411–420 of 475 posts
When this administration is done we need to amend the constitution to hold politicians legally and financially responsible for intentionally lying and intentionally breaking the law. This was obviously illegal on its face and yet there is no consequence to pushing the norms.
Could you tell us why the politicians - who are the only ones who have the power to amend the Constitution - would be interested in doing that?
IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal merits of any of it. From a practical/business perspective, I can see the government's position. It's very simple and it makes sense. Here's an analogy that I think is apt: We use Solidworks, Altium Designer and JetBrains tools for our work. Imagine a scenario where each of these companies has license terms that restrict their use to certain domains or types of products they --f…
If Domino's Pizza offered to deliver pizza to the Pentagon but declined in their terms of service to deliver pizza-box-shaped packages to Tehran, do you think it would be a fair and proportionate response for the DoD to ban anyone in the defense supply chain from ever ordering pizza from Domino's?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you have a head of state who can, in theory, remove the head of government at their own discretion, right? In the US the head of state and the head of government are the same person.
Yes in theory , the King Charles III and/or his representative the Governor General, could remove the Prime Minister, though the Governor General is chosen following advice (i.e. choice) of the Prime Minister, so I can't imagine that happening in practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal merits of any of it. From a practical/business perspective, I can see the government's position. It's very simple and it makes sense. Here's an analogy that I think is apt: We use Solidworks, Altium Designer and JetBrains tools for our work. Imagine a scenario where each of these companies has license terms that restrict their use to certain domains or types of products they --f…
It's entirely reasonable for the USG to say "we don't want to use a product with guardrails". Plenty of people have gotten annoyed with Fable and done exactly that! But to prohibit anyone else from using it is a much bigger and more questionable step.
What do you mean? You and I are not prohibited from using Anthropic products unless we do work for DoD/DoW that collides with their usage restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is that apparently the US will occasionally elect a corrupt president, so we need stronger measures in place for when that happens.
We've got one. It's called impeachment. Unfortunately the system wasn't originally intended to have parties and party loyalties, and assumed that Congress would never have a majority to give a free pass to a corrupt President because he was their guy .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is that apparently the US will occasionally elect a corrupt president, so we need stronger measures in place for when that happens.
No, you cannot, in a democracy, write the rules in such a way to magically and automatically guarantee that bad things cannot happen, because the core conceit of democracy is that the will of the people can happen If your people want bad things to happen, there is no text anywhere that can prevent it. You cannot constrain people with laws without enforcement, just as a rule. Real life isn't like code where you write…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics is frequently a game of semantic drift. The application of labels with unclear meaning to further dilute meaning or extend it for the purpose of engagement, legal reclassification... it's not engineering and you can't expect well defined terms from people who want power without accountability.
Politics doesn't work if a significant part of the leadership is constantly acting in bad faith, and behaving essentially sociopathically. Voters' and citizens' (and some judges') willingness to support sociopathic behavior by leaders is a profound failing at their basic social duties, and is deeply shameful.
Not to be too contrarian, but I'm certain there are many people who would claim that's the only way it has ever worked (poorly)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US president was always designed to be like this. It's like people are deliberately forgetting anti-federalists were not only a thing, they warned about these exact same problems over 200 years ago.
Well, yes and no. The remedies are impeachment and electoral accountability. Both of which have broken down in this era of extreme partisanship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
National security excuses enjoy widespread bipartisan support. Want to execute a citizen without trial? National security. Want to execute his child without trial? National security.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dislike it when people claim speech is violence. Like if you're trying to have a conversation on what should be or not - then people claim that it's a violent act to talk about.
"Speech is violence" is very popular with the campus groups that want to ban speakers they disagree with. I'm not sure if it's still going on, but a few years ago the same crowd kept insisting that "silence is violence" which is even more ludicrous - if you're not parroting their critical race theory talking points at every opportunity, YOU are committing an act of violence.
I’m not American, so I’m not used to this kind of thing at all, which makes it even stranger for me to watch one group roleplaying as deeply religious while at the same time embodying arrogance, greed, and a lust for power, while on the other side you have people fighting for equality so hard that it eventually turns into plain old racism, sexism, and mental gymnastics, with definitions of words and concepts being constantly changed just to make them fit into an already flimsy theory meant to explain why the patriarchy or some similar nonsense is supposedly to blame for everything.
I’m genuinely curious to see how the conflict between these two groups develops from here. It just keeps getting more and more absurd.