I say this as a UKian with a constitutional monarch as head of state:
These actions suggest that today the United States seems to have a de facto King with far greater powers than even those held by George III at the time the founders decided that America did not need a King.
They might not be called that, but they have the ability to exert behaviours akin to an English monarch not seen much since Henry VIII. Arguably, we're heading into Magna Carta territory.
The checks and balances are about to get a big test. I hope they work, and I'm proven wrong.
Its even worse than the same party having a majority everywhere.
Trump's cult-like pull and the associated threat of the world's richest man (who still talks about the dangers of the global elites with no sense of irony) bankrolling a primary against anyone who steps out of line have effectively erased the congress as an independent branch entirely.
There are Republicans in the house and senate and even Trump's own administration that I believe aren't aligned with what he is doing but they lack the spine to say so beyond the most superficial talk about their "concerns" (and then still voting for everything he demands).
“Complicit” is an interesting word choice here—as if a non-voter is somehow responsible for wrongdoing? What “wrong” was done here? Trump won because he was democratically elected by every measure we have, both popular vote and electoral college. If your candidate lost it’s because they didn’t earn the votes, have the message, or created the reason for that non-voter to vote for them. The candidate and campaign are more responsible for their loss than the non-voter. You are shifting blame to where it doesn’t belong.
Thats a poor reading of the effort the Republicans have put into ensuring they win.
Firstly, its not because of reasons that people win in America, not anymore. People didnt know that the ACA was Obamacare, or that Biden dropped out.
Fox and the GOP created an orwellian political power that has parasitized democratic processess.
Classic example would be climate change, in the 90s, when FOX was created.
Fox platformed cranks, and made them look legitimate. Republican lawmakers pointed to Fox news reports, and stalled if not killed climate change legislation.
The governing principle at that time, was to not provide credibility to cranks. However, shocked by the effectiveness of Fox, scientists decided to talk directly to viewers on Fox.
This resulted in them being fed to the media lions, because the goal of Fox was to discredit them, along with the ivory tower education systems.
Through this process, FOX and the GOP own the overton window for climate discussions. THEY decide what positions Dems must take.
Repeat this proces year after year, and eventually there is no place you can hold a position to win at a national level.
For state level elections this is different, apparently local knowledge overcomes this distorition field.
However, thats not the only trick.
Republicans are beholden to never grant Democrats any credibility. See Romneycare and Obamacare. It shocked me even then, that Repubs actually credited Obama for getting Osama.
This election, people remember Harris as being the Trans supporter. The Campaign itself never focused on this topic.
The Repubs sets the stage on which everyone dances.
Yes - the other candidate should earn peoples votes. They should create the right message.
Yes - as a voter, you should know when its not a fair fight.
Simply so that you can apply the right handicap when viewing candiates.
No offense but my comment was a response to the suggestion that someone who didn’t vote somehow committed wrongdoing. Not sure how a diatribe against the “evils” of the GOP voter persuasion machine speaks much to that. It’s obvious to me both parties denigrate the other candidate through media and publicity.
My decision to not vote for Harris boiled down to my opinion that she failed in her one duty as VP, which was to effectively step in and govern in the event that Biden was unable to function as president. That much was painfully obvious during his debate, which exposed her dereliction of duty.
We're getting wrapped up over the word "complicit." Fine, let's be neutral: "An eligible voter who doesn't vote, through inaction supports whoever ends up winning." The act of not voting can mean nothing but "I'm OK with whoever."
> The act of not voting can mean nothing but "I'm OK with whoever."
Or it can mean “I am not ok with either”. That is the reason I didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. Why should I participate when neither viable political party actually respects my vote enough to run a candidate that is worthy of a vote?
I don’t need to vote for the lesser of two evils or to feel like I voted for a winner.
> I don’t need to vote for the lesser of two evils
One of them is promising that you won't be able to vote again. And are you doing anything to fight foor the changes needed to dismantle the two party system?
I often vote for and support 3rd party candidates and their parties. Do you? Or are you content to just let your party just run shitty candidates every election cycle?
Also, I am not a Trump voter and have never been, but can y’all please stop taking snippets and quotes of his out of context? It’s so fucking tiring and intellectually dishonest and is one of the reasons he won this election. If you don’t know that your “won’t have to vote again” quote is out of context it would be intellectually honest of you to go watch the whole speech and understand the context and audience in which that was said. That way people like me who don’t like the man but happen to think truth is valuable and important in discourse don’t have to defend him.
I'm not an American and am glad to enjoy a system that offers me a real sense of choice. From the outside a third party vote looks like a wasted vote and in the case of the last election essentially a vote for Trump. There's a lot you can do to push for electoral reforms between election cycles.
There are at least several non-US jurisdictions in which voting is compulsory so the /idea/ that not voting is equivalent to some kind of problem at least is quite plausible.
In case anyone was curious, I computed some popular margins of victory defined as (%popular vote of winner) - (%popular vote of highest other candidate).
