|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 28 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:
It really is peak GH that he has once again taken a term that has a generally understood meaning, apply his own different custom meaning to it without telling anyone and then tries to have a discussion around his new mystery meaning.
All the while acting confused that no one is reacting the way he wants them to.
It was perfectly clear that he meant it colloquially. He even explained that by that he means he would have been in prison in a functional system. It's fine, it didn't need 7 posts of nitpicking with akshually the UN recognizes him.
That said, the unearned condescending teacher tone he keeps taking with DPB and others is super irritating and self-defeating.
|
On April 28 2026 03:51 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:
It really is peak GH that he has once again taken a term that has a generally understood meaning, apply his own different custom meaning to it without telling anyone and then tries to have a discussion around his new mystery meaning.
All the while acting confused that no one is reacting the way he wants them to.
It was perfectly clear that he meant it colloquially. He even explained that by that he means he would have been in prison in a functional system. It's fine, it didn't need 7 posts of nitpicking with akshually the UN recognizes him. That said, the unearned condescending teacher tone he keeps taking with DPB and others is super irritating and self-defeating.
A bit funny is that DPB is actually a teacher (if i recall that correctly).
|
On April 28 2026 04:42 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 03:51 Dan HH wrote:On April 28 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:
It really is peak GH that he has once again taken a term that has a generally understood meaning, apply his own different custom meaning to it without telling anyone and then tries to have a discussion around his new mystery meaning.
All the while acting confused that no one is reacting the way he wants them to.
It was perfectly clear that he meant it colloquially. He even explained that by that he means he would have been in prison in a functional system. It's fine, it didn't need 7 posts of nitpicking with akshually the UN recognizes him. That said, the unearned condescending teacher tone he keeps taking with DPB and others is super irritating and self-defeating. A bit funny is that DPB is actually a teacher (if i recall that correctly).
You are correct 
|
On April 28 2026 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 00:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2026 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 20:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 18:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's not that it can't get worse, it's how much worse can it get and still be considered/treated as a legitimate government?
The president could be a naked person smoking crack and/or fent on the white house lawn trying to sell random stuff out of the white house while talking to the sky about the voices in their head telling them they shouldn't "even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own" 1 or 3 terms from now. Yeah, different people will have different standards and different lines that they're allowing / not allowing to be crossed. Correct. You have and can describe yours? Anyone? I don't know, + Show Spoiler +but I'd like to actually consider results too. Like, you mentioned a naked crack addict. I don't want a naked crack addict as president, but if I had to choose between a naked crack addict who would be able to successfully work with Congress to give us universal healthcare, properly tax the rich, fix our crumbling infrastructure, address climate change, and generally value education and science and medicine... then I'd vote for that naked crack addict over, say, a purely hypothetical fascist, racist, misogynistic rapist who is happy to destroy the country if it makes him money. #notallnakedcrackaddicts How about you? Can you describe where your personal line is for what's no longer a legitimate government? I don't know why you think you (or many others) have them then? I have a pretty different worldview from others here, so the question is a bit different for me. Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo. Getting elected functioning as a "get out of jail free" card (that he's copying and handing out to a gang of criminals) delegitimizes the entire system by any reasonable measure. All right, so Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" + Show Spoiler + What comes next? + Show Spoiler +What do you do about that / What did you do about that? What is the action taken that follows calling the government "no longer legitimate"? Are you supporting or opposing the highlighted position? Full support from me. Trump being president crosses the line. We have established that TL.net does not consider the Trump presidency a legitimate government. Now lead us oh fearless leader GH. Show us the way to reinstate legitimate leadership in the great US of A! Expound upon your plan while I go and sharpen my pitchfork! Respect for picking up the baton. GH should at least respond to you (and others). I did, but let's go ahead and check Acro's premise that TL.net + Show Spoiler +(I take this to mean US politics posters excluding the Sartres) does not consider the Trump presidency (keeping in mind the unprecedented insurrection, corruption, criminality, etc) legitimate. Poll: Is the Trump presidency a legitimate government?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Interesting results so far.
On April 28 2026 03:17 Jankisa wrote:
In a more serious country where one party is not completely subsumed by a criminal grifter, the legitimacy of his regime would have been addressed by means of impeachment, from what I know, the articles have been raised but nothing will come of it.
In his first term, impeachment was tried 2 times, in both cases, his party saved him from being removed.
