politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Congress has the power to create a commission to exercise the power to remove a mentally unfit president from office. The biggest worry is that this would inevitably be politicized. I say, let it happen! Let it be political. Let's have an openly political "mental health commission" that will rule that being a member of the opposite political party is a mental illness. Hell, let it become a formality. It will simply be expected that the president will be removed from office after a change in Congressional control. Whenever a change in control of Congress happens, the new Congressional leadership will stuff it with political ideologues. And they'll inevitably rule a president of the opposing party to be mentally unfit. Eventually it just becomes a formality, no one even considers it unusual. We just expect the presidency to be able to flip every two years. And we giggle that it has to be done by formally declaring the previous guy to be crazy. I think this would be a good idea.
Why? Because this would effectively transform the US into a Parliamentary democracy. A simple majority in both houses of Congress would be enough to install a new president. They effectively become a Prime Minister at that point. Parliamentary democracies have proven much more resilient to strong-man dictatorial takeover. It's not as perfect a solution as amending the constitution to formally remove the office of president entirely, but it would be a decent hack to do something similar. And going to a Parliamentary system isn't a magic cure-all, but it does have quite a bit of merit. As a plus, we would have the bonus of being "that nation that regularly declares its former leaders legally crazy." And you know what? I think that works well with America's energy.
as an aussie that has a parliamentary system, and in that system has had a period where we frequently ousted the PM, it’s not that great of an idea
you want governments to be able to plan for the long term. really, even 4y is not great for long term planning because it kinda implies you need to show results before the term is up
we had a bunch of policy flip-flops during that period, which is very inefficient
i guess it doesn’t really matter if you get 2y no matter what: there’s no more after your 2y, but i think that’d lead to leaders doing a bunch of the “fuck it” last term stuff because they have no reason to make a good impression for their potential reelection
I think the US has failed to plan for the long term enough that it no longer has to 🫠
that was certainly in the back of my head the whole time… policy flip flop and lack of long term planning in modern politics is pretty much the norm anyway… but i think to encode that into a kind of standard way of operating is perhaps not a good thing… adding an extra layer that’s hard to undo before fixing the core problem is how the US got to where it is now