorities (Indians for Jackson, Latinos for Trump), efforts to knock out the 'deep state' of entrenched bureaucracies, tyrannical contempt for the courts and rule of law ("the Supreme Court has made their ruling; now let us see them enforce it"), a charisma that defies the sensibilities and instincts of his opponents.
The Trail of Tears really kicked off with Jackson's second term, along with the Seminole War; and his actions led to the Panic of 1837, arguably the second or third depression/ crisis of US history.
And just as Jackson demolished the Bank of the USA, so too is Musk now talking about eliminating the Federal Reserve.
But what's the point? Americans don't have memories, they have mythologies. The paranoid strain has once again prevailed, and much as in the past, it will take singular and memorable atrocities before any semblance of morality is stirred to rebuke.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:27 AM on November 11 [30 favorites]
There's a lot of parallels: a vulgar contempt for the coastal elites; a low cunning for populist appeal; demagoguery against ethnic minorities (Indians for Jackson, Latinos for Trump), efforts to knock out the 'deep state' of entrenched bureaucracies, tyrannical contempt for the courts and rule of law ("the Supreme Court has made their ruling; now let us see them enforce it"), a charisma that defies the sensibilities and instincts of his opponents.
The Trail of Tears really kicked off with Jackson's second term, along with the Seminole War; and his actions led to the Panic of 1837, arguably the second or third depression/ crisis of US history.
And just as Jackson demolished the Bank of the USA, so too is Musk now talking about eliminating the Federal Reserve.
But what's the point? Americans don't have memories, they have mythologies. The paranoid strain has once again prevailed, and much as in the past, it will take singular and memorable atrocities before any semblance of morality is stirred to rebuke.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:27 AM on November 11 [30 favorites]
Disinhibition is right. The entire Trump era has been marked by the rise of hateful grifters who make their money hawking toxicity and delusion. And no one ever went broke selling people permission to be our worst possible selves.
Now, you've got texts being sent en masse to Black kids telling them to get ready for slavery 2.0. You've got little Trumpenjugend and Tate-stans running around schools taunting girls with "Your Body, Our Choice" chants. Trumpists aren't using their victory as an opportunity to try and push for unity, they are champing at the bit to carry out mass deportations, and generally destroy as many lives as possible.
America is entering a really, really dark period, thanks to fascist trump supporters, and useless non-voting dems who couldn't be bothered to stand against them. I don't know what else to say about it. My heart is broken, and I'm really scared for vulnerable Americans.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 2:36 AM on November 11 [29 favorites]
Now, you've got texts being sent en masse to Black kids telling them to get ready for slavery 2.0. You've got little Trumpenjugend and Tate-stans running around schools taunting girls with "Your Body, Our Choice" chants. Trumpists aren't using their victory as an opportunity to try and push for unity, they are champing at the bit to carry out mass deportations, and generally destroy as many lives as possible.
America is entering a really, really dark period, thanks to fascist trump supporters, and useless non-voting dems who couldn't be bothered to stand against them. I don't know what else to say about it. My heart is broken, and I'm really scared for vulnerable Americans.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 2:36 AM on November 11 [29 favorites]
Was discussing this rough idea with nesting partner yesterday. He was saying that Trump is a galvanizing figurehead and if he dropped dead before the election some of the horror is defused. My suspicion is that we've crossed the Rubicon and now that the masks are off, we're never really going back. Even without him, many minor figureheads will keep the hate and anger going. The Republicans will still hold all the branches of government and implement their bathtub drowning gleefully while some of us say "we told you so" and more of us say "i had no idea it would be this bad" (a chronic pattern of American politics... see Gulf War 2).
posted by kokaku at 3:48 AM on November 11 [12 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 3:48 AM on November 11 [12 favorites]
I am right now in a social media exchange with someone who voted for Trump - but insists that the Project 2025 stuff won't happen.