You can't say a goverment is illegitimate until this is proven, of course, however, given the grip that Trump and his cohort have over both Republican party and Supreme Court, it's basically impossible to do this now.
This sounds like a "technically yes" but "no, in my mind" I'm curious what you chose in the poll?
I figure me and Acro? are 2 of the no's. Anyone else want to claim their answers (you can link to the related post if I failed to glean your answer from your post)?
|
Virginia Democrats, led by Spanberger who is universally considered on the more centrist side of the political spectrum, passed the following laws within 100 days of taking control of the state:
- paid family and sick leave
- minimum wage raised to $15
- reduced prescription prices
- affordable housing
- guaranteed contraception access
- free tax filing
- made wage theft a felony
- ended tax breaks for Confederacy apologia/propaganda organizations
Yet another monumental list of accomplishments to remember next time people try to peddle bullshit about "do-nothing Democrats."
|
On April 28 2026 05:25 LightSpectra wrote:
Virginia Democrats, led by Spanberger who is universally considered on the more centrist side of the political spectrum, passed the following laws within 100 days of taking control of the state:
- paid family and sick leave
- minimum wage raised to $15
- reduced prescription prices
- affordable housing
- guaranteed contraception access
- free tax filing
- made wage theft a felony
- ended tax breaks for Confederacy apologia/propaganda organizations
Yet another monumental list of accomplishments to remember next time people try to peddle bullshit about "do-nothing Democrats."
That's an awesome list!
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
There isn’t a (popular) recall mechanism for ye olde President right? Showing my ignorance here potentially but hey! I know it exists for other offices
If certain checks and balances are rather blatantly dysfunctional, let’s get some new ones.
I do see some problems in this hypothesising mind:
1. It’s almost an immutable law of nature that approval in incumbents generally drops over time as a trend, it may spike back the odd time and with some epochal event, but generally that’s the direction of travel. I’d actually be interested to hear some counter-examples if anyone is aware. Anyway if you set the threshold too low, you’ll end up with lame ducks becoming dead ducks, and mandates dissipating halfway through a term, which may be rather chaotic.
2. If you set a very high threshold however, in a rather partisan environment you may end up with a de facto un-evocable mechanism.
3. What would such a mechanism look like? Would it simply be a matter of turfing out a particular hypothetical corrupt person, or would you have to go back to the polls, given an administration’s potential issues aren’t generally likely to be confined to solely an individual
I do realise this is entirely in the realms of fantasy, but hey wouldn’t be the first time this thread indulges in such things.
I do recognise that one has to respect an electoral mandate to certain degrees, to both maintain faith from the electorate, as well as having some degree of policy continuity and avoiding crazy chaos.
Equally, I think the idea that you’ve effectively carte blanche for an entire term no matter how unpopular you get, or even indulging in actual illegality is a bit too much leeway too
|
On April 28 2026 03:10 Falling wrote:Yeah, I don't really know what we mean by legitimacy. The US had an election and though I do not like the result and as much I think he never should been voted back in because of his previous attempt to seize power against the will of the people, as far as I know it was a fair election and so Dr Trump was legitimately elected. Is that what we mean? However, the man of lawlessness, the great messiah, could also be legitimately removed from office for his corruption alone if Congress wanted to actually be a check and balance. So if he was removed and refused to leave, not legitimate. But that hasn't been successfully tried yet. So what does that mean? Also, on the balance, I think he's compromised by Russian money invested in his businesses (more could be hidden through LLCs than the initial 100M) https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/And Russian money bailed out his failing businesses via Bayrock https://web.archive.org/web/20201101010214/https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/We already know Trump's inner circle was taking Russian money like his former national security advisor Michael Flynn https://www.cbsnews.com/news/documents-show-russian-companies-paid-michael-flynn-thousands-before-election/Yet the man of lawlessness can yell Russia! Russia! Russia! and it magically goes away. He tried to extort Zelensky but withholding $250M in aid (July 18, 2019. A week later, they ask Zelensky to help them investigate his political opponent, Biden and his son. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-extortion-ukraine-complete-government-shakedown/ Good start on the corruption angle
The only reason Trump doesn't have control on Ukraine now is his administration cut off all aid to Ukraine and was actively supporting Russia's efforts to conquer Ukraine. Without dangling support as means of directing Ukrainian policy, US lost all sway on them. (Oh, and cutting off support for Ukraine, abandoning them to the Russian wolves is the pinnacle of Trump's administration as far as Vance is concerned).
