I didn't say you were unspecific, I said your points didn't relate to dissolving democracy, they were mostly just things you fear (but not unspecifically). Here is a more thorough answer to those original points:

SCOTUS has not obliterated the balance of power AFAICT? Otherwise Biden would've had more power than he does/did, right? I'll need more details about this obliteration.

SCOTUS judges are indeed majority conservative. But you'll need a tad more to indicate that "conservative" translates to "supportive of dissolving our democracy". I'll accept statements they've made to that effect, anything they've written, or whatever else you have. But we know you have nothing to indicate this at all.

Your concerns about economics have nothing to do with dissolving democracy. BUT (because I'm passionate about this) – mainstream macroeconomics is pseudo-science peddled by charlatans anyway. It's too multi-variate for them to effectively predict the outcome of basically anything at a macro level. They're not Harry Seldon even if they wish they were.

Your concern about him being buddies (sometimes frenemies) with Elon Musk has nothing to do with dissolving democracy. Elon Musk can't enable that in any shape or form. I guess he could make Trump dictator of Mars if his plans for SpaceX pan out, though.

Your concern about RFK Jr being in charge of public health has nothing to do with dissolving democracy. RFK Jr believing that vaccines cause autism or that fluoride turns the freaking frogs gay has nothing to do with the state of our democracy.

As you helpfully point out, Trump tried and failed to mess with election certification last time around. The institutions holding their own against him is literally the opposite of what you are trying to argue.

I'll concede that maybe the risks have never been higher, but going from 0.001% to 0.01% isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

---

And here is my answer to your new comment:

> Democracy will be lost if there are no public institutions to enforce rules in a way which keeps nobody in particular with too much power.

This is true. Luckily the institutions that actually enforce this are not the ones Trump et al have expressed interest in cutting.

> Democracy will be lost if core players of said system do not respect the rules anymore and either try to negate, obstruct or otherwise hinder balance or peaceful transfer of power.

This is clearly untrue. Someone trying and failing to mess with democracy is actually evidence of the opposite – that the democracy is robust. As I said before, Trump being unable to stop election certification is not the evidence for your argument you think it is.

> testimony

You mean like the testimony from all the people in the military that aren't big fans? You don't think that maybe the military might have something to say if the President tries to become a dictator? Support of the military is usually required for that, and Trump doesn't seem to have that much support in military leadership.

Which SCOTUS ruling gives him carte blanche to enact anything he wants with impunity?

So far this is all going according to the constitution. The house passing bills which are then passed by the senate which are then signed by the president is... our democracy. I don't see the Judicial branch abrogating their responsibilities to the Executive branch, nor do I see the Legislative branch doing that, even if they support Trump for president. Just because they'll be able to pass whatever they want for 2-4 years doesn't mean they're going to pass something that dissolves democracy. And so far you have nothing to indicate that those branches are interested in doing that. Just your fear running rampant.