I pointed out that "mass deportations" were indeed in Project 2025, and asked him - "if you didn't think he was going to do the things he was promising, why did you even vote for him?" He has not answered.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:13 AM on November 11 [31 favorites]
I pointed out that "mass deportations" were indeed in Project 2025, and asked him - "if you didn't think he was going to do the things he was promising, why did you even vote for him?" He has not answered.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:13 AM on November 11 [31 favorites]
The gatekeepers will be swinging open the gates. If you believe otherwise you're hopelessly and dangerously naive.
posted by tommasz at 5:49 AM on November 11 [3 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 5:49 AM on November 11 [3 favorites]
I think that Trump and cronies are going to do their best to tear down as many Federal safety nets as they can. The thing is, though, that once they're gone, you can't just push a button and recreate them. And if you tried, I bet a lot of the people who know how to get things done won't come back. It's going to be an ugly mess, more likely than not.
posted by Spike Glee at 7:41 AM on November 11 [15 favorites]
posted by Spike Glee at 7:41 AM on November 11 [15 favorites]
once they're gone
Why should we believe they'll be gone? Trump has both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. What if they make it illegal to vote for anyone but a Republican? There's nothing to keep them from doing things like that.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:27 AM on November 11 [5 favorites]
Why should we believe they'll be gone? Trump has both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. What if they make it illegal to vote for anyone but a Republican? There's nothing to keep them from doing things like that.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:27 AM on November 11 [5 favorites]
The thing is, though, that once they're gone, you can't just push a button and recreate them. And if you tried, I bet a lot of the people who know how to get things done won't come back.
Yup. Canada experienced this on what will likely be a much smaller scale during the Harper government, with data and books and manuals and equipment literally tossed in dumpsters. Which is why I emailed my representatives advocating, as I wrote in another thread, that the outgoing administration needs to do everything possible to set up independent alternative non-profits to donate resources to, who can continue to do as much of the work of current Executive Branch agencies as it is possible to do outside of the government proper. This includes research (at lower levels of funding, albeit), some consumer protection work, public health organizing work (needs buy-in from state and local groups, but if it’s most of the same people and expertise from the current federal administrations, that will at least help a large chunk of the country), climate and meteorological forecasting, organizing disaster relief, etc. I love our public lands, but I think it would be wise to entrust them to the care of a very well-set-up third party organization that works closely with Indigenous groups - especially areas where Trump cronies are frothing at the mouth about oil drilling or other mining and extractive opportunities.
I was just watching yesterday’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and he also has some excellent suggestions eg. around immigration: fast-tracking citizenship and protected status decisions before January, for example, Biden commuting death row sentences to life sentences to avoid a repeat of Trump’s killing spree from his last term, and steps Senate can take on other matters.
I’d also argue that dismantling current immigration detention centers to make it harder and more expensive for the incoming administration to build out the infrastructure that would be needed for their mass deportation plans is important. And military agreements with current allies (NATO is a problematic Cold War relic, but it’s a multilateral group composed of mostly democratic governments, and one that Biden trusts, so that might be a good candidate) for long-term loans or joint control over military resources that could be used in authoritarian wars of aggression or against US citizens at home; as well as sending a windfall of support to Ukraine, since we know that Trump’s plan for peace is to just let Putin annex half of Ukraine, and then repeat to get half of what’s left a few years later, and repeat.
posted by eviemath at 11:58 AM on November 11 [7 favorites]
Yup. Canada experienced this on what will likely be a much smaller scale during the Harper government, with data and books and manuals and equipment literally tossed in dumpsters. Which is why I emailed my representatives advocating, as I wrote in another thread, that the outgoing administration needs to do everything possible to set up independent alternative non-profits to donate resources to, who can continue to do as much of the work of current Executive Branch agencies as it is possible to do outside of the government proper. This includes research (at lower levels of funding, albeit), some consumer protection work, public health organizing work (needs buy-in from state and local groups, but if it’s most of the same people and expertise from the current federal administrations, that will at least help a large chunk of the country), climate and meteorological forecasting, organizing disaster relief, etc. I love our public lands, but I think it would be wise to entrust them to the care of a very well-set-up third party organization that works closely with Indigenous groups - especially areas where Trump cronies are frothing at the mouth about oil drilling or other mining and extractive opportunities.
I was just watching yesterday’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and he also has some excellent suggestions eg. around immigration: fast-tracking citizenship and protected status decisions before January, for example, Biden commuting death row sentences to life sentences to avoid a repeat of Trump’s killing spree from his last term, and steps Senate can take on other matters.
I’d also argue that dismantling current immigration detention centers to make it harder and more expensive for the incoming administration to build out the infrastructure that would be needed for their mass deportation plans is important. And military agreements with current allies (NATO is a problematic Cold War relic, but it’s a multilateral group composed of mostly democratic governments, and one that Biden trusts, so that might be a good candidate) for long-term loans or joint control over military resources that could be used in authoritarian wars of aggression or against US citizens at home; as well as sending a windfall of support to Ukraine, since we know that Trump’s plan for peace is to just let Putin annex half of Ukraine, and then repeat to get half of what’s left a few years later, and repeat.
posted by eviemath at 11:58 AM on November 11 [7 favorites]
There's nothing to keep them from doing things like that.
