19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Project 2025 has specifically found ways to undermine these checks and balances, not unlike the use of Article 48 by the NSDAP.

There was a lot of preparation beforehand: the appointment of judges, marginalizing of honest conservatives, kneecapping trade unions, eroding social safety nets, suppression (evident since 1991) of investigative journalism, election rule changes, voter suppression and intimidation, massive propaganda and smear campaigns. This was a big, long-term operation involving party members, jurists, state officials, clerics, media moguls and other moneybags. The Democrats made a couple of decent efforts, but were consistently outgunned by an enemy with no scruples to hamper them.

Edited June 15Jun 15 by Peterkin

29 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Dawg what are you on about now

Look, just because some Muslim activists in Dearborn were angry at Harris does not mean Muslims as a whole supported Trump. Most Muslim Americans have voted Democrat for years and still do. What happened in Michigan was not Muslims suddenly loving conservative values. It was frustration. People were angry about Gaza. Some stayed home, some voted third party, and a few made a protest vote for Trump. That is not the same thing as thinking Trump was the better option for Palestine.

And let’s be honest. Trump’s record on this is crystal clear. He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, cut off aid to Palestinians, and openly backed Netanyahu. The guy even picked Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel, someone who once said Palestinians do not even exist. So if anyone thought Trump would help end the conflict or care about Palestinian lives, they were fooling themselves.

Kamala Harris might not have done enough, and criticism of her is valid. But she has at least said Palestinians deserve a homeland. That is already more than Trump ever offered. So no, voting for Trump is not voting for the security or freedom of Palestine. It is the opposite. It is a vote for the same hardline policies that have crushed any chance at peace.

The fact remains that the key swing state of Michigan was delivered into Republican hands, and along with it the presidency  - into the hands of Donald Trump.

The Muslim protest voters in Dearborn weren’t alone of course. There were also the “Latinas for Trump”  movement who mobilised  large numbers of Hispanic voters to turn out for Trump as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/09/florida-republicans-criticize-trump-immigration-arrests

Well guess guess what ?  - according to social media -  as of 13 June  "Latinos for Trump" leader Hector Luis Valdes Cocho, was picked up by ICE and is now in a detention center waiting to be deported

https://www.facebook.com/USdems/posts/latinos-for-trump-leader-hector-luis-valdes-cocho-was-picked-up-by-ice-and-is-no/1150518430453886/

All of which feeds into my point that  adopting a ‘neutral’ POV, or engaging in wishful-thinking protest votes when democracy itself is facing an existential threat is simply not an option.

15 minutes ago, toucana said:

All of which feeds into my point that  adopting a ‘neutral’ POV, or engaging in wishful-thinking protest votes when democracy itself is facing an existential threat is simply not an option.

I guarantee you if you were to pick a side in issues regarding these sort of politics, or IvP that someone could counterclaim you very well. The most logical option is being neutral, I somewhat agree with you but please stop with the alarmist rhetoric. Democracy as we know it is not at stake

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There was a lot of preparation beforehand: the appointment of judges, marginalizing of honest conservatives, kneecapping trade unions, eroding social safety nets, suppression (evident since 1991) of investigative journalism, election rule changes, voter suppression and intimidation, massive propaganda and smear campaigns. This was a big, long-term operation involving party members, jurists, state officials, clerics, media moguls and other moneybags. The Democrats made a couple of decent efforts, but were consistently outgunned by an enemy with no scruples to hamper them.

Part of it was certainly decades in the making by e.g. the Federalist society. I think the efforts were only partially stymied by, well, conventions that were upheld to some degree by the various branches of government. It started most visibly eroding with the tea party and gained steam from there. A major difference was that the majority of the folks at least attempted not to look crazy.

26 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Democracy as we know it is not at stake

You are clearly not paying attention. The administration clearly defying the literal rule of law, targeting free speech, and actively demolishing the checks and balances that were put in place by the constitution. If they get away with it, the Democracy as we know it is not longer at stake- it is gone. There is no other way to put it. If the government controls what schools and universities are allowed to teach, which books you can or cannot read in libraries, sidelines traditional media in favour of far-right influencers, usurps federal powers to put pressure on states to follow the administration's ideologies, ignores frigging habeas corpus, pardons people involved in violent insurrection and the list goes on. Critically, all these actions change the Overton window and what is considered to be acceptable (if oppressive) government actions.

What else has to happen before a threat to democracy is recognized? The threat to the Weimar Republic did not start with Gleichschaltung. It ended with it.

A certain poem from someone who realized that things ended badly too late comes to mind here (Niemoeller).

MSNBC.com

Jamal Greene: I’m a legal scholar. We're in a constitutio...

Some will argue this country entered into a constitutional crisis only recently, but the moment I realized we were in one was on Jan. 20.

The Atlantic

How to Hide a Constitutional Crisis

The executive branch is relying on the language of the law as cover to claim that it is complying with court orders when in fact it is not.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

A certain poem from someone who realized that things ended badly too late comes to mind here

Yep. What does it take? We'll see. I'm guessing Civil War pt II. A better alternative would be partition into four or more territories. But there are worse alternatives, too. This crisis isn't confined to the Trump regime, or the DUSA; it's global - Trump isn't a phenomenon; he's one of the symptoms. The tools available to reverse it have a severe case of mental fatigue, and most possible endings are very, very bad. Even if there is a sequel, it's on the far side of very, very bad.

