of democracy may have failed with an eye to fixing glaring vulnerabilities that can be exploited by powermongers, but be careful of criticizing the right of people to choose how they are governed and by whom.

the very possibility of a bad leader being elected, you're indirectly suggesting that maybe people shouldn't be able to select their own leaders, that people shouldn't be trusted with that power, which path leads us back to monarchy and oligarchy.

Criticize the specific ways a particular system...

(got sidetracked by the guardrails topic) and I think we as a global community should be very wary of indictments of democracy. Like all human systems it's highly imperfect, but it's the best thing we've come up with for governing people in according to their best interests.

If you criticize...

existence isn't the problem this post is making it out to be.

The test of our reliability as a global partner should depend on how we prevent future abuses, now that the flaws have been clearly shown. It will take time to rebuild trust, but so long as we fix those issues, we WILL be back.

My point is, there is a LOT wrong with the American system of democracy, but the fact that a dictator was selected by democratic processes isn't the problem we should be focusing on. Once we can get rid of this regime the world should 100% expect us to fix the broken guardrails, but Trump's very...

In addition, all of these "impeachable offenses" without any actual impeachments. This shouldn't be optional; clear requirements, mandatory actions and tangible consequences. Violations of law should not require a popularity consequence to be punished accordingly, for anyone, esp. the President.

Another notable example is how many of the rules in the Senate and Congress are "custom" rather than rules, and how many are re-negotiated every time there's a new Speaker.

It's most egregious when measures to discourage corruption are really just suggestions for the highest office in the land.

have been ineligible to even be considered for a number of reasons, most obvious to me that he never divested from his business interests and that he was a CONVICTED FELON. Unfortunately too many things are run on "custom" rather than being hard requirements.

sorely lacking, but this could happen anywhere that the people are allowed to elect their own leader, so this feels much more like an indictment of democracy than just of America.

The problems with Trump getting elected (even if you assume the election wasn't tampered with) are that he SHOULD (2/?)

That's not really how that works. No one down the chain is going to be real sanguine about following orders their CO refused, even if it's from the SECDEF. At a minimum there'd be delays and pushback, all of which would have changed how this played out

22 years of Active Duty service, 25 altogether

Yeah, imagine what might have happened if that admiral had neither resigned NOR followed the illegal order.

He would have been fired, but that would have caused a major stink over an illegal firing MONTHS ago. Those people on that boat would likely still be alive, and who knows how many others.

I'm disappointed in ADM Holsey. His stance is certainly more principled than obedience, but his resignation condemned innocent civilians to death, because the man who took his seat did not have the courage of his convictions.

You're an Admiral. Refuse to obey unlawful orders, make them fire you.

I think we already know, given that he carried out not one but two illegal orders.

What we'll find out is if he's willing to take the fall for it.

Some real "stop hitting yourself" energy.

Like, I don't hate it for these two people, but I *do* hate the everlasting trend of "I'm standing up to abusive authority by resigning and giving up any semblance of power I possibly had to stop it."

So someone finally said "Don't you think he look tired?"

100%

She didn't turn good, she turned on Trump. At best she's a useful but highly unreliable tool, at worst she will turn and bite at the first opportunity.

I know where I'm laying my bets.

Because they're there for sound-bites (which they got), not to speak truth to power. That hasn't been the role of traditional press for a while now.