I think we will see the full flowering of so many elements of dystopic future scenarios, but I would not expect something so blunt as enforcement of a one party state in the US. There will be a political other because that is expedient and works with the narrative. There will be competing interests in the background, and glimpses of "conflict among titans" not unlike cartel politics: periods of stability until someone makes a move. Depressingly familiar to students of certain chunks of history, just add TikTok
posted by ginger.beef at 12:00 PM on November 11 [4 favorites]
I think we will see the full flowering of so many elements of dystopic future scenarios, but I would not expect something so blunt as enforcement of a one party state in the US. There will be a political other because that is expedient and works with the narrative. There will be competing interests in the background, and glimpses of "conflict among titans" not unlike cartel politics: periods of stability until someone makes a move. Depressingly familiar to students of certain chunks of history, just add TikTok
posted by ginger.beef at 12:00 PM on November 11 [4 favorites]
Why should we believe they'll be gone?
I don't think that they'll magically disappear overnight, but the only thing uniting them at the moment's Trump. No one else is nearly as popular as he is, and many of the downballot folks can't stand each other. The closest they have is Desantis, and I'm not sure how he's going to remain in the public eye, unless he runs his wife as Governor when he gets term limited out.
So, when Trump becomes irrelevant (either by dying, or being incapacitated), I expect Trumpism to take a big hit. Not fatal, but it'll really hurt them.
posted by Spike Glee at 12:20 PM on November 11 [2 favorites]
I don't think that they'll magically disappear overnight, but the only thing uniting them at the moment's Trump. No one else is nearly as popular as he is, and many of the downballot folks can't stand each other. The closest they have is Desantis, and I'm not sure how he's going to remain in the public eye, unless he runs his wife as Governor when he gets term limited out.
So, when Trump becomes irrelevant (either by dying, or being incapacitated), I expect Trumpism to take a big hit. Not fatal, but it'll really hurt them.
posted by Spike Glee at 12:20 PM on November 11 [2 favorites]
I was in Texas a few months ago, and it was the rudest place I've been to. And I'm from Boston. The new reality is there is a lot of antisocial aggressive behavior you can see in Houston, and nobody calls it out because "what if the asshole is packing?" is what's in the back of everyone's mind.
Yeah, shit's gotten disinhibited.
posted by ocschwar at 12:51 PM on November 11 [15 favorites]
Yeah, shit's gotten disinhibited.
posted by ocschwar at 12:51 PM on November 11 [15 favorites]
Why should we believe they'll be gone? Trump has both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. What if they make it illegal to vote for anyone but a Republican? There's nothing to keep them from doing things like that.
Erm, the Constitution. The bar for changing the constitution is much higher than a regular piece of legislation - 2/3 majority. The GOP doesn't have that in either chamber. I'm not trying to suggest damage won't be done, but there are still some guardrails.
posted by coffeecat at 1:00 PM on November 11 [3 favorites]
Erm, the Constitution. The bar for changing the constitution is much higher than a regular piece of legislation - 2/3 majority. The GOP doesn't have that in either chamber. I'm not trying to suggest damage won't be done, but there are still some guardrails.
posted by coffeecat at 1:00 PM on November 11 [3 favorites]
"what if the asshole is packing?" is what's in the back of everyone's mind.
but... but... but... I've been told an armed society is a polite society?
The bar for changing the constitution is much higher than a regular piece of legislation
The Communist Party was banned for decades without changing the Constitution.
posted by Slothrup at 1:02 PM on November 11 [4 favorites]
but... but... but... I've been told an armed society is a polite society?
The bar for changing the constitution is much higher than a regular piece of legislation
The Communist Party was banned for decades without changing the Constitution.
posted by Slothrup at 1:02 PM on November 11 [4 favorites]
Erm, the Constitution.
Speaking of things that need changing..
posted by ocschwar at 1:05 PM on November 11 [2 favorites]
The Communist Party was banned for decades without changing the Constitution.
