It's only illegal if you get caught. If this administration ever ends, the next one will be focused on the fallout of this one. (as is usually the case)
Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.
You're right that Reagan did a lot that was negative, but it's a significant difference from current leaders who openly disdain positive things and encourage people to embrace hatred, violence, warfare, corruption, oppression, etc.
We can come back from this, but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.
Oubliette [1^]: The dungeon you throw people in that you want to forget.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungeon#/media/Fi...
Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen. The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office and has unlimited power to pardon anyone else of any federal crimes.
And if the Democrats even attempt to do anything of the sort, people will just consider it a partisan witchhunt. It will be litigated all the way to a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.
It's majority conservative, but that's not the same thing as what you're claiming here.
It has 3 members appointed by Trump, but even that doesn't make them Trumpist ideologues.
Quite a perfect storm.
Not a conspiracy theory, this is an open discussion topic among federal judges within their own conferences.
> The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office
That's a misreading of the SC decision. If he walks down the street and murders someone, unless he can make a case that it was an official act, then he wouldn't have immunity. He'd need to demonstrate that he has the Constitutional authority to murder people on the street, and he doesn't, so it wouldn't be an official act and he wouldn't have any immunity.
whether or not you believe this is a pass from the Supreme Court, it opens up a whole new unexplored space of lack of culpability.
If Trump continues to have enough influence in the SCOTUS after he's done being president, then yes, you could imagine they contort any action into an official act. But that'd be a failure of the next government to first establish a less biased SCOTUS (either by packing it or removing existing justices).
then a new constitution it is!
(The UK has the opportunity to do this before the fash get into power, but we can watch it being fumbled in real time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
With lots of examples of contrary , where multi party system has not devolved in one man shit show.
China's history is more complicated, but is also the product of military conflict following colonial imposition by Japan. To suggest that either country's political system is the outcome of inherent structural weaknesses in multi-party democracy is absurd.
Please note that the comment I replied to has been substantially modified since I posted.
Get rid of money, punish lying, decrease the power of the Executive branch…
Lots to do, but getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream.
It's not nature, it's the strategic actions of members of those parties to create and protect that system. For example, look at laws in states that make it very difficult for 3rd parties to get on ballots, participate in debates, and then the expensive lawfare against them if they show any signs of life.
> getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream
It certainly won't happen tomorrow, but the best time to start such things is today.
As we seem to be seeing, the Democratic Party in the U.S. is in fact, internally, two parties. As populations age out, we'll likely see the party itself evolve.
It’s not just the two party system. You have to get the money out out of politics before anything else can positively move back toward democracy.