Trump's administration is allied to Russian's imperial expansions. This overstates the case in a destructive way to your arguments. His administration didn't cut off all aid. It continued to spend Congressionally-appropriated aid from the Biden administration. CFR
If you're going so far as to say the admin cut off aid and is supporting Russia's efforts to conquer Ukraine, you should also include the Trump admin selling US weapons to Ukraine through NATO ally purchases. Which would be weird for Mark Rutte to to champion the US allowing 75% of Ukraine's patriot missile supply and 90% of all other air defense systems if Trump had been serious about cutting off Ukraine (eg because it wants Russia to win).
It's more accurate and truthful to state that Trump has championed no new aid packages to Ukraine since the bipartisan bills that Biden signed. It's damaging to Ukraine's war effort that they haven't been receiving more and more military aid, even if Trump didn't cut off US weapons sales (compare with Biden cutting off certain bomb shipments and bulldozer shipments to Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza, despite congressional appropriations.)
Does that make the Good Doctor illegitimate? Does it matter? He could be legitimately removed but Congress has tried nothing and are out of ideas because not enough Republicans will move against MAGA, unless they are ready to retire. Then they come out guns a'blazing (*edit metaphorically, to be clear- in light of recent events). Schrodinger's cat: legitimate and illegitimate at the same time? But functionally legitimate until he is not?
But I still think most of the normal methods of staving of Trump's corrupting of the republic have yet to be tried before turning to Vive la révolution. The first is in process, blunting Republican gerrymandering with temporary counter-gerrymandering. The second is winning the upcoming elections and seeing if Congress can take back it's constitutional authority and perhaps lame-duck Trump. Ideally, impeach, but I doubt it because of the Senate is unlikely to swing enough. But stomping the midterms should be the goal. The impeachment route has been underused since Clinton's example made it more of an intra-party/domestic popularity contest than a useful and effective tool of Congressional authority. The second that the executive screws around with unfaithfully executing laws passed by Congress, the threat of impeachment should be biting enough to push it back in line. This is a check on executive authority that should've been frequently utilized since at least George W Bush.
The second one, still not as used as it should, is defunding executive departments should the executive act outside congressional authority. Counterintuitively, it is currently being used as the DHS is still mostly defunded (those secret security guys that just stopped another assassination attempt are currently unpaid!) to try to force through some ICE changes. It's an imperfect example since a filibuster over appropriations is also being used to try to change legislation. But suffice it to say that Congress should threaten to cut off funding and actually cut off funding if executive departments are acting outside their authority.
The last two aren't as prominent but I'll mention for completeness. Congress needs to halt appointments when the executive is not executing the laws. Advice and consent involves the withdrawing of consent. Congress should also more frequently subpoena admin officials to drag them before congressional committees, force them to testify under oath, and berate them before the cameras for the American people to see. (This gets into the dual issue of American civic disengagement, and part of the disengagement is representatives from both sides simply using hearings to grandstand stupidly). Subpoenas and testimony under oath also involves contempt proceedings, but this has limited effectiveness since the prosecution of contempt of Congress is handled by the executive branch. If Obama's attorney general gets held in contempt of congress, Obama's justice department can just decline to prosecute, Trump's former officials can be held in contempt & prosecuted under Biden, but Trump's current officials are unlikely to be prosecuted by Trump's DoJ with contempt proceedings. And then we've already had unprecedented blanket pardons handed out last year, so expect that one to hit new records again.
Also mentioning for completeness that Democrats retaking Congress really does foul up admin priorities through holding impeachment inquiries, subpoenas, halting new spending, blocking confirmations, etc etc etc. House and Senate majorities have more power than minorities that rely on the filibuster.
|
On April 28 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:
It really is peak GH that he has once again taken a term that has a generally understood meaning, apply his own different custom meaning to it without telling anyone and then tries to have a discussion around his new mystery meaning.
All the while acting confused that no one is reacting the way he wants them to.
