Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

cpb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 596 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#451

Post by ethbr1 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #303
sidewndr46 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "states" national guard can be federalized at a moment's notice. The president need only give the order and put his signature on it. At that point, they report to the President and no one else. This isn't theory, Alabama's was federalized some time when my dad was a kid. The president never rescinded the order.

De jure doesn't matter when the law has been tossed aside. The loyalties of the individuals, units, officers will choose sides on their own. I'm not holding my breath on the military being willing to enmass defect against an authoritarian though.

National Guard is by definition locally- (read state-) based.

Historically, that's an important consideration in military loyalty under contested scenarios.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#452

Post by DudeOpotomus »

jimbokun wrote: post #419
DudeOpotomus wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you listen to him speak, he is not a smart person. What baffles me is how and why you'd think he was anything but an idiot. Everything about him and his actions and words reek of stupidity. He does not hold any understanding of the complexities of anything. He does not write. When he does, he misspells and uses incorrect grammar. He does not read. He has rudimentary understanding of basics. Etc. So why is it that…

And none of that has kept him from achieving his goals. He has a genius for communication and persuasion that is undeniably effective. He understands the weak points in our political system and attacks them directly. He's dumb when it comes to things educated people care about. But he's smart when it comes to getting what he wants.

This is an amazing take. You're actually equating his position as a political puppet to being smart. And worse, you actually think he is!

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#453

Post by ethbr1 »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #444
hypeatei wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now I have some faith the courts in the US will stand up to this I think "the guardrails will hold" thinking is flawed when you have someone who is willing to completely side step the system and push the limits. We're not actually sure what holding someone from this administration in contempt even looks like functionally since U.S. marshals are under the DOJ.

SCOTUS' ruling on Trump's presidential immunity blew a massive hole in the guardrails.

I'm very curious about the ambiguous "official acts" caveat in the decision.

It read like a consensus opinion that left room for the Supreme Court to put additional limits in place... if it came to that.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#454

Post by DudeOpotomus »

mistrial9 wrote: post #439
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you consider that 30% of Americans are complete lunatics? Trump isn't clever or smart, he's batshit insane and appeals to the barely literate and *-ists that have been programmed with a bloodlust by Fox for two decades.

35 percent of all statistical quotations are made up

The bell curve is hard for some people to grasp...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#455

Post by carefulfungi »

diego_moita wrote: post #86

From the perspective of outside democracies it is almost laughable (or "cryable") to call the U.S. a democracy. Some of the most fundamental traits of an healthy democracy that the U.S. doesn't have: * the US doesn't have real alternation in power: only 3 other democratic countries in the world have the same duopoly of political parties the US has: Japan, Mexico and South Korea. These 2 parties have an absolute contr…

A fair critique, at least of national US politics.

State and local democracies, which are extremely impactful to education, housing, roads, and most services Americans touch day-to-day, are quite different from the national news and face different challenges.

However, I think your comment on campaign donations is incorrect. Donations are allowed in many OECD countries. See for example https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/anti-corruption-and-int....

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#456

Post by tzs »

diego_moita wrote: post #86

From the perspective of outside democracies it is almost laughable (or "cryable") to call the U.S. a democracy. Some of the most fundamental traits of an healthy democracy that the U.S. doesn't have: * the US doesn't have real alternation in power: only 3 other democratic countries in the world have the same duopoly of political parties the US has: Japan, Mexico and South Korea. These 2 parties have an absolute contr…

> bribing politicians is legal in the US. It is called "campaign financing" and it is ok and stimulated. No other country in the world accepts that.

What exactly do you mean here? Looking up the limits on corporate and individual donations to political campaigns in several other countries it appears that many have looser limits than the US.

For individual donations this includes the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, probably Brazil (the limit is based on the donor's previous year income), India, and South Korea.

Several with looser limits on corporate donations include the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and India.

Where the US seems to stand out is in Super PACs. I didn't find anything really similar elsewhere.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#457

Post by dragonwriter »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #444
hypeatei wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now I have some faith the courts in the US will stand up to this I think "the guardrails will hold" thinking is flawed when you have someone who is willing to completely side step the system and push the limits. We're not actually sure what holding someone from this administration in contempt even looks like functionally since U.S. marshals are under the DOJ.

SCOTUS' ruling on Trump's presidential immunity blew a massive hole in the guardrails.

> SCOTUS' ruling on Trump's presidential immunity blew a massive hole in the guardrails.

Not really; aside from the various limitations on it (full immunity only for a few core Constitutional functions, case-by-case immunity for other "official acts" depending on impact to function of the office, no immunity aside from that), criminal prosecution after leaving office is almost never the decisive constraint on Presidential action, and that's all the immunity applies to.

What blew a massive hole in the guardrails is the a faction fully supporting Trump being an authoritarian dictator unbound by law securing full control of the GOP, and the GOP securing a two-house Congressional majority. (It doesn't hurt that they also control a majority of state legislatures and a near majority of states both legislature and executive helps here, too.)

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#458

Post by nataliste »

kaishiro wrote: post #442
nataliste wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalism, and specifically NPR, is already driven entirely by corporate and ideological interests. Your supposition that federal funding helps remove bias is trivially disproven by the last decade of coverage of NPR, where I literally (literally!) have not been able to turn it on without race, gender, or Trump being mentioned within a minute (it became a game). To be fair, there was one exception. and that was a re…

If your position is "I don't care anymore", then you're not making a principled argument - you're venting. That's fine, just don't pretend it's a policy stance.

"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." likewise isn't a policy stance, it's naked hypocrisy.

It's a free country so people are afforded the right to be hypocrites, but nobody is entitled to receive public funding when doing so.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#459

Post by ty6853 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #438
ty6853 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supreme court and many other courts have judicial armed officers of the court that are part of the judicial branch; they can enforce contempt or orders of the court. But of course they are way overpowered by the number of LEO in the executive.

> Supreme court and many other courts have judicial armed officers of the court that are part of the judicial branch; The Supreme Court, but not lower federal courts, has its own police department, but its legal authority is limited to security for the Supreme Court building and grounds and the Supreme Court justices, and to make arrests for violations of federal law as necessary to those two functions. They do not e…

The other courts in this case would be bailiffs who are judicial officers in some states.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#460

Post by dragonwriter »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #338
boroboro4 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people in executive pushing unitary executive power theory. And there is a chance Supreme Court will support them at that. With such theory your AG proposal not having authority doesn’t stand (in worst case it would be presidents authority).

A chance, but I suspect not much of one. If we have a unitary executive, then the president is over the Supreme Court. I suspect that at least Justices Kavanough, Barrett, and Roberts (along with the liberals) would have a problem with that. (Some of the liberals might be on board if the president was Harris rather than Trump, but no way are they going to agree with it while Trump is president.)

> If we have a unitary executive, then the president is over the Supreme Court.

No, the Supreme Court is not part of the executive even under unitary executive theory.

OTOH, the US Marshals Service is part of the executive, and, under unitary executive theory, Congress attempting to dictate who within the executive branch can direct them must fail, as the President has absolute and unconditionally delegable authority within the executive.

Post reply on HN