(Go ahead, you wouldn't be first to call me a Debbie Downer.)

Edited June 15Jun 15 by Peterkin

Just now, Peterkin said:

This crisis isn't confined to the Trump regime, or the DUSA; it's global - Trump isn't a phenomenon; he's one of the symptoms. The tools available to reverse it have a severe case of metal fatigue, and most possible endings are very, very bad. Even if there is a sequel, it's on the far side of very, very bad.

Absolutely. Trump and the rise of what folks call illiberal democracies and the diminishing power of established democracies are all part of a common trend (we have discussed Europe a fair bit on this forum, too). One big issue is that with current technologies, fractured information platforms and how folks interact with them all make it very easy to push autocracy, Meanwhile, maintaining or re-establishing democratic structures is an uphill battle. We have seen much damage barely 6 months can do to institutions.

Heck, I foresee that in the near future the full discourse will be between chat bots with people only copy/pasting their output and wondering why the world is going to hell in a handbasket (after asking a bot what a handbasket is).

4 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Look, just because some Muslim activists in Dearborn were angry at Harris does not mean Muslims as a whole supported Trump. Most Muslim Americans have voted Democrat for years and still do.

No, but they did not support Harris, either. Exit polls suggest a lot of votes went to Stein. Siphoning off votes helped Trump.

https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-exit-poll-of-muslim-voters-reveals-surge-in-support-for-jill-stein-and-donald-trump-steep-decline-for-harris/

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Part of it was certainly decades in the making by e.g. the Federalist society. I think the efforts were only partially stymied by, well, conventions that were upheld to some degree by the various branches of government. It started most visibly eroding with the tea party and gained steam from there. A major difference was that the majority of the folks at least attempted not to look crazy.

You are clearly not paying attention. The administration clearly defying the literal rule of law, targeting free speech, and actively demolishing the checks and balances that were put in place by the constitution. If they get away with it, the Democracy as we know it is not longer at stake- it is gone. There is no other way to put it. If the government controls what schools and universities are allowed to teach, which books you can or cannot read in libraries, sidelines traditional media in favour of far-right influencers, usurps federal powers to put pressure on states to follow the administration's ideologies, ignores frigging habeas corpus, pardons people involved in violent insurrection and the list goes on.

What else has to happen before a threat to democracy is recognized? The threat to the Weimar Republic did not start with Gleichschaltung. It ended with it.

MSNBC.com

Jamal Greene: I’m a legal scholar. We're in a constitutio...

Some will argue this country entered into a constitutional crisis only recently, but the moment I realized we were in one was on Jan. 20.

The Atlantic

How to Hide a Constitutional Crisis

The executive branch is relying on the language of the law as cover to claim that it is complying with court orders when in fact it is not.

The comparison to the Weimar Republic is powerful, but also very different in context. Weimar’s collapse involved widespread economic devastation, extremist paramilitaries controlling streets, and the complete breakdown of democratic norms. We are nowhere near that level of systemic failure.

It’s important to stay vigilant and hold leaders accountable, but let’s also avoid overblown rhetoric that might undermine confidence in the very democratic processes that can fix these problems. Threats to democracy deserve serious attention — and they also deserve clear-eyed, evidence-based responses.

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, but they did not support Harris, either. Exit polls suggest a lot of votes went to Stein. Siphoning off votes helped Trump.

https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-exit-poll-of-muslim-voters-reveals-surge-in-support-for-jill-stein-and-donald-trump-steep-decline-for-harris/

I see

4 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The comparison to the Weimar Republic is powerful, but also very different in context. Weimar’s collapse involved widespread economic devastation, extremist paramilitaries controlling streets, and the complete breakdown of democratic norms. We are nowhere near that level of systemic failure.

I have added context to the economic collapse story, this doesn't really address that at all. Please explain how ignoring court orders, conducting open bribery, effectively ending habeas corpus does not indicate a breakdown of democratic norms. In fact, how about substantiating your claim rather than repeating them?

6 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Threats to democracy deserve serious attention — and they also deserve clear-eyed, evidence-based responses.

The obvious response should have been an act of congress. Failing that, the only other safeguard are the midterms. We'll see how that goes. But to be clear, the sentences are handwavy fluff as they do not in any shape or form acknowledge what is going on.

15 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The comparison to the Weimar Republic is powerful, but also very different in context. Weimar’s collapse involved widespread economic devastation,

Which is irrelevant at this point, since Trump has already been elected.

15 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

extremist paramilitaries controlling streets,

And we have ICE, refusing to show badges and faces

15 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

and the complete breakdown of democratic norms. We are nowhere near that level of systemic failure.

But by the time that happens, it will be too late to recover using existing systems. It’s like saying, “not to worry, since the knife hasn’t yet reached a vital organ”

Enough norms have broken, and since Trump appears to have ~270 accomplices in congress, a majority of SCOTUS and has installed cronies at the top of all the government (with the help of his accomplices), what’s to stop him from causing more systemic failure? (that’s already been threatened)

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which is irrelevant at this point, since Trump has already been elected.