Have we gotten a definition of yet? Because taking it literally, then yes, it is a legitimate government. If we're talking "street" ...no. Which definition are we going with here?
|
I'm going with the YOLO, I don't live there, so let's vibe it. The vibes say he's a butt naked emperor, propped up by lickspittles who are too afraid to tell him his wee wee is hanging out for all the world to see.
|
United States44361 Posts
On April 27 2026 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 19:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 18:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 17:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 17:18 Simberto wrote:On April 27 2026 16:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? On April 27 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? Dunno, but i thought the same with Bush Jr. and Trump 1. I am sure you guys will find a deeper hole in a few years. To be honest, I'm not sure how much worse it could get. I think a significant line that's been crossed by Trump is that he's explicitly appointed people with zero credentials or experience. I think even GWB generally cared about being surrounded by people who kind of had at least a little expertise in their respective fields. I guess maybe an even worse case might be if a new President doesn't even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own? Not enough people pay attention to executive branch positions outside of the president and vice president, so maybe too few Americans would care? In Germany, we have a saying: "Schlimmer geht immer". Worse is always possible. I agree that it is kind of hard to imagine at this point, but i am sure they will find a way. Maybe instead of incompetent and evil they will go for competent and evil next. Yeah that's true. It's hard for me to imagine at this point in time, but maybe one or two or three presidential terms from now we'll all be like "yeahhhhhhh this situation is even worse than Trump's presidencies". It's not that it can't get worse, it's how much worse can it get and still be considered/treated as a legitimate government? The president could be a naked person smoking crack and/or fent on the white house lawn trying to sell random stuff out of the white house while talking to the sky about the voices in their head telling them they shouldn't "even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own" 1 or 3 terms from now. Yeah, different people will have different standards and different lines that they're allowing / not allowing to be crossed. Correct. You have and can describe yours? Anyone? I don't know, + Show Spoiler +but I'd like to actually consider results too. Like, you mentioned a naked crack addict. I don't want a naked crack addict as president, but if I had to choose between a naked crack addict who would be able to successfully work with Congress to give us universal healthcare, properly tax the rich, fix our crumbling infrastructure, address climate change, and generally value education and science and medicine... then I'd vote for that naked crack addict over, say, a purely hypothetical fascist, racist, misogynistic rapist who is happy to destroy the country if it makes him money. #notallnakedcrackaddicts How about you? Can you describe where your personal line is for what's no longer a legitimate government? I don't know why you think you (or many others) have them then? I have a pretty different worldview from others here, so the question is a bit different for me. Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo. Getting elected functioning as a "get out of jail free" card (that he's copying and handing out to a gang of criminals) delegitimizes the entire system by any reasonable measure.
Lots of people thought Obama wasn’t a legitimate president either. But unless they decide to actually challenge the state’s monopoly on violence the state remains legitimate.
People seem to mistake legitimacy for some sort of natural law, rather than a social construct. It’s like kingship, the king gets to be king because 1. other kings recognize him as such 2. if you disagree he can have his men beat you. Swords in stones and crosses in the sky and descent from gods can help things along but ultimately they’re ex post facto window dressing.
As has already been said, this is a classic GH play. Come up with your own definition of legitimacy, demand that everyone else vote one way or the other without first agreeing on the language, then insist that everyone but GH is complicit in some way.
|
On April 28 2026 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 18:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 17:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 17:18 Simberto wrote:On April 27 2026 16:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? On April 27 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Dunno, but i thought the same with Bush Jr. and Trump 1. I am sure you guys will find a deeper hole in a few years. To be honest, I'm not sure how much worse it could get. I think a significant line that's been crossed by Trump is that he's explicitly appointed people with zero credentials or experience. I think even GWB generally cared about being surrounded by people who kind of had at least a little expertise in their respective fields. I guess maybe an even worse case might be if a new President doesn't even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own? Not enough people pay attention to executive branch positions outside of the president and vice president, so maybe too few Americans would care? In Germany, we have a saying: "Schlimmer geht immer". Worse is always possible. I agree that it is kind of hard to imagine at this point, but i am sure they will find a way. Maybe instead of incompetent and evil they will go for competent and evil next. Yeah that's true. It's hard for me to imagine at this point in time, but maybe one or two or three presidential terms from now we'll all be like "yeahhhhhhh this situation is even worse than Trump's presidencies". It's not that it can't get worse, it's how much worse can it get and still be considered/treated as a legitimate government? The president could be a naked person smoking crack and/or fent on the white house lawn trying to sell random stuff out of the white house while talking to the sky about the voices in their head telling them they shouldn't "even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own" 1 or 3 terms from now. Yeah, different people will have different standards and different lines that they're allowing / not allowing to be crossed. Correct. You have and can describe yours? Anyone? I don't know, + Show Spoiler +but I'd like to actually consider results too. Like, you mentioned a naked crack addict. I don't want a naked crack addict as president, but if I had to choose between a naked crack addict who would be able to successfully work with Congress to give us universal healthcare, properly tax the rich, fix our crumbling infrastructure, address climate change, and generally value education and science and medicine... then I'd vote for that naked crack addict over, say, a purely hypothetical fascist, racist, misogynistic rapist who is happy to destroy the country if it makes him money. #notallnakedcrackaddicts How about you? Can you describe where your personal line is for what's no longer a legitimate government? I don't know why you think you (or many others) have them then? I have a pretty different worldview from others here, so the question is a bit different for me. Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo. Getting elected functioning as a "get out of jail free" card (that he's copying and handing out to a gang of criminals) delegitimizes the entire system by any reasonable measure. + Show Spoiler +Lots of people thought Obama wasn’t a legitimate president either. But unless they decide to actually challenge the state’s monopoly on violence the state remains legitimate.