I should have looked this up before posting. It was only banned for a few years before the legislation was largely unwound and parts of it were declared unconstitutional. Also, it was never really enforced. It feels a little weird that I didn't know this.
posted by Slothrup at 1:17 PM on November 11 [4 favorites]
I should have looked this up before posting. It was only banned for a few years before the legislation was largely unwound and parts of it were declared unconstitutional. Also, it was never really enforced. It feels a little weird that I didn't know this.
posted by Slothrup at 1:17 PM on November 11 [4 favorites]
Erm, the Constitution. The bar for changing the constitution is much higher than a regular piece of legislation - 2/3 majority. The GOP doesn't have that in either chamber. I'm not trying to suggest damage won't be done, but there are still some guardrails.
Who enforces the Constitution? Last I checked, the Federalist society alumni controls the SCOTUS, and they just found a section saying "Trump is immune to the law" written between the lines.
Second, the US constitution is trivial to bypass. Easiest is that you can stuff SCOTUS with true believers with a mere majority of both houses and the presidency.
You can even rewrite the US constitution with a mere majority of both houses, the US presidency, and a loyal majority in one US state; that is all that is required to subdivide a state.
Each state under the US constitution gets 2 senators and at least 1 congresscritter. The number of congresscritters is limited by statute. The size of a US State has no lower limit.
So spawn a few dozen States, and now your few 1000 individuals in these States have a majority of Congress, Senate and the Electoral College. You also can call a constitution convention and rewrite the US constitution.
The institutions of the USA will not save you, it is your turn to save them.
posted by NotAYakk at 2:00 PM on November 11 [11 favorites]
Who enforces the Constitution? Last I checked, the Federalist society alumni controls the SCOTUS, and they just found a section saying "Trump is immune to the law" written between the lines.
Second, the US constitution is trivial to bypass. Easiest is that you can stuff SCOTUS with true believers with a mere majority of both houses and the presidency.
You can even rewrite the US constitution with a mere majority of both houses, the US presidency, and a loyal majority in one US state; that is all that is required to subdivide a state.
Each state under the US constitution gets 2 senators and at least 1 congresscritter. The number of congresscritters is limited by statute. The size of a US State has no lower limit.
So spawn a few dozen States, and now your few 1000 individuals in these States have a majority of Congress, Senate and the Electoral College. You also can call a constitution convention and rewrite the US constitution.
The institutions of the USA will not save you, it is your turn to save them.
posted by NotAYakk at 2:00 PM on November 11 [11 favorites]
"the outgoing administration needs to do everything possible to set up independent alternative non-profits to donate resources to, who can continue to do as much of the work of current Executive Branch agencies as it is possible to do outside of the government proper"
Trump will just revoke their nonprofit status
posted by Jacqueline at 6:48 PM on November 11 [2 favorites]
Trump will just revoke their nonprofit status
posted by Jacqueline at 6:48 PM on November 11 [2 favorites]
The Communist Party was banned for decades without changing the Constitution.
If you're an immigrant or in some public service positions, it's still banned. US immigration policy bans membership in any Communist Party (from any country) as "inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America". Some states ban Communist Party members from various jobs and require loyalty oaths that include swearing that you are not a Communist. (California is one of those states.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:55 PM on November 11 [4 favorites]
If you're an immigrant or in some public service positions, it's still banned. US immigration policy bans membership in any Communist Party (from any country) as "inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America". Some states ban Communist Party members from various jobs and require loyalty oaths that include swearing that you are not a Communist. (California is one of those states.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:55 PM on November 11 [4 favorites]
Trump will just revoke their nonprofit status
The exact legal status of the proposed organizations isn’t the important detail. The important detail is that any such parallel organizations are (a) robustly protected against sabotage by Trumpists, and (b) have a very difficult to change mandate that ensures they act according to the original goals, and work with government again when or if that becomes productive again at some later date. The idea is to avoid irreversible loss of knowledge, expertise, data, and resources from our federal government.
posted by eviemath at 10:36 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
The exact legal status of the proposed organizations isn’t the important detail. The important detail is that any such parallel organizations are (a) robustly protected against sabotage by Trumpists, and (b) have a very difficult to change mandate that ensures they act according to the original goals, and work with government again when or if that becomes productive again at some later date. The idea is to avoid irreversible loss of knowledge, expertise, data, and resources from our federal government.
posted by eviemath at 10:36 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
It will be a nonstop show, its cacophonous soundtrack amplified by Elon Musk and the thriving denizens of the digital manosphere.I think this is their plan: flood the zone with shit. Lies and puffery, and random feckless responses. You could write a book about a day, but it'd be a useless love letter to some future historian. Even the W. Bush administration had the idea that "when we act, we create our own reality."