And we have ICE, refusing to show badges and faces

But by the time that happens, it will be too late to recover using existing systems. It’s like saying, “not to worry, since the knife hasn’t yet reached a vital organ”

Enough norms have broken, and since Trump appears to have ~270 accomplices in congress, a majority of SCOTUS and has installed cronies at the top of all the government (with the help of his accomplices), what’s to stop him from causing more systemic failure? (that’s already been threatened)

Saying “it’ll be too late once the knife hits a vital organ” makes for a great metaphor, but democracy is not a body that dies with one blow. It is more like a structure that needs constant maintenance. It can take damage and still be repaired. But not if everyone walks away convinced it’s already collapsed.

The question isn’t “what stops him?” It’s who. And the answer is still the same as it’s always been: voters, courts, states, journalists, organizers, and yes, people in Congress some of whom do break ranks when the stakes are clear. That’s what keeps systems from falling. Not panic, but persistence.

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I have added context to the economic collapse story, this doesn't really address that at all. Please explain how ignoring court orders, conducting open bribery, effectively ending habeas corpus does not indicate a breakdown of democratic norms. In fact, how about substantiating your claim rather than repeating them?

The obvious response should have been an act of congress. Failing that, the only other safeguard are the midterms. We'll see how that goes. But to be clear, the sentences are handwavy fluff as they do not in any shape or form acknowledge what is going on.

---

Congress has not done its job in many areas, I agree. And neither has the Supreme Court in some crucial cases. But a broken branch is not the same thing as a dead tree. The judiciary, for all its partisanship, has still ruled against Trump in dozens of cases. Journalists are still publishing leaks, lawsuits are still moving through courts, and millions of voters still organized in response to the threats you mention. These things are not fluff. They are the mechanisms that define whether a democracy is actually still operating or not.

Weimar did not collapse just because of bad leadership. It collapsed because it had no strong institutional foundation, and when push came to shove, the courts, the military, and the press either folded or actively helped the takeover. We are not there. Not yet. But yes, we could get there if we stop acting like anything matters. That is why calls for civic participation, pressure on elected officials, and voter turnout are not meaningless. They are the last line of defense, and they are still working, even if not fast enough for everyone’s comfort.

You want specifics? Here are some. Trump’s travel bans were eventually curbed by courts. His attempts to overturn the 2020 election were blocked by judges across the country, some of them appointed by him. His appointees failed to deliver on many of his legal overreaches. Local officials certified elections despite death threats. That is evidence that the system bends, but does not yet break.

You are right to be angry. You are right to be watchful. But it is precisely because democracy is in danger that we cannot afford to bury it before it is dead. Recognizing danger is not the same as declaring defeat.

I still can’t see the box where the stuff is quotes so I put a _________________________ to distinguish my responses

1 minute ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Saying “it’ll be too late once the knife hits a vital organ” makes for a great metaphor, but democracy is not a body that dies with one blow. It is more like a structure that needs constant maintenance. It can take damage and still be repaired. But not if everyone walks away convinced it’s already collapsed.

I didn’t say it has collapsed. But it is being damaged and not repaired. To undersell the danger is dangerous and also leads to inaction.

The No Kings rallies yesterday show that people aren’t walking away. But the media coverage of them is pathetic (and the parade coverage by the NYT and WaPo too fawning), and that’s one more hurdle that needs to be overcome. Awareness is still too low, and most media are being stenographers relaying a narrative vs reporters giving us facts.

1 minute ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

You want specifics? Here are some. Trump’s travel bans were eventually curbed by courts. His attempts to overturn the 2020 election were blocked by judges across the country, some of them appointed by him. His appointees failed to deliver on many of his legal overreaches. Local officials certified elections despite death threats. That is evidence that the system bends, but does not yet break.

Holy, you are aware that you are addressing the wrong Trump presidency? If you have followed the discussion here, we have mentioned that the institutions held then, but are failing now. How about you address those points? I mean, it is fine if you have no idea about the current happenings (which in some ways requires an admirably isolation from information) but there is little to engage in the discussion, then.

8 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The judiciary, for all its partisanship, has still ruled against Trump in dozens of cases. Journalists are still publishing leaks, lawsuits are still moving through courts, and millions of voters still organized in response to the threats you mention. These things are not fluff. They are the mechanisms that define whether a democracy is actually still operating or not.

While rather vague that is one thing that is going on, though again, the same can be said for Weimar pre- 33. Importantly (and not addressed) is the fact that the administration has defied court orders. Without consequences, it makes little difference that lawsuits are moving. Also on that note, the administration also has weaponized the courts.

Thereby, they have effectively forced journalists to resign (see 60 minutes), and is expecting big payoffs from bogus lawsuits. These are not signs of a healthy democracy. Also ignored: the power grab (which was very long in the making) to control school and university curricula, especially the latter are a clear violation of academic freedom.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

I didn’t say it has collapsed. But it is being damaged and not repaired. To undersell the danger is dangerous and also leads to inaction.