People seem to mistake legitimacy for some sort of natural law, rather than a social construct. It’s like kingship, the king gets to be king because 1. other kings recognize him as such 2. if you disagree he can have his men beat you. Swords in stones and crosses in the sky and descent from gods can help things along but ultimately they’re ex post facto window dressing. As has already been said, this is a classic GH play. Come up with your own definition of legitimacy, demand that everyone else vote one way or the other without first agreeing on the language, then insist that everyone but GH is complicit in some way.
I didn't come up with my own definition of legitimacy? I also encourage you all to establish what you mean by "legitimate" and/or coming to some group consensus among yourselves before deciding how it applies to Trump's (pretty obviously criminal) government.
Light and I did mention "consent of the governed" was absent from your idea of a legitimate US government. I'm personally curious if people agree with your conception/description or not?
Does the US government need the consent of the governed to be "legitimate" (however one defines it)?
|
My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical.
My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments?
It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today.
|
United States44361 Posts
On April 28 2026 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 08:00 KwarK wrote:On April 27 2026 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 18:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 17:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 17:18 Simberto wrote:On April 27 2026 16:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
To be honest, I'm not sure how much worse it could get. I think a significant line that's been crossed by Trump is that he's explicitly appointed people with zero credentials or experience. I think even GWB generally cared about being surrounded by people who kind of had at least a little expertise in their respective fields.
I guess maybe an even worse case might be if a new President doesn't even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own? Not enough people pay attention to executive branch positions outside of the president and vice president, so maybe too few Americans would care? In Germany, we have a saying: "Schlimmer geht immer". Worse is always possible. I agree that it is kind of hard to imagine at this point, but i am sure they will find a way. Maybe instead of incompetent and evil they will go for competent and evil next. Yeah that's true. It's hard for me to imagine at this point in time, but maybe one or two or three presidential terms from now we'll all be like "yeahhhhhhh this situation is even worse than Trump's presidencies". It's not that it can't get worse, it's how much worse can it get and still be considered/treated as a legitimate government? The president could be a naked person smoking crack and/or fent on the white house lawn trying to sell random stuff out of the white house while talking to the sky about the voices in their head telling them they shouldn't "even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own" 1 or 3 terms from now. Yeah, different people will have different standards and different lines that they're allowing / not allowing to be crossed. Correct. You have and can describe yours? Anyone? I don't know, + Show Spoiler +but I'd like to actually consider results too. Like, you mentioned a naked crack addict. I don't want a naked crack addict as president, but if I had to choose between a naked crack addict who would be able to successfully work with Congress to give us universal healthcare, properly tax the rich, fix our crumbling infrastructure, address climate change, and generally value education and science and medicine... then I'd vote for that naked crack addict over, say, a purely hypothetical fascist, racist, misogynistic rapist who is happy to destroy the country if it makes him money. #notallnakedcrackaddicts How about you? Can you describe where your personal line is for what's no longer a legitimate government? I don't know why you think you (or many others) have them then? I have a pretty different worldview from others here, so the question is a bit different for me. Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo. Getting elected functioning as a "get out of jail free" card (that he's copying and handing out to a gang of criminals) delegitimizes the entire system by any reasonable measure. + Show Spoiler +Lots of people thought Obama wasn’t a legitimate president either. But unless they decide to actually challenge the state’s monopoly on violence the state remains legitimate.