I got the following small margins of victory smaller than the 1.5% in 2024, five of which are positive and five of which are negative.
-7.8% in 1824, 1.4% in 1844, -3% in 1876, 0% in 1880, 0.6% in 1884, -0.8% in 1888, 0.1% in 1960, 0.7% in 1968, -0.5% in 2000, -2.1% in 2016.
There have been cases before where both the Executive and Legislative branches have been held by the same party. What's different now is that Trump is trying to consolidate much more power in the Executive branch (an explicit Project2025 goal), and Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals (I mean, he did pardon all those who violently stormed the capitol and threatened to kill government officials). Trump's strategy (a smart one, I might add), is to push beyond the boundaries of the law as far and fast as he can and see what, if any, resistance he meets.
Nixon attempted something similar but Congress didn't let him get away with it (and passed the Impoundment Control Act, which Trump is now flouting).
> Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals
They're afraid of their voters, as they should be, as Trump is more popular with their voters than any of them are. All Trump/Musk need to do is endorse an opponent in their primaries.
it's not just that - it assumed that the courts and legislature would not consent to losing their power.
electing a bunch of pathetic apparatchiks to the legislature and letting the Heritage Foundation choose a bunch of lunatics for the courts is why there's no counterbalancing force. the Founders assumed the other branches of government would have some self-respect.
Plurality is the correct term. But this is exactly how representative democracy works. The coalition with most representatives gets to enact policies and decide executive decisions.
The majority of the country either did not vote, or voted against Trump.
Most of those who did vote for Trump did so on the basis of immigration, economic or the culture war -- not so he could dismantle the federal government and (e.g.) halt funding for cancer research.
Trump explicitly disavowed Project 2025 when it was clear it was hurting his electoral prospects (even though that plan is precisely what is playing out now.)
My point is: If one doesn't vote, it's an implicit vote for the winner. Not voting means you're saying "I am supportive of whoever wins" So including those, most presidential elections really aren't that close.
Objectively untrue. Voting irregularities aside, far more people sat the election out entirely, and of those who voted, there was a vanishingly small lead Trump & co had.
The majority of the country is disengaged & apathetic. That's worse than a majority "wanting this," in my personal opinion, but the majority of the country did not vote for this, they just didn't vote at all.
Which means, the way others argument here (and are downvoted for it) the majority of the country is not particularly bothered by what is going on. No, they didn't approve of this, but also didn't disapprove. So why keeping them aside? Their conscious choice of "let whoever win" has brought the world where it is now just as the vote pro-Trump did, so if it walks and quacks like a Trump helper...
Not sure what "this" is that the "majority" of the country wants, but, be careful what you wish for.
The fact that the majority of the country is apparently okay with violent and coercive attempts to overturn democratic elections (in other democratic countries we call that an attempted coup), is a strong indictment of the majority of Americans. But, to your credit, at least you're owning your fascist tendencies!
We're watching the checks and balances fail in real time. By the time the first court order comes through the DOGE boys are already doing something else somewhere else. The legal system can't create injunctions as fast as Trump can sign things. It's proving impossible for a legitimate system to keep up with the wanton pillaging.
Also courts can't act until someone sues for "harm" which they themselves suffered. That takes a long time, and by then, the damage is very difficult, or maybe impossible, to undo.
Yup. Hopefully they have good backups, but once money has been shuffled around is it possible to put it back? And not just in the abstract - this is FEMA we're talking about - lives are going to be lost.
It is way worse than than that. If it all falls apart, the worst for Trump is to lose an election and retire to Florida. He has no real stake in any of this. The king is the king and the only way out is abdication, passing the problem to his own family.
I am so very happy we have a monarchy. I used to be against it, but the fact that no one person can wreak this kind of havoc is fantastic. And of course the king has really very little power.
> If it all falls apart, the worst for Trump is to lose an election and retire to Florida.
He doesn't have another election to lose. He gets 4 years (less a few weeks now) and then gets to retire from being POTUS. There are few consequences for him this term. For the Republicans, on the other hand, if DOGE and their trade wars and other things fail, they could be fucked for a decade or more trying to rebrand themselves.
At no point did I suggest he was doing something that wasn't voted for.
I merely suggested that what was happening seemed at odds with the intent of the founders of the United States, in that even in 18th century England it would have been perceived as vast over-reach of a monarch to behave in a similar manner.
If you're all happy with it, fine. It just seems remarkable, hence my original comment.
You don't think people should be able to vote to break laws, but objectively, people can vote for literally any reason they please. There are no laws regulating how voters choose to vote, nor could there be.
I never voted for Trump, but I did vote for my state to defy federal cannabis laws. Guess what, my vote to shit on federal laws was legal.
These actions suggest that today the United States seems to have a de facto King with far greater powers than even those held by George III at the time the founders decided that America did not need a King.
They might not be called that, but they have the ability to exert behaviours akin to an English monarch not seen much since Henry VIII. Arguably, we're heading into Magna Carta territory.
The checks and balances are about to get a big test. I hope they work, and I'm proven wrong.