The No Kings rallies yesterday show that people aren’t walking away. But the media coverage of them is pathetic (and the parade coverage by the NYT and WaPo too fawning), and that’s one more hurdle that needs to be overcome. Awareness is still too low, and most media are being stenographers relaying a narrative vs reporters giving us facts.

Absolutely. The system is gearing up to avoid any sort of accountability and is wielding the power in dangerous ways. If folks start to complain only after the power grab is done is kind of too late.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

The No Kings rallies yesterday show that people aren’t walking away. But the media coverage of them is pathetic (and the parade coverage by the NYT and WaPo too fawning), and that’s one more hurdle that needs to be overcome. Awareness is still too low, and most media are being stenographers relaying a narrative vs reporters giving us facts.

I do agree that media coverage should be significantly better considering the amount of protestors there are.

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Holy, you are aware that you are addressing the wrong Trump presidency? If you have followed the discussion here, we have mentioned that the institutions held then, but are failing now. How about you address those points? I mean, it is fine if you have no idea about the current happenings (which in some ways requires an admirably isolation from information) but there is little to engage in the discussion, then.

While rather vague that is one thing that is going on, though again, the same can be said for Weimar pre- 33. Importantly (and not addressed) is the fact that the administration has defied court orders. Without consequences, it makes little difference that lawsuits are moving. Also on that note, the administration also has weaponized the courts.

Thereby, they have effectively forced journalists to resign (see 60 minutes), and is expecting big payoffs from bogus lawsuits. These are not signs of a healthy democracy. Also ignored: the power grab (which was very long in the making) to control school and university curricula, especially the latter are a clear violation of academic freedom.

I am addressing THE Trump presidency in its entirety— including the current threats. You are right that things have gotten worse. I never claimed institutions are in great shape now. What I said was they are not entirely gone, and that still matters.

The courts have ruled more selectively, Congress has been paralyzed by partisanship, and executive overreach is becoming more blatant. I am not denying any of that. But the idea that we are past the point of engagement, or that anyone paying attention should just throw their hands up, is exactly the kind of thinking that lets the erosion continue unchecked. The whole point is that if institutions are under strain, we do not abandon them. We force them to work. That means lawsuits, oversight, elections, protests, and pressure.

Mocking people for not being “informed enough” or claiming they are disconnected from reality is not a substitute for argument.

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Thereby, they have effectively forced journalists to resign (see 60 minutes), and is expecting big payoffs from bogus lawsuits. These are not signs of a healthy democracy. Also ignored: the power grab (which was very long in the making) to control school and university curricula, especially the latter are a clear violation of academic freedom.

As for journalists, no one forced 60 Minutes to resign. They got heat, and yes, pressure campaigns work both ways. But resignations do not prove full scale repression. There are still major investigations happening in outlets across the political spectrum. Whistleblowers are still coming forward. Books are still being published. If the media were truly under full state control, none of that would be happening.

And yes, I agree, the attempt to control school and university curricula is an attack on academic freedom. It should be fought. But that fight is also happening. University boards, faculty, students, and state legislatures are not all rolling over. Some are pushing back, suing, and winning. These are not symptoms of a healthy democracy, but they are signs of one that is still alive, still contested, and not yet lost.

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I mean, it is fine if you have no idea about the current happenings (which in some ways requires an admirably isolation from information) but there is little to engage in the discussion, then.

Unless it is to be helpful, little snippets like this should generally be avoided 😬

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Absolutely. The system is gearing up to avoid any sort of accountability and is wielding the power in dangerous ways. If folks start to complain only after the power grab is done is kind of too late.

“Holy,” you are free to complain but PLEASE MAKE ADEQUATE COMPARISONS (This is my point). I understand there may be a similar spirit of crisis, but context matters deeply. Comparing today’s situation to Weimar requires more than just surface similarities.

13 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I am addressing THE Trump presidency in its entirety— including the current threats. You are right that things have gotten worse. I never claimed institutions are in great shape now. What I said was they are not entirely gone, and that still matters.

And no one claimed that to begin with. Just that, similar to Weimar Germany (which was likely the start of this discussion), the democratic norms and mechanisms are eroding. Which is way more shocking as Germany did not had the long democratic history, which could explain some of the more failures. The US does not have that excuse.

14 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The whole point is that if institutions are under strain, we do not abandon them. We force them to work. That means lawsuits, oversight, elections, protests, and pressure.

And again, only one person argued differently. That person suggested that a "neutral" stance would be advisable. You should show them this particular quote.

16 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

But that fight is also happening. University boards, faculty, students, and state legislatures are not all rolling over. Some are pushing back, suing, and winning.

Except they are not really winning. First of all, many are rolling over. Second, while there are lawsuits on specific elements, there is an underlying issue- many aspects of academic freedom are not as safeguarded as folks thought they would be. There were certain conventions, such as the belief that things like health research would be an ultimate benefit, or perhaps even just rational decision making (after all, research investment has been a huge net benefit to the US economy). That has gone out of the window and federal funds are drying up. What they are suing for (among other things) is against clawing back money that was awarded and where they have for now won is the foreign student ban against Harvard. But there is nothing stopping them not to give them any money in the future. Well technically congress can, but, you know.