People seem to mistake legitimacy for some sort of natural law, rather than a social construct. It’s like kingship, the king gets to be king because 1. other kings recognize him as such 2. if you disagree he can have his men beat you. Swords in stones and crosses in the sky and descent from gods can help things along but ultimately they’re ex post facto window dressing. As has already been said, this is a classic GH play. Come up with your own definition of legitimacy, demand that everyone else vote one way or the other without first agreeing on the language, then insist that everyone but GH is complicit in some way. I didn't come up with my own definition of legitimacy? I also encourage you all to establish what you mean by "legitimate" and/or coming to some group consensus among yourselves before deciding how it applies to Trump's (pretty obviously criminal) government. Light and I did mention "consent of the governed" was absent from your idea of a legitimate US government. I'm personally curious if people agree with your conception/description or not? Does the US government need the consent of the governed to be "legitimate" (however one defines it)?
Define consent of the governed. How many of the governed? How is this measured? How frequently is it measured?
You seem to think that legitimacy can be decided on an individual basis and so presumably it depends upon individual consent rather than collective consent.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1354 Posts
On April 28 2026 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 00:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2026 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 20:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, different people will have different standards and different lines that they're allowing / not allowing to be crossed. Correct. You have and can describe yours? Anyone? I don't know, + Show Spoiler +but I'd like to actually consider results too. Like, you mentioned a naked crack addict. I don't want a naked crack addict as president, but if I had to choose between a naked crack addict who would be able to successfully work with Congress to give us universal healthcare, properly tax the rich, fix our crumbling infrastructure, address climate change, and generally value education and science and medicine... then I'd vote for that naked crack addict over, say, a purely hypothetical fascist, racist, misogynistic rapist who is happy to destroy the country if it makes him money. #notallnakedcrackaddicts How about you? Can you describe where your personal line is for what's no longer a legitimate government? I don't know why you think you (or many others) have them then? I have a pretty different worldview from others here, so the question is a bit different for me. Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo. Getting elected functioning as a "get out of jail free" card (that he's copying and handing out to a gang of criminals) delegitimizes the entire system by any reasonable measure. All right, so Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" + Show Spoiler + What comes next? + Show Spoiler +What do you do about that / What did you do about that? What is the action taken that follows calling the government "no longer legitimate"? Are you supporting or opposing the highlighted position? Full support from me. Trump being president crosses the line. We have established that TL.net does not consider the Trump presidency a legitimate government. Now lead us oh fearless leader GH. Show us the way to reinstate legitimate leadership in the great US of A! Expound upon your plan while I go and sharpen my pitchfork! Respect for picking up the baton. GH should at least respond to you (and others). I did, but let's go ahead and check Acro's premise that TL.net + Show Spoiler +(I take this to mean US politics posters excluding the Sartres) does not consider the Trump presidency (keeping in mind the unprecedented insurrection, corruption, criminality, etc) legitimate. Poll: Is the Trump presidency a legitimate government?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Interesting results so far. Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 03:17 Jankisa wrote:
In a more serious country where one party is not completely subsumed by a criminal grifter, the legitimacy of his regime would have been addressed by means of impeachment, from what I know, the articles have been raised but nothing will come of it.
In his first term, impeachment was tried 2 times, in both cases, his party saved him from being removed.
You can't say a goverment is illegitimate until this is proven, of course, however, given the grip that Trump and his cohort have over both Republican party and Supreme Court, it's basically impossible to do this now.
This sounds like a "technically yes" but "no, in my mind" I'm curious what you chose in the poll? I figure me and Acro? are 2 of the no's. Anyone else want to claim their answers (you can link to the related post if I failed to glean your answer from your post)?
I voted yes. There is no objective, one-size-fits-all way to define legitimacy.
But how I define legitimacy of a government, at least for a country that is ostensibly (and I think most inhabitants of said country would agree), a democracy: Is that said government coming to power within the rules of a governing system, which the people of the country... largely... agree with (the system, not necessarily the people in power).
By which criteria, this is a legitimate government. Has Trump contravened many of the written rules of the system? Sure.
The system has instruments in place for the removal of presidents and other members of the government. Which are either not being used, or are unsuccessful in said removal.
He and the government won legitimate elections to assume power, as is the rule inside the system. Until such a time the instruments inside the system (eg impeachment, election etc), are used to remove them, or the entire system as a whole loses the support of the people, they are the legitimate government.
