[Kelteseth]

Let's hope you Americans will vote for the right party in the upcoming midterms. And let's hope you will even get the chance to do so.

[cdrnsf]

We can hope that enough democrats win to cause gridlock and impede more harm. However, the democrats don't offer much in the way of substantive reform and have never demonstrated the stomach for taking bold stances. Whenever a candidate does come along and propose bold change, the institutional democratic party goes out of their way to sabotage or undercut them (think AOC, Sanders, Mamdani et al).

[daveguy]

They aren't going to be able to stop the next generation of candidates. And they aren't signing up to run to maintain the institution. This year and 2028 has the potential to be the Democrat's "tea party" moment (except for decent policies instead of destroying the government policies). And it's long overdue.

[jimbohn]

The democrat establishment doesn't seem interested in change, they are like a softer version of politicians getting bought out by tech. Well-mannered, but ultimately not doing long-term thing in the interest of the wider country.

[tzs]

Good. Countries the size of the US don't need bold change. They need stability with change accomplished by a gentle shift in direction.

What bold change looks like is Trump. An anti-Trump government implementing bold change in the other direction would be bad too. Not as bad because more of their change would at least be toward things that would be good in the long run, but there would still be a lot of harm on the way by taking it too fast.

[mistrial9]

self-parody -- the levels of political ignorance among American voters is constantly displayed

[koolba]

Framing all of us who voted for and support the President’s actions as ignorant is lazy and inaccurate. There’s plenty of us that objectively analyzed the state of the country, the state of the world, and agree with the vast majority of these actions.

[thatguy0900]

I would so much rather use arm twisting in background political discourse to open and public threats of military invasion on a nato ally. Those two are really not even comparable

[bflesch]

You're using false equivalence bias. The net result would have definitely been different.

[malfist]

Sorry, but what? Are you saying Harris would also be threatening our allies with military conquest?

[jonkoops]

The EU actually has a great track record, it has been a massive unifying force. I think people tend to forget how shit things were even 30 years ago. I really hate this constant shitting on the EU for no concrete reasons.

It is crippled because nation states want to retain control, it is one of the main reasons. People act like 'EU politicians' should solve everything overnight, but the reality is that it is out of their purview in many cases. Only federalization would resolve this issue.

[jsiepkes]

Still pissed over the fact the EU made Greece pay their debts when they thought they never had to repay their debts and could just get free money?

[rendall]

There is no right party, unfortunately. The Duopoly of Democrats and Republicans rely on this illusory idea of "the other side" to maintain a stranglehold on power for both parties. The sooner we give up that idea that one side is better than the other, the sooner we can hold "both sides" accountable. The Democrats are an absolutely corrupt shit show. As are the Republicans.

Each expansion of executive power is treated as unprecedented until it becomes normalized. Before Bush, indefinite detention without trial was unthinkable. Before Obama, the executive assassination of U.S. citizens without due process was unthinkable. Before Clinton, routine humanitarian war without congressional declaration was unthinkable. Each step is later reclassified as “different,” “necessary,” or “less bad,” each step decried by the "opposition" but excused by partisans. The danger isn’t that one party does uniquely shocking things. It’s that both parties participate in a ratchet where norms only ever move in one direction supported by the rank and file. What looks like a false equivalence is actually a cumulative one: today’s outrage rests on yesterday’s precedents.

And it’s not even mainly about presidents. Fixating on the occupant of the office misses how much of this is legislative and bureaucratic drift. The real damage is often done through laws that quietly expand state power, normalize surveillance, weaken due process, or lock in perverse incentives. Presidents sign them, but Congress writes them, renews them, and funds them. That’s where the ratchet really lives.

USA PATRIOT Act (2001), Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), FISA Amendments Act (2008), National Defense Authorization Acts with detention and secrecy expansions, Telecommunications Act (1996), Controlled Substances Act (1970), Defense of Marriage Act (1996), Welfare Reform Act / Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996). All terrible. All drafted and passed by both parties.

This is why “no one did X before” is the wrong metric. The system advances through laws and precedents that feel technical, temporary, or defensive at the time. Each one lowers the bar for the next. By the time something looks outrageous, the groundwork was laid years earlier by people insisting they were the reasonable alternative.

[coolewurst]

I think that's a false equivalent.

No Democrat president threatened to take over Greenland or took another head of state hostage without precedent.

Yes, they are corrupt and warmongers, but not nearly as harmful as the current Republican party.

[deadbabe]

We can’t. It’s over. Laws don’t mean anything anymore. Even if we had a full democratic congress, they would just be ignored. The Trump administration has already been grooming people to accept congress is useless, beginning with the month long shutdown. And the Supreme Courts will just go along with whatever the president wants now.

Start preparing for the post-American world.

[davepeck]

This is self-destructive defeatism. It is also flat wrong on its substantive points.

[treetalker]

If the Senate convicted, things would change. For one thing, I'm confident the military would not consider an impeached and convicted president as its commander in chief. And the prospect of the consequences of continuing to side with such a one would largely evaporate the availability of the administrative apparatus. Civil war would be a possible result, sure. But I disagree that such a Congress would simply be ignored and that ignoring it could be done while maintaining the means of continuing power.

[ctoth]

This is catastrophizing, not analysis. If you genuinely feel this hopeless, that's worth examining as a signal about your own mental state rather than treating it as political insight.

[gordonhart]

Part of the reason we’re in this mess is that Americans bristle at getting told which is the “right” party to vote for by internationals, the media, existing politicians, institutions…

[lpcvoid]

You know, if everybody shouts at you to not do a certain thing, maybe, just maybe, they could have your best interests in mind? But instead they are being portrayed as "globalists" or whatever the mouthbreathers in the flyover states spin up today.

I really hope the US heals, quickly.

[bflesch]

That's of course a totally valid reason to destroy your institutions, international reputation, and of course the lives of many poor people in your country. Makes sense /s