It’s not a frustrating outcome of democracy. It’s a failure of democracy with one party trying to take over and destroy all other opinions by all means necessary, which includes an open revolt and election stealing.
It’s not a frustrating outcome of democracy. It’s a failure of democracy with one party trying to take over and destroy all other opinions by all means necessary, which includes an open revolt and election stealing.
> It’s a failure of democracy with one party trying to take over and destroy all other opinions by all means necessary
Lots of people talk shit but almost everybody is still going about their daily lives in a normal civil manner. Obviously the state of American democracy could be better, but don't pronounce the patient dead just because he tripped and got his knee bloodied.
There is neither a Constitutional nor a rational basis for a special unique exemption for past Presidents, and fortunately state and federal prosecutors seem to recognize that.
Sure, but using criminal process or any other power of office to punish partisan enemies is a problem whether or not the target is a past leader; there's no special danger around past leaders. if anything, there is less danger around past or current high government officials in general, and past Presidents in particular, because of the extraordinary degree to which those persons tend to be visible and well-connected politically.
Indictments on 91 felony charges across three different sovereignties in four different proceedings is...not what most people would describe as zero consequences.
(Also, there are several other active state criminal investigations relating to the fraudulent electors scheme, some of which have produced criminal charges against other people and any of which could very easily also result in further indictments for Trump.)
While I believe in due process, justice delayed is not justice.
And the body that should have sanctioned him (the elected government) voted down any punishment.
But this particular one? Not so much. Vastly better ones elsewhere, if only because they have less veto points and a better amendment process.
The bulk of it was largely designed around the specific circumstances of them 13 colonies->states, many of whom kind of hated each other, and full of appeasements to their different concerns at that time. Everything else has been retrofitted into it since then.
Which ones?
Canada? Japan? Australia? Germany? Even places with significantly unpopular governments like France and the UK don't have a situation where one of the houses of government can't function.
I think if the Italian government is more functional than the US then it's time to realize there is a real problem.
Here's a list of countries by GDP[1]. I'm looking at it and struggling to find a country that is (a) developed[2] and (b) a democracy and (c) doing worse in terms of functional governance than the US.
Turkey and Thailand are two options where they had attempted or actual coups, but neither are classed as developed.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[2] https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/f0773d55-en/1/4/3/index....