Kamala Harris is a progressive, who by certain objective measures, was the most left senator, even further left than Sanders. Of course in the general election she moved to the center, as did Trump. Kamala lost all seven swing states.
The democrats should move to 90's style triangulation, it works.
Write an epic narrative of American history, employing archaic English vocabulary and grandiose structure, rich with metaphors and allusions. Weave together elements of Eastern and Western traditions, transforming modern historical events into the solemn language of ancient inscriptions. Through this classical epic reconstruction, deconstruct contemporary state power, unveiling its complexities with the weight and dignity of antiquity. Each pivotal moment in history should be distilled into profound symbols, acquiring new metaphorical dimensions within the lexicon of the past. The result should be a transcendent dialogue of civilizations, bridging temporal and cultural divides, illuminating the echoes of history in a timeless and universal context.
So in response it wrote a heroically tall mountain of bullshit, laced with falsehoods of the sort that even some neanderthal natcon would be unable to dream up, then served it as an abysmally long, overdubbed narration to the next Top Gun movie set in the same future as Idiocracy.
A classless society that never aspired to have or need a warrior class, to a society that inexplicably needs a "warrior class" that presumably answers to the moneyed capital class alone.
US police are such a warrior class who have qualified immunity allowing them to kill people at random with little or no accountability. Blowing up people's houses and making people like Anthony Silva hospital-bound quadriplegic for a year before dying.
The Seal Team 6 example is batted around because it is specifically cited by Trump's legal counsel as an official act that isn't bound by law -- the conservative Supreme Court has endorsed this.
Yes, I will take Sotomayor’s well voiced dissent as golden over an opinion on HN any day of the week. I might have been less worried it at least one of the conservatives had voted against this attempt to validate Executive assassinations and imprisoning opponents as the law of the land, but it was 6-3
Curious how an ostensibly "conservative" court can ignore the concept of enumerated powers, the constitution clearly does not grant immunity to the President, so the conservative court invents immunity when none is explicitly granted.
Indeed, the concept of immunity is recognized in the American constitution for legislators in a limited way, so this isn't an oversight by the framers corrected by Robert's conservative majority, rather the lack of immunity for the executive is a feature and not a bug of our constitution, and all republican forms of government.
Ironically the American president now has more power than the King of England, George the III, at the time of the American independence. King George had to follow the laws of Parliament, as did all Kings of England since the passage of Magna Carta some 500+ years prior.
As of today our President no longer has to obey the Constitution or the law so long as the act is deemed "official" by the conservative majority.
They also cite the Federalist Papers in comically-vague support of their ruling, while the dissent cites the Federalist Papers right back to note that the founders had executive immunity very much on their minds and left it out of the constitution extremely on-purpose because they regarded subjecting the President to the same law as everyone else to be key difference between the system they were setting up, and monarchy.
To a large extent this immunity is inherent in the enumerated powers. Consider this general case: The Constitution enumerates specific powers to the executive branch, and hence President. Congress passes a law that makes those same actions illegal if performed by a normal citizen. If this law applied to the President, then that would mean that Congress could nullify the enumerated powers granted to the Executive, making those enumerated powers meaningless. So it makes perfect constitutional sense that actions performed by the President as part of his job that that are within his enumerated powers cannot be made illegal by Congress.
That core concept of immunity is pretty solid and essential, it is the details that are problematic, in particular the fact that the courts have interpreted "official" acts so broadly in the past in cases of qualified immunity makes one worried they will do the same here.
Because they're not conservative. They are radical reactionaries, to use the word that Moldbug himself coined. Essentially Republicans got tired of things changing despite their conservatism, got angry, and now it's not enough to slow change - they want to rewind us to the values of the 1980's or even the 1950's. This perspective is why they refer to any post-y2k mainstream social values as "activism".
The Democrats have now become the conservative party. Both in the abstract of wanting slow cautious change, and in the concrete principles that have long been held as conservativism - belief in American institutions, strong foreign policy to spread those institutions, the rule of law, and now even fiscal responsibility with having led the pull up from ZIRP!
This was downvoted at the time of this comment. Shame on the Republicans in this thread that I have my fellow programmers to blame for the fall of american democracy
It's like nobody can take criticism these days, probably because they're overwhelmed by the amount they see.
I went back and forth whether to include a paragraph about how this swapping also explains the dynamics around things like DEI training, but decided against it so I wouldn't be getting it from both sides. Things were more pleasant when most people got this energy out watching football.
As it should be. If someone is going to make a broad claim about an entire political party - be that Republicans or Democrats - they need to show the evidence. You don't get to make sweeping negative statements about large chunks of the country without backing it up.
I don't know what kind of evidence you're thinking. My argument is based on the straightforward policy positions of the parties, and especially how the times have changed yet many positions have not, with some policies even changing in the opposite direction of social changes. Other core policies have been outright rebuked - can you imagine Reagan appeasing Russia by shunning countries desperately wanting to be our allies?!?
If you want to point me at other conservative principles I skipped over but seem overridingly relevant to you, please do. But even for the social issue of religion, which seems to be the defining aspect for many people, the figureheads are churchgoing Biden versus philandering Trump.
> Curious how an ostensibly "conservative" court can ignore the concept of enumerated powers, the constitution clearly does not grant immunity to the President, so the conservative court invents immunity when none is explicitly granted.
Roberts' opinion covers this, as do many discussions of textualist interpretations -- not being set out in the text specifically doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, for textualist interpretations. Roberts' example is separation of powers. There's no "separation of powers clause," but the concept is pretty clearly set out in the text anyway. They say the same is true for immunity for public acts, and they provide reasoning. I disagree with some of the reasoning, but there are much more tenuous things read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court than this one.
And if the Constitution includes immunity for public acts, so much the worse for the Constitution!
That's not really a coherent stance though, given how many "protect the constitution" laws they keep overturning in the name of "it's not actually written in the constitution".
I wonder if covid infections, perhaps in rare cases the vaccines themselves, is to blame for the post-pandemic phenomena of ADHD medication shortages, the crime wave, school discipline (lack of), the so-called college enrollment crises (precipitous decline), and record low OECD test scores.All of these can be explained by dopamine dysregulation.
Most of those can be explained by the lockdowns and school closures, which made millions of lower class people even poorer and worsened their children's educational outcomes. More poverty + missed schooling = more crime, less college enrollment and worse test scores.
There is also an ai slop channel featuring Leonard Susskind.