this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
1357 points (99.0% liked)

Political Memes

11797 readers
2195 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jojowakaki@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (5 children)

As an foreigner and outsider. Does USA not have a system of designated opposition? Isn't it their duty to keep the government in check? Am I missing something? I don't even know who is the opposition leader no more. I assume the president nominee who didn't win is the opposition leader? Haven't seen or heard anything major since the election.

[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

The opposition party has very little to no power in the American system.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Their cute little system they attempted at checks and balances are no longer balanced.

[–] jojowakaki@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I saw the piece about 'shadow docket" by Last week tonight this morning on youtube. It is quite timely, very infuriating, and scary.

[–] McGuirk808@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There is no specific appointment for the losing presidential nominee. They just lose and move on.

The idea with the US government is checks and balances between government branches. Congress and SCOTUS have some degree of power over the president and each branch can keep the other two in check. Historically it has worked well, but things have been changing quickly in the last 10-20 years, but especially with the two Trump admins.

The current situation with Trump is particularly different for a few reasons:

  • Trump is incredibly popular with primary right-wing voter base. There is evidence this may be changing, but it's been the case for 10+ years now.
  • Trump's popularity has allowed him to put intense pressure on members on congress. He can threaten to primary any sitting senator or representative that doesn't support everything he does. These threats are not empty and he has absolutely gotten people voted out of office due to his clout with republican voters. Most Republican members of congress are terrified of opposing him. Since republicans currently hold majority, congress is more or less toothless and completely deferential to Trump right now.
  • Two supreme court justice positions became open when Republicans had control of the government, so they have shifted SCOTUS leanings strongly to the right.

Trump has a perfect storm of control over the systems normally in-place to hold him accountable.

Once we have an administration ran by adults in power again, we're going to need to seriously re-evaluate and update our system of checks and balances, or future administrations will continue to exploit these problems until the country rots and dies.

[–] jojowakaki@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

The problem is, it's the thing that happens with the current government doing things so their place in power is secured. And the other thing about boiling the frog slowly with very short temperature rises, so it doesn't notice it's being boiled until it's too late.

At some point it will be too late to change as change prevention will be written in the system, if it already isn't. People like to throw in the word 'status-quo' but I don't understand that term at all.

[–] mrlemmyhimself@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] plz1@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

Stares sternly and considers penning a letter in opposition.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What would you expect the opposition to do?

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In a proper political system?

  • Inform the electorate about shit the government is doing
  • Suing the government in front of an unpolitical, independent court, up to an unpolitical, independent supreme court
  • Bargaining with the government on regular laws for whenever the government needs a 2/3 majority (e.g. for constitutional amendments, which should be a regular thing, not a once-in-a-lifetime event)
  • Running a shadow cabinet where each shadow minister is completely up-to-date to everything that happens so that in case the opposition wins the next election they can hit the ground running

Just to name a few things.

But since the USA doesn't have unpolitical, independent courts and not even an unpolitical, independent supreme court, and constitutional amendments are exceedingly rare, the opposition is pretty worthless.

Just for reference: If you take out the zero-day fixes (all amendments that were passed within the first year) and the two amendments that cancel each other out (18 and 21), the USA has had 15 constitutional amendments. France had 15 full constitutional rewrites in the same time.

[–] jojowakaki@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This was what I meant opposition doing the job.

I think it is very important thing engaging the electorate when they are not in power and when it's not election season. By both the government and opposition. And more importantly to do that neutral to reach all the electorate not their own voter base. I think that is what is missing form the US and it is increasing the divide between the left and right to the point the key identity (with pride) of each political party is that they aren't the other one.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The US system is a hot broken mess. It's 200 years outdated and nobody dared fixing it.

It's literally a prototype of a democracy that people started to treat like a religion.

The constitutionally mandated two-party-system is perfect at dividing the nation and makes sure that cross-party coalitions aren't a thing, thus voiding all need for any cooperation.

[–] jojowakaki@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

From George Washington's farewell address, 1796.

Basically, he was worried about 'us vs them' mentality that the two party system would bring as there was already a divide between the federalists and the democratic-republicans.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, it was a problem from day 1, but they did jack all to fix it.

Probably because changing a system usually doesn't benefit those who got into power via the old system.

[–] jojowakaki@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am not an expert on the political system. But my knee jerk answer is idk, Oppose? But there is probably a lot I don't understand of "this is how it's done and this is how it is" -ism that goes on.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I mean they do, do that. It doesn't hit the media much, because they like to appease Trump. But they are constantly making every piece of legislation hard to pass.