[Nevermark]

> Where does it end though? If he decides tomorrow to start calling Canada "Beaverland," will all our maps change again? reply

> why waste time and energy discussing silly things he might do when he is literally doing silly things now, for real?

The example used was making a larger point than, oh no, "Canada -> Beaverstan", for laughs.

The point is: What line would be too far for industry to resist presidential renaming by fiat. A kind of power with known risks. Renaming by fiat has a name, "Newspeak", a term coined in the not very silly book, 1984, by George Orwell.

Trump has a history of doing lots of "silly" things just to see if he can. It is a low risk way for him to pre-test, or pre-expand, any barriers to more serious expressions of his power. Such as renaming things in a way that undermines or alters the impact of laws.

[amazingamazing]

Again, there’s no need for hypotheticals. Trump is doing plenty of crazy stuff in reality.

And this is a representative democracy, if the representative does those things, so be it. If we don’t like, we get another to revert.

[Nevermark]

Again. The specific hypothetical wasn’t the point.

It is what is called an“illustrative” or “hypothetical exemplar”. Ignore the specific example, focus on the point being made:

What limit is there to Trump taking things further? Because Trump has a track record of taking things further.

It is not a randomly improbable premature neurotic conjecture actually about Canada or “Beaverland”. Those are stand-ins for a larger point.

—

Also, a democracy is supposed to decentralize power. The more decentralized, the more each citizen has equal power.

But the US Constitution, with all its checks and balances, managed not to limit the power of political parties.

So the US system degenerates into only two viable national parties, with highly centralized power within each. Only two nationally viable candidates, neither chosen by an actual democratic process.

Just one more candidate, chosen by the powerful, than an autocracy.

We could call this “Minimal Viable Democracy”, as any less democratic would not be democratic at all.

Without experience with a better system, most US citizens are in a Stockholm situation. They talk about their “great” system because at one time it was a big improvement. But 250 years later it is just the flawed system they are stuck in. Better to keep calling it “great”, no matter how many re-centralizing-of-power dysfunctions accumulate without resolution, than get too depressed.

[mandeepj]

> Also, a democracy is supposed to decentralize power. The more decentralized, the more each citizen has equal power.

There’s no way you can guarantee that! India have everything to decentralise power, but still ended up currently as an autocratic state

[asyx]

If I remember correctly the US system doesn’t really take parties into consideration because parties were an afterthought and not really supposed to be a thing.

[Gud]

If you don’t like it, there are more options than sitting around for four years hoping another bought and paid for candidate in the two party state will be better.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.

If you don’t wish to commit violence, there are other effective methods to enact change, although in the US the chances appear small.

Personally I believe in direct democracy.