farquaad-point this nerd thinks we care about the pathetic justifications libs make for not being able to do good things

  • kristina [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    separation of powers? nah dude the president has all the guys with guns, if he really wanted to he could purge the ranks, keep loyalists, and kill the other branches. in fact, the truest idea of separation is, funny enough, the fact that there are many executives in governorships who have their own militias and state guards. but these are obviously dwarfed by national spending and national recruitment numbers

    also you know, he could do huge damage to the whole system if he wanted to given the fact he can legally drone strike pretty much whoever he wants

    • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
      ·
      10 months ago

      The US president could make almost anyone in the world disappear, the only exceptions being heads of state with a nuclear arsenal behind them, but a single senator is somehow too much to handle.

    • Farman [any]
      ·
      10 months ago

      What about the police? Its militarized there are many of them and can presumably be mobilized faster than the military. And while dwarfed by the national guards and army they could tip the balance one way or another in certain circumstances.

      • kristina [she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        there is something to be said about communist infiltration of the executive branch of a country, but historically none of thats worked out in imperialist countries except for spying for AES. in czechoslovakia, partisan groups that were organized by cadres of the former czechoslovak military became radicalized throughout the course of the nazi occupation. after the war, the liberal government was reinstated by treaty (czechia proper technically never got occupied by the allies and the partisans restored order in the wake of the nazi defeat). these now communist partisans were then reintegrated into the liberal government's military and police force, which was something like 60-40 communist to liberal. eventually, an election happened and a critical role over the police was given to a communist party member. they then purged the ranks of the police and did a soft revolution after all the liberals purged themselves from government positions in an act of protest of the police getting purged (hilarious!).

        this has also happened in a similar way somewhat recently with nepal, but instead of nazis, they were dealing with a comprador monarchy. i believe there are also other places like in africa that have likely followed a similar path.

        and yeah, id figure the police in america would answer to the governorship in a certain capacity given the governor's ability to pardon non-federal crimes within the state. i would suspect that if socialism were to take root in america, itd be a bit like a free state and slave state divide like prior to the civil war, which in fact the ending of the civil war was the closest america had ever been to socialism given how popular radical republicanism was. they blew it though. you can see analogs to this idea in modern day federal states like russia and india and to a much lesser extent, czechia. czechia has many small localities that have pockets of socialism, russia has many places in the far east that has the KPRF running the show from the governorship down, and india has the red corridor + the southwest areas near/in kerala.

      • kristina [she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        how is this a bad take, lmao. it isnt happening because those guys are his team, and that team is called team liberalism. to note: the czechoslovak communist revolution began through usurping the executive branch, and its a valid way for communists to come to power, if rare. you can even argue nepal is on a similar track.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
          ·
          10 months ago

          You're thinking of the military as this force that is blindly, personally loyal to the president. The military is not that politically uniform, and the only foreseeable president a chunk of them might go to bat for is Trump, and there are all sorts of separate problems with thinking Trump could purge the military then become a dictator with the remainder.

          Say Sleepy Joe orders an Army unit to enter the capitol building and execute every Republican -- are the hooting chuds in that unit going to say "yes, Mr. President" and do it? If Biden orders a drone strike on the the Florida gubernatorial mansion, is the lib officer (who joined because he thinks the military is a force for good) going to do it? How is the order to effectively start a second civil war going to go over among a rank-and-file that's looking around and wondering who is on which side?

          • kristina [she/her]
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Say Sleepy Joe orders an Army unit to enter the capitol building and execute every Republican -- are the hooting chuds in that unit going to say "yes, Mr. President" and do it?

            i mean obviously joe isnt going to do this, as i said, its team liberalism. what i am saying is that if there were, by some arcane technology, a socialist president, then odds are there are many socialists in the military and likely have even infiltrated intelligence agencies to some degree. the move would be to purge the military and do a soft revolution. this isnt a likely scenario for an imperialist country, but this has happened in history to federal governments in the past. whats more likely is a socialist governorship does similar with the police and militia of the state, but that is still unlikely.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        10 months ago

        Our friend is right here as well. Joe could abuse his powers at least to give him more leverage in negotiations. Instead, he is the capitulator-in-chief.

        • kristina [she/her]
          ·
          10 months ago

          yeah he has so many powers that he can use but just chooses not to. you only need to flex the pinky of the executive branch to get most things done, so long as it is for liberalism

      • Gay_Tomato [they/them, it/its]
        ·
        10 months ago

        This wouldn't happen because America is ruled by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie not because the "seperations of powers" means anything substantial.

      • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
        ·
        10 months ago

        It's just "political power grows out of a barrel of a gun" or to use a more US-relevant example: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, but now let him enforce it."

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
          ·
          10 months ago

          "I'm not going to enforce a law" is pretty far from "I'm going to have the military shoot the Supreme Court."