The only answer is to stop listening. Turn off the national news for years and instead look at how to help very close. They bite very hard, but they bark 10x harder than they bite. It's time to stop watching the show.
posted by netowl at 10:50 PM on November 11 [3 favorites]
You can even rewrite the US constitution with a mere majority of both houses, the US presidency, and a loyal majority in one US state; that is all that is required to subdivide a state.
This simply isn't true. You need a 2/3 majority of THE STATES THEMSELVES to change the Constitution; that is why the national Equal Rights Amendment is not a thing, they couldn't find enough votes to pass it.
The GOP has the House and Senate, but ONLY just barely - not enough to withstand a senate Filibuster or other lengthy roadblocks to passing any of the laws Trump is going to want to pass. There is still shit he can pull, but there are ways that the Congressional Dems can pull a Mitch McConnell move and just be REALLY stubborn and not play along, and tie up Congress and piss a lot of people off just in time for the mid-terms.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:48 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
This simply isn't true. You need a 2/3 majority of THE STATES THEMSELVES to change the Constitution; that is why the national Equal Rights Amendment is not a thing, they couldn't find enough votes to pass it.
The GOP has the House and Senate, but ONLY just barely - not enough to withstand a senate Filibuster or other lengthy roadblocks to passing any of the laws Trump is going to want to pass. There is still shit he can pull, but there are ways that the Congressional Dems can pull a Mitch McConnell move and just be REALLY stubborn and not play along, and tie up Congress and piss a lot of people off just in time for the mid-terms.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:48 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
Correction to my claim above - a proposed Constitutional Amendment needs a 2/3 majority in congress, and then a 3/4 majority in the states. We are far from that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:10 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:10 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
not enough to withstand a senate Filibuster or other lengthy roadblocks to passing any of the laws Trump is going to want to pass.
Do you honestly think Republicans aren't going to just do away with the tradition of the filibuster? Trump is already demanding that the Senate skip confirmation hearings for his cabinet nominees.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:23 AM on November 12
Do you honestly think Republicans aren't going to just do away with the tradition of the filibuster? Trump is already demanding that the Senate skip confirmation hearings for his cabinet nominees.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:23 AM on November 12
a proposed Constitutional Amendment needs a 2/3 majority in congress, and then a 3/4 majority in the states.
Article V also allows for an ambiguously defined "constitutional convention" to be called by 2/3 of the states. And that convention would have the power to rewrite the entire constitution, with no need for the states to ratify anything. Republicans are planning to do this.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:30 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
Article V also allows for an ambiguously defined "constitutional convention" to be called by 2/3 of the states. And that convention would have the power to rewrite the entire constitution, with no need for the states to ratify anything. Republicans are planning to do this.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:30 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
Do you honestly think Republicans aren't going to just do away with the tradition of the filibuster?
And do you honestly think that the Dems aren't going to use the filibuster to block this? They tried to do away with the filibuster a year or so back but the GOP blocked it. Now it's the Dem's turn to be the roadblock.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:43 AM on November 12
And do you honestly think that the Dems aren't going to use the filibuster to block this? They tried to do away with the filibuster a year or so back but the GOP blocked it. Now it's the Dem's turn to be the roadblock.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:43 AM on November 12
Article V also allows for an ambiguously defined "constitutional convention" to be called by 2/3 of the states. And that convention would have the power to rewrite the entire constitution, with no need for the states to ratify anything. Republicans are planning to do this.
And how successful and speedy do you think that would be to get going, with the just-barely-over-even split in the Congress being what it is?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:44 AM on November 12
And how successful and speedy do you think that would be to get going, with the just-barely-over-even split in the Congress being what it is?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:44 AM on November 12
From a functional perspective, the makeup of Congress has nothing to do with it. If majorities in 2/3 of the state legislatures say "we want to hold a constitutional convention" it gets held.
