[flagged]
Voters' and citizens' (and some judges') willingness to support sociopathic behavior by leaders is a profound failing at their basic social duties, and is deeply shameful.
Not to be too contrarian, but I'm certain there are many people who would claim that's the only way it has ever worked (poorly)
As a concept, it's used as an escape hatch whenever it wants to avoid public scrutiny.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-...
Separating the legislature and the executive has no useful purpose: if the president is going to defacto enact law should be handled by the legislature, then there's no reason they shouldn't just be the head of the legislature and forced to actually whip the votes to do so.
Since modern government seems to require a large bureaucratic apparatus to function, I think it should be its own branch with no single head - or put another way, all bodies established by the legislature should be independent from each other, the executive, and the legislature. This way, all power the legislature grants to a body doesn't acrue to the presidency, and the collective powers of these bodies don't acrue to a single person or group. The president would still have a suite of powers, but they wouldn't automatically expand - the president would only have whatever control over these bodies the legislature chooses to grant. Of course, if the legislature wants to exercise any power over these bodies once they've established them, they would have to do so through the usual legislative process, and it would still be subject to presidential veto.
They used Shays' Rebellion as a pretext to push for constitutional reform.
The constitution is explicitly written to prevent change. It's why change is so hard to implement and requires actual courage (see America's second founding).
One of the first official acts George Washington did was sign the fugitive slave act then tried to deputize his nephew in the treasury department to kidnap a free woman who was his former slave, Ona Judge, because Washington didn't want to argue in a public court why she was his property. Great video on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhxivf0gmj8
Many of the founders were rotten ghouls (Alexander Hamilton's favorite form of government was a monarchy), you need to read what they exactly think because they designed a government where about less than 2% of the US population could vote and design a system where the only house that commoner's could be elected into would be the weakest. They openly wrote about all of this too, it's not anything new.
When they wrote about freedom they weren't talking about 95% of society, they were talking about a very specific type of people that excluded many.
The rot has always been there, it's why there is an allure of truth when conservatives say they just want to return to the founding. Look at what the founding actually entails, there is nothing unamerican about white national colonialism. That's why we mustn't look to the past to build a better future.
The Federalists were extremely familiar with the way monarchies functioned, spent a lot of time thinking about government strucutre, and the US presidency was quite explicitly set up to be something else.
If the leaders of all of our institutions decide to shrug when the president treats national powers as a tool for organized crime, and voters don't do anything about it, that's a people problem, not a problem of institutional structure. Any institution is only as powerful as our collective willingness to support and protect it.
I'm not sure if it's still going on, but a few years ago the same crowd kept insisting that "silence is violence" which is even more ludicrous - if you're not parroting their critical race theory talking points at every opportunity, YOU are committing an act of violence.
What fascinating about these is that they eventually turn on themselves, because rhetoric has no logical foundation and can be twisted to mean anything.
I’m not American, so I’m not used to this kind of thing at all, which makes it even stranger for me to watch one group roleplaying as deeply religious while at the same time embodying arrogance, greed, and a lust for power, while on the other side you have people fighting for equality so hard that it eventually turns into plain old racism, sexism, and mental gymnastics, with definitions of words and concepts being constantly changed just to make them fit into an already flimsy theory meant to explain why the patriarchy or some similar nonsense is supposedly to blame for everything.
I’m genuinely curious to see how the conflict between these two groups develops from here. It just keeps getting more and more absurd.
No, obviously not. That would have been pointless; the US was at war anyway. The US is always at war.
There's 2.8M trans people in the US. Compared to the Axis powers who mobilized 25-30M personnel, each trans person has the equivalent strength of 9-10 Axis soldiers. Impressive.
Want to execute a citizen without trial? National security.
Want to execute his child without trial? National security.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/08/trump-intervene...
" The word quarantine comes from quarantena or quarantaine, meaning "forty days", used in the Venetian language in the 14th and 15th centuries and also in France. The word is designated in the period during which all ships were required to be isolated before passengers and crew could go ashore during the Black Death plague."