What it means in total is that the administration is putting strain on all mechanisms that democratically constrain their power. While the mechanisms held during Trump 1 now the guardrails are popping off. And again, we are only half a year in. Not all good people have been ousted yet but if things are not kept in check now, it will become increasingly more difficult.

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And no one claimed that to begin with. Just that, similar to Weimar Germany (which was likely the start of this discussion), the democratic norms and mechanisms are eroding. Which is way more shocking as Germany did not had the long democratic history, which could explain some of the more failures. The US does not have that excuse.

And again, only one person argued differently. That person suggested that a "neutral" stance would be advisable. You should show them this particular quote.

Except they are not really winning. First of all, many are rolling over. Second, while there are lawsuits on specific elements, there is an underlying issue- many aspects of academic freedom are not as safeguarded as folks thought they would be. There were certain conventions, such as the belief that things like health research would be an ultimate benefit, or perhaps even just rational decision making (after all, research investment has been a huge net benefit to the US economy). That has gone out of the window and federal funds are drying up. What they are suing for (among other things) is against clawing back money that was awarded and where they have for now won is the foreign student ban against Harvard. But there is nothing stopping them not to give them any money in the future. Well technically congress can, but, you know.

What it means in total is that the administration is putting strain on all mechanisms that democratically constrain their power. While the mechanisms held during Trump 1 now the guardrails are popping off. And again, we are only half a year in. Not all good people have been ousted yet but if things are not kept in check now, it will become increasingly more difficult.

I appreciate the clarification, but if the original claim was that democratic norms are eroding, then we are actually closer in agreement than it seemed. My point is not that erosion is not happening — it clearly is. My point is that erosion is not the same thing as collapse. Drawing from Weimar is useful only if the comparison helps us understand how breakdowns actually occur. But if we are going to reference Weimar, let’s also be precise. Germany was a fledgling democracy coming out of autocracy and war. The United States has a deeper institutional memory, even if that alone is not a safeguard. So yes, the stakes are even higher. But that is not an argument that the collapse is inevitable — it is an argument for vigilance.

On your point about academic freedom, I do not disagree that the situation is dire. But I also think we have to be specific about what it means to say “they are not really winning.” If lawsuits are being filed and sometimes upheld, then some legal safeguards are still in play. Yes, many are rolling over. Yes, many conventions are being shredded. But if you take the position that all resistance is futile or performative, you demoralize the people who are actually doing the work — in courts, in legislatures, in classrooms. That serves the people stripping rights far more than it challenges them.

As for your broader conclusion — that we are only half a year in and guardrails are popping off — I agree. Which is why I said this is the moment to use what is left. Lawsuits, media pressure, protest, voting, coalition building. If people believe the tools are already broken beyond use, they stop trying. And that is exactly what accelerates collapse.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The comparison to the Weimar Republic is powerful, but also very different in context. Weimar’s collapse involved widespread economic devastation, extremist paramilitaries controlling streets, and the complete breakdown of democratic norms. We are nowhere near that level of systemic failure.

Right! Six months is practically a light-year.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

It’s important to stay vigilant and hold leaders accountable,

How's that done? By whom?

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Threats to democracy deserve serious attention — and they also deserve clear-eyed, evidence-based responses.

Which you keep getting and dismissing.

49 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Saying “it’ll be too late once the knife hits a vital organ” makes for a great metaphor, but democracy is not a body that dies with one blow.

It's already had twenty.

50 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

It can take damage and still be repaired. But not if everyone walks away convinced it’s already collapsed.

You want to be under it when it collapses? Most people have no no choice.

52 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The question isn’t “what stops him?” It’s who.

I'm betting on Vance. The problem is, he's just as evil, but sane and smart.

53 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

You want specifics? Here are some. Trump’s travel bans were eventually curbed by courts.

So he's adding more. If the Olympics take place, there will be nobody in the stands.

56 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

His attempts to overturn the 2020 election were blocked by judges across the country, some of them appointed by him. His appointees failed to deliver on many of his legal overreaches. Local officials certified elections despite death threats.

So? He's not in jail for any of his crimes, and his thugs are all out again. That branch is well and truly broken. Where are the enforcement agencies? Headed by incompetent Trump loyalists.

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

But the media coverage of them is pathetic (and the parade coverage by the NYT and WaPo too fawning), and that’s one more hurdle that needs to be overcome. Awareness is still too low, and most media are being stenographers relaying a narrative vs reporters giving us facts.

There's been mass desertion of mainstream media ever since the 'fake news' label was stuck on them. And in light of lost revenues, the networks are scared shitless of any more law suits. They're pretty much cowed; the public ones will soon be defunded out of existence or lose their licenses; the major newspapers have been struggling for years, and the internet news providers are divided into two factions, the adherents of one side never hearing the other.

38 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I am addressing THE Trump presidency in its entirety

You can't. He had one term wherein he did a lot of harm, but the damage was partially repaired in the next four years by the Biden administration. This time he's come back with nothing to lose, a playbook to follow and a much more aggressive team.

42 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Comparing today’s situation to Weimar requires more than just surface similarities.

We're not comparing those things; you are. We're comparing Trump's decisive second victory to Hitler's agenda from 1933 and 1939.

47 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The whole point is that if institutions are under strain, we do not abandon them. We force them to work. That means lawsuits, oversight, elections, protests, and pressure.