Do I think congress SHOULD fight over its sole power to declare war, the supreme court should interpret law in a way not dictated by politics (so much as they can), and congress SHOULD do their jobs and pass laws instead of leaving it to the supreme court, and impeachment SHOULD be attempted?
Yes to all the above, but the system itself has left leeway for these elected and appointed officials to make their own judgement, and act as they see fit on behalf of the nation. Doing their job badly, or flaws inherent in the system are not the same as illegitimacy.
|
On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position.
Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication
|
On April 28 2026 08:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 00:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2026 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 20:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 19:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 19:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote] Correct. You have and can describe yours? Anyone? I don't know, + Show Spoiler +but I'd like to actually consider results too. Like, you mentioned a naked crack addict. I don't want a naked crack addict as president, but if I had to choose between a naked crack addict who would be able to successfully work with Congress to give us universal healthcare, properly tax the rich, fix our crumbling infrastructure, address climate change, and generally value education and science and medicine... then I'd vote for that naked crack addict over, say, a purely hypothetical fascist, racist, misogynistic rapist who is happy to destroy the country if it makes him money. #notallnakedcrackaddicts How about you? Can you describe where your personal line is for what's no longer a legitimate government? I don't know why you think you (or many others) have them then? I have a pretty different worldview from others here, so the question is a bit different for me. Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo. Getting elected functioning as a "get out of jail free" card (that he's copying and handing out to a gang of criminals) delegitimizes the entire system by any reasonable measure. All right, so Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" + Show Spoiler + What comes next? + Show Spoiler +What do you do about that / What did you do about that? What is the action taken that follows calling the government "no longer legitimate"? Are you supporting or opposing the highlighted position? Full support from me. Trump being president crosses the line. We have established that TL.net does not consider the Trump presidency a legitimate government. Now lead us oh fearless leader GH. Show us the way to reinstate legitimate leadership in the great US of A! Expound upon your plan while I go and sharpen my pitchfork! Respect for picking up the baton. GH should at least respond to you (and others). I did, but let's go ahead and check Acro's premise that TL.net + Show Spoiler +(I take this to mean US politics posters excluding the Sartres) does not consider the Trump presidency (keeping in mind the unprecedented insurrection, corruption, criminality, etc) legitimate. Poll: Is the Trump presidency a legitimate government?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Interesting results so far. On April 28 2026 03:17 Jankisa wrote:
In a more serious country where one party is not completely subsumed by a criminal grifter, the legitimacy of his regime would have been addressed by means of impeachment, from what I know, the articles have been raised but nothing will come of it.
In his first term, impeachment was tried 2 times, in both cases, his party saved him from being removed.
You can't say a goverment is illegitimate until this is proven, of course, however, given the grip that Trump and his cohort have over both Republican party and Supreme Court, it's basically impossible to do this now.
This sounds like a "technically yes" but "no, in my mind" I'm curious what you chose in the poll? I figure me and Acro? are 2 of the no's. Anyone else want to claim their answers (you can link to the related post if I failed to glean your answer from your post)? I voted yes. There is no objective, one-size-fits-all way to define legitimacy. + Show Spoiler +
But how I define legitimacy of a government, at least for a country that is ostensibly (and I think most inhabitants of said country would agree), a democracy: Is that said government coming to power within the rules of a governing system, which the people of the country... largely... agree with (the system, not necessarily the people in power).
By which criteria, this is a legitimate government. Has Trump contravened many of the written rules of the system? Sure.
The system has instruments in place for the removal of presidents and other members of the government. Which are either not being used, or are unsuccessful in said removal.
He and the government won legitimate elections to assume power, as is the rule inside the system. Until such a time the instruments inside the system (eg impeachment, election etc), are used to remove them, or the entire system as a whole loses the support of the people, they are the legitimate government.
I look forward to the people that disagree with you (if there are any?) articulating why they do.
|
On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication
"Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes"
This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first).
Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'?
|
Isn't this one Trump's 2nd term already? He's probably not eligible for another one (besides, he might die of old age before that).
Personally I'm all for introducing a rule that you can't enter the race for the office if you can't serve full term without hitting the standard retirement age.
|
Wait, are you guys still waiting for GH to actually lay out the logic of his position in simple terms and explore the consequences?
All he's doing is throwing some bait (is the government legitimate? What do YOU think?), and hoping to drive the discussion along (in the most condescending way possible). He's not really here to participate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