If you're trying to imply that the slim majorities in Congress might translate to there being some reluctance or incompetence on the part of Republicans to actually get it done, then maybe? But Congress is itself is not the guardrail that you would suggest it is. It just doesn't factor into the process defined by Article V at all.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:37 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
If you're trying to imply that the slim majorities in Congress might translate to there being some reluctance or incompetence on the part of Republicans to actually get it done, then maybe? But Congress is itself is not the guardrail that you would suggest it is. It just doesn't factor into the process defined by Article V at all.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:37 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
And do you honestly think that the Dems aren't going to use the filibuster to block this? They tried to do away with the filibuster a year or so back but the GOP blocked it. Now it's the Dem's turn to be the roadblock.
The GOP didn't block it, Manchin and Sinema did. Whoever has a majority in the Senate gets to write the rules. The Democrats had a majority, but they couldn't agree on ending it. If the Republicans are able to come to an agreement amongst themselves to get rid of the filibuster, there's no more filibuster and Democrats won't get to use it as a roadblock.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:53 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
The GOP didn't block it, Manchin and Sinema did. Whoever has a majority in the Senate gets to write the rules. The Democrats had a majority, but they couldn't agree on ending it. If the Republicans are able to come to an agreement amongst themselves to get rid of the filibuster, there's no more filibuster and Democrats won't get to use it as a roadblock.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:53 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
If you're trying to imply that the slim majorities in Congress might translate to there being some reluctance or incompetence on the part of Republicans to actually get it done, then maybe?
In the case of the states voting for a Constitutional convention, I'm suggesting that the slim majorities in Congress are likely a reflection of the Demographics of the US as a whole, and I'm doubtful that we actually do have the 2/3 majority we would need.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:22 AM on November 12
In the case of the states voting for a Constitutional convention, I'm suggesting that the slim majorities in Congress are likely a reflection of the Demographics of the US as a whole, and I'm doubtful that we actually do have the 2/3 majority we would need.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:22 AM on November 12
Erm, the Constitution.
Emoluments Clause
Insurrection Clause
"Presidents may not be prosecuted for exercising their “core” constitutional powers"
posted by kirkaracha at 7:43 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
"Presidents may not be prosecuted for exercising their “core” constitutional powers"
posted by kirkaracha at 7:43 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
in the past, both parties were cautious about testing so-called guardrails because every election or so they'd be the one who would benefit from it, one way or another
I guess it bears repeating: we are not dealing with the Republican Party anymore. In name only, this entity is smashing through every guardrail they happen upon. They are looking to destroy the guardrails and remake everything.
I don't know what to tell people who cite the constitution and majorities and the like, as though these things matter anymore. Maybe these things matter? I just don't think the GOP cares, and more to the point: people don't care. Don't fuckin tell me about your fancy lawyer rules, we gonna do what we fuckin wanna do
posted by ginger.beef at 8:32 AM on November 12 [5 favorites]
I guess it bears repeating: we are not dealing with the Republican Party anymore. In name only, this entity is smashing through every guardrail they happen upon. They are looking to destroy the guardrails and remake everything.
I don't know what to tell people who cite the constitution and majorities and the like, as though these things matter anymore. Maybe these things matter? I just don't think the GOP cares, and more to the point: people don't care. Don't fuckin tell me about your fancy lawyer rules, we gonna do what we fuckin wanna do
posted by ginger.beef at 8:32 AM on November 12 [5 favorites]
I’m not sure our institutions will survive but I do wonder if this gang can control a country this big (and this armed) when lots of people realize they voted against inflation but it’s back, bigger than ever. A lot of voters don’t care about governing or policies or institutions but inflation really pisses them off when it’s layered over an economic system that has favored the wealthy and hurt them for most or all of their lives. They don’t understand that system or who’s behind it but both parties let it thrive so politics is not of any interest to them but prices going up matters a lot. They don’t need to know how inflation works to want to throw the scoundrels out. All of them.
posted by zenzenobia at 9:33 AM on November 12 [2 favorites]
posted by zenzenobia at 9:33 AM on November 12 [2 favorites]
Oh, and the entertainment of watching disinhibition won’t be enough to matter. Circuses are popular but so is bread.
posted by zenzenobia at 9:35 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
posted by zenzenobia at 9:35 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
Erm, the Constitution
How many divisions does the Constitution have?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:57 AM on November 13 [2 favorites]
How many divisions does the Constitution have?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:57 AM on November 13 [2 favorites]
« Older Hundreds of modified trees described as national... | Microscope Museum Newer »
Nah, she won, and they totally cooked the election results. It's not paranoia if they say they're out to get you.
posted by otherchaz at 1:37 AM on November 11 [10 favorites]