They've done all that, for years.

48 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Mocking people for not being “informed enough” or claiming they are disconnected from reality is not a substitute for argument.

But that's exactly how this situation came to be. Arguments are not heard - guns are.

50 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

. If the media were truly under full state control, none of that would be happening.

It's not yet. Will take a few more murders, arrests, deportations, IRS audits, lawsuits, by when the press will be in such panic and disarray, the 'government' will announce its duty to step in and get things under control. We've seen this before, too.

16 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The United States has a deeper institutional memory, even if that alone is not a safeguard. So yes, the stakes are even higher. But that is not an argument that the collapse is inevitable — it is an argument for vigilance.

That deeper institutional memory is exactly what encourages an illusion of permanence. People tend to trust institution, long after the institutions have been corrupted and crippled. For example, the revered Supreme Court is a Trump franchise now, though he hasn't put a neon sign over the courthouse yet. But then, it wasn't that great a champion of civil rights in 1875 or 2013. Those institutions were always more fragile than Americans want to believe - read some of the history books that are banned from school libraries now.

Vigilance might have been effective in 1982; might even have done some good in 2000. There isn't enough left to watch over, and the watchman has his hands tied anyway. Like climate change, it's already happened.

Edited June 16Jun 16 by Peterkin

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Right! Six months is practically a light-year.

How's that done? By whom?

Which you keep getting and dismissing.

It's already had twenty.

You want to be under it when it collapses? Most people have no no choice.

I'm betting on Vance. The problem is, he's just as evil, but sane and smart.

So he's adding more. If the Olympics take place, there will be nobody in the stands.

So? He's not in jail for any of his crimes, and his thugs are all out again. That branch is well and truly broken. Where are the enforcement agencies? Headed by incompetent Trump loyalists.

There's been mass desertion of mainstream media ever since the 'fake news' label was stuck on them. And in light of lost revenues, the networks are scared shitless of any more law suits. They're pretty much cowed; the public ones will soon be defunded out of existence or lose their licenses; the major newspapers have been struggling for years, and the internet news providers are divided into two factions, the adherents of one side never hearing the other.

You can't. He had one term wherein he did a lot of harm, but the damage was partially repaired in the next four years by the Biden administration. This time he's come back with nothing to lose, a playbook to follow and a much more aggressive team.

We're not comparing those things; you are. We're comparing Trump's decisive second victory to Hitler's agenda from 1933 and 1939.

They've done all that, for years.

But that's exactly how this situation came to be. Arguments are not heard - guns are.

It's not yet. Will take a few more murders, arrests, deportations, IRS audits, lawsuits, by when the press will be in such panic and disarray, the 'government' will announce its duty to step in and get things under control. We've seen this before, too.

Vigilance might have been effective in 1982; might even have done some good in 2000. There isn't enough left to watch over, and the watchman has his hands tied anyway. It sounds as if you're still living back then, and think it would be nice to petition the Reagan government to stop cutting funds for federal agencies, or Bush II to please don't create any more domestic spy networks. Keep protesting, if it makes you happy, or march out in front of the tanks or launch a lawsuit. The outcome will not change, because they have bigger megaphones, more tanks and unlimited quantities of your money for lawsuits. That's already happened.

You clearly care about the stakes here, and I respect that. But let’s slow down and separate emotion from fatalism. There is a difference between recognizing serious damage and declaring democracy already gone. The moment we cross that line and decide the fight is already lost, we stop using the few remaining tools that still work. That is not caution. That is surrender.

Yes, things are bad. Yes, the second Trump term, especially one supported by loyalists and shaped by four years of strategy, is not the same as the first. I never said it was. The comparison to Weimar is powerful because it reminds us that erosion often comes before collapse. But the United States is not Weimar Germany, and acknowledging that is not naivety. It is precision. The U.S. has a deeper constitutional tradition, longer democratic history, and stronger legal infrastructure than Germany had after the fall of the Kaiser. That is not an argument for complacency. That is an argument for why the stakes are higher now. The fact that this country still has people suing, publishing, voting, and protesting while facing suppression is not proof that everything is fine — it is proof that all is not yet lost.

You ask “how is accountability done and by whom” — and then dismiss every example I give. Courts are slow and imperfect. But Trump’s first travel bans were overturned. His efforts to overturn the 2020 election were blocked, including by judges he appointed. Voter turnout surged in 2018 and 2020 and again in 2022, even with massive disinformation campaigns. That is not nothing. It is not enough, but it is not nothing.

You say the institutions are already broken because enforcement has failed, because media has been cowed, because the administration defies court orders. Those are all legitimate concerns. But the conclusion that this amounts to total collapse does not follow. Even under strain, lawsuits are still filed and sometimes won. Even with pressure, some local election officials still defy orders and threats. Even with censorship creeping in, reporters still break stories, and whistleblowers still leak. The fact that these things are harder now is exactly why they matter more.

About the media — you are right that traditional outlets have lost both reach and revenue. But that is not the same as full state control. If we reach a point where murder, arrests, and mass deportations of journalists are happening in open daylight and no one publishes or protests it, then we are closer to the edge. But we are not there yet. Right now the press is divided, wounded, and under attack — and still working. Partially. Inconsistently. But still functioning enough to report, enough to make it dangerous to the people trying to shut it down. That matters.

And you are also right that academic freedom is under threat, and that lawsuits alone will not restore it. But even there, we see universities pushing back, students organizing, and some courts ruling in their favor. That is not fantasy. That is fact. It is not as powerful or fast as what we wish for, but in a collapsing democracy, any resistance is meaningful. You say federal funds are drying up and rational policy is gone. That may be true, but that does not mean all avenues are closed. That means pressure and litigation and exposure are more important now than ever.

The deeper issue with your response is the assumption that because the situation is bleak, the outcome is inevitable. That because Trump has more loyalists and fewer constraints, we already know how this ends. But we do not. And it is precisely because we do not that we must act. The fight is not over because the future is not written. If the only people still engaging are the ones who believe in the possibility of reversal, then abandoning that possibility becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is not handwaving to say democracy can be repaired. It is not fluff to say protests, lawsuits, and elections matter. It is reality. You say it sounds like I am still living in the past. I say it sounds like you have already written the ending. But history is not a script. It is a battleground. And we are standing in it right now.

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

We're not comparing those things; you are. We're comparing Trump's decisive second victory to Hitler's agenda from 1933 and 1939.

This is of course mostly just for fun, but I would say a bit earlier than that. The fact that Hitler was arrested is just too much of a neat parallel with Jan6 and the fact that the US is run by a convicted felon. I am thinking maybe 1932? At that point Hitler gained broader support among industrialist (now techbros) and getting money from that side. While the SA was banned, Hitler managed to unban them in 32 (Jan6 crowd) and the NSDAP became the largest party in the elections with over 30%. Of course Hitler only became chancellor in 1933 but much of the groundwork on the right was done (with the mistaken belief of being able to control him). Though we can also take the happenings in LA as an attempt to get a Reichstagsbrand going.

But of course, this is just looking at parallels for the decline, either way, it ain't pretty. And again, the shocking bit is that it defies the long-held assumptions of the particular strengths of US democracy.

5 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

There is a difference between recognizing serious damage and declaring democracy already gone.

Okay. Fix it.

6 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The moment we cross that line and decide the fight is already lost, we stop using the few remaining tools that still work.

The tools don't work. Weapons might, but that's costly. There is no cheap or easy way to reverse this trend.

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am thinking maybe 1932?

That works, too. I chose an arbitrary date, since I was citing an article that outlined parallels between the activities of the Hitler and Trump regimes. Harping on the Weimar Republic wasn't my idea; the two nations' situations were quite different. Germany was never the superpower the US was; at that time, didn't have much of a standing army, or 18 spy agencies; it had much of its infrastructure destroyed in the war and reparations to pay, was hit much harder by the depression. The US had not been invaded, was much richer and lucked out, big time, in FDR. But the US has a whole lot of other genetic defects to cope with that monolithic cultures don't have.

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Okay. Fix it.

The tools don't work. Weapons might, but that's costly. There is no cheap or easy way to reverse this trend.

That works, too. I chose an arbitrary date, since I was citing an article that outlined parallels between the activities of the Hitler and Trump regimes. Harping on the Weimar Republic wasn't my idea; the two nations' situations were quite different. Germany was never the superpower the US was; at that time, didn't have much of a standing army, or 18 spy agencies; it had much of its infrastructure destroyed in the war and reparations to pay, was hit much harder by the depression. The US had not been invaded, was much richer and lucked out, big time, in FDR. But the US has a whole lot of other genetic defects to cope with that monolithic cultures don't have.

Peterkin, I hear your frustration. Believe me, I’m not under any illusions that there’s a “cheap” or “easy” fix here. There isn’t. But to say flatly that the tools do not work — full stop — is not analysis, it’s surrender. They may be rusted, slow, and unevenly applied, but we are not at the point where they are all useless. If they were, we would not see state-level lawsuits against federal overreach, judges (including Trump appointees) ruling against unconstitutional actions, journalists still risking careers to publish investigations, or voters flipping elections in swing districts even under brutal gerrymanders. That is not fantasy — that is fact. It is incomplete and deeply fragile, but it is still real.

You said, “okay, fix it.” That’s not how democratic crisis works. You do not get to hand someone a collapsed system and say, “if you think it is not over, then solve it now.” It takes pressure, persistence, and yes, sometimes years of clawing back power inch by inch. If people had said in 1974 that “the system is broken beyond repair,” Nixon would have walked. If people had said in 1965 that nothing would change, the Voting Rights Act would not exist. Those moments required an exhausting mix of litigation, protest, organizing, and moral clarity — and they only happened because people refused to say “the tools no longer work.”

Now about your broader point — yes, America’s situation is different from 1930s Germany. I never argued otherwise. In fact, that’s exactly why the Weimar comparison is flawed if treated as a 1-to-1 parallel. Germany did not have a centuries-long democratic tradition, a powerful decentralized court system, or massive state-by-state bureaucracies. But to flip your own logic — the U.S. being more powerful and having more complex institutions means that if those are now eroding, the threat may be even more far-reaching. The fact that the U.S. has not been invaded, has no postwar ruins to rebuild, and is still succumbing to authoritarianism is not an argument for inevitability — it is a wake-up call.

As for your remark about “genetic defects” in U.S. democracy, I agree there are deep structural flaws — racism, hypercapitalism, imperial inertia, the Senate, the Electoral College — you name it. But none of that means resistance is futile. It means resistance is hard. The answer to hard problems is not to throw out the blueprint, it’s to double down on pressure, information, coalition building, and legal recourse, even when those paths feel like slow torture.

You are right about one thing — this won’t be fixed in a year. It may not be fixed in a decade. But if you write off every institution as dead, every mechanism as corrupted, and every action as useless, then you are not being radical. You are accelerating the decay by convincing others to sit out.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That works, too. I chose an arbitrary date, since I was citing an article that outlined parallels between the activities of the Hitler and Trump regimes. Harping on the Weimar Republic wasn't my idea; the two nations' situations were quite different. Germany was never the superpower the US was; at that time, didn't have much of a standing army, or 18 spy agencies; it had much of its infrastructure destroyed in the war and reparations to pay, was hit much harder by the depression. The US had not been invaded, was much richer and lucked out, big time, in FDR. But the US has a whole lot of other genetic defects to cope with that monolithic cultures don't have.

Sure, though to me the most important bit is the cautionary aspect of it and the parallels in missteps. Examples include the mistaken idea that one can utilize extremism, without paying a price or the assumption of certain norms (which are stronger in the US now then they were the case then in Germany as the country was still in the middle of redefining itself). While there are folks who take the situation very seriously, the changing media landscape and social media makes it very difficult, if not impossible to create consensus on the simplest issues. That, among other things is fueling extremist, especially on the far-right end (as they have a better grip in using the system) makes it really difficult to enact countermeasures.

Again, the midterms will be a watershed moment, one way or the other.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Peterkin, I hear your frustration. Believe me, I’m not under any illusions that there’s a “cheap” or “easy” fix here. There isn’t. But to say flatly that the tools do not work — full stop — is not analysis, it’s surrender.

What makes you think I'm frustrated? Concerned, certainly, not wishing to live in the 51st state of Trumpland. You have your opinion. Mine is that the tools don't work. The union has never worked particularly well, even when the surface seemed unruffled. I believe the country - preferably four to six separate countries - need to be reinvented.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

That’s not how democratic crisis works. You do not get to hand someone a collapsed system and say, “if you think it is not over, then solve it now.”

I'm not handing you anything; it's always been yours. If vigilance and law and journalism worked, it wouldn't be in the present mess. People did protest in 1965 and 1974 and lots of other times, yet, here we are. You say it's fixable. Show me how you go about it, democratically. If you don't solve it now, you'll never get another chance.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

In fact, that’s exactly why the Weimar comparison is flawed if treated as a 1-to-1 parallel.

I didn't mention the Weimar - you keep doing that. Italy and Spain were different, too, just as Hungary is different now, but the same thing happened there too. Not being 1932 Germany is no protection against fascism. I cited an article about Hitler's acts after he came to power and asked whether you recognize any similarities to Trump's acts since he came to power.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

As for your remark about “genetic defects” in U.S. democracy, I agree there are deep structural flaws — racism, hypercapitalism, imperial inertia, the Senate, the Electoral College — you name it. But none of that means resistance is futile. It means resistance is hard.

It means the system needs a major overhaul, and that never happens without a major breakdown.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

But if you write off every institution as dead, every mechanism as corrupted, and every action as useless, then you are not being radical.

I never said every action was useless. I said you waited too long and now only radical, costly action can have any effect - and you can't predict the outcome. In situations like this, the good guys always suffer more casualties.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

It may not be fixed in a decade.

Optimistic to think you have a decade to piss away on lawsuits and op-ed pieces in the Times.

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Again, the midterms will be a watershed moment, one way or the other.

Here's hoping they take place. Remember Trump's promise to his beautiful Christians that they'll never have to vote again. My feeling is, he's gearing up to martial law, and he's not letting the grass grow under the armoured cars. He's old - no time for pussyfooting. But at least he won't get to be pope.

The interesting question is which side the armed services will take. I'm guessing a split - which will make it really interesting. And pretty awful, like last time. Unbridgeable schisms occur; dictatorships are real; revolutions and civil wars have happened, and they can happen here. (Well, here is not there, yet, but we only narrowly escaped a Trumpling government this spring; we have a hostile neighbour with a giant arsenal and no intelligent life in its wheelhouse; our economy and autonomy are under attack.... You may understand why I don't feel secure in the institutions.)

Edited June 16Jun 16 by Peterkin

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Here's hoping they take place. Remember Trump's promise to his beautiful Christians that they'll never have to vote again. My feeling is, he's gearing up to martial law, and he's not letting the grass grow under the armoured cars. He's old - no time for pussyfooting. But at least he won't get to be pope.

I think the way the traditional mechanisms still work is not to stop the power grab- we have seen evidence of them failing. However, we have seen that they (especially the judiciary) are slowing things down. I do not yet see a realistic pathway to truly get martial law going, but we still have some time to go.

Here's to that thing with feathers!