I would guess that people using off-the-shelf drones (that are broadcasting operator’s location) are not the same as ones using drones with modified heat signatures.
A local sheriff who took the initiative to fly a law enforcement drone with FLIR after one of the recently reported swarms. That may have been in MD. There was a news report on YouTube.
Looking for another set of statistics (ATF specifically, as they also love killing animals) led me to this website: https://www.puppycidedb.com/
It’s sad enough that we’ve armed, trained, and funded a militant force with no care for the wellbeing of the people they are meant to protect, regularly abusing their power to harm people for their sick pleasure. The fact that we’ve also trained this near-terrorist organization to kill dogs for the sport of it is even more disappointing. I’m all for the existence of a police, of course, but we need a serious mass-firing and restructure.
Why should we instead trust a single person with an absolute immunity for vague “official acts”? Said person is way more powerful than any of the prosecutors.
Because we live in a democracy and at some point we have to respect the pesky will of the pesky people to elect their pesky leaders. If you assume that the people don't want the rule of law, then you must conclude that the people don't want a government.
Government for thee and not for me seems to be the going (and historically traditional) approach - hence why fascists are attractive to people who want to be “lords”
Being able to do what you want, so long as you “kiss the ring” has unfortunately been a reliable path to temporary and virtueless power
Unless the non-activist citizen votes to give their power to the most virtuous, they generally default to giving away power to someone they believe will ultimately give them priority with the least amount of impact to their core personality trait
Trump’s authoritarianism appeals to people who feel that he can control the various unelected people they feel have too much power over their lives and society: career bureaucrats, corporate HE, NGOs, universities, etc.
This revealed that no matter which party wins the election, the fourth branch of government is staffed and run by Democrats. All the three letter agencies are staffed by 95% Democrats. And people think that Trump can bring them to heel.
I’ll add many federal employees are members of professional organizations. And in the last decade, professional organizations have become overtly political. And all of these are staffed mainly by democrats. Paul Clement, one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our generation, left Kirkland, known as a conservative firm, over the firms opposition to second amendment cases: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022/06/23/kirkland-ellis.... This is a firm that will not hesitate to represent the worst Russian oligarchs, mass polluters like BP, etc.
Another example is SFFA. A super-majority of the public opposes racial preferences in college admissions and hiring. But not a single prominent law firm authored an amicus brief in support of overturning affirmative action.
Half the country doesn’t trust credentialed professionals anymore, and with good reason
"The former State Department secretary led the businessman by 5 percentage points among federal employees in a July poll by the Government Business Council, the research arm of Government Executive Media Group, with 42 percent of respondents saying they would vote for Clinton, compared to 37 percent who said the same for Trump."
From your article, that sounds more like close to even instead of your exaggerated 95%.
The point is that credentials plus $3.50 will buy you a coffee in our democratic system. The system shouldn’t be designed to give more weight to your views on broad value issues-say through the actions of unelected bureaucracies or professional organizations—just because you have credentials.
You won’t find it because it’s impossible. Majority democrats? Probably they’d be more likely to be attracted to a government service office. 95%?they pulled it out of their posterior.
I don't agree that this is what living in a democracy means. It has been known since ancient times that democracy is vulnerable to hostile takeover by a populist demagogue. Sometimes, paradoxical as it seems, it is necessary to overrule the people to preserve the democratic system.
Maybe, but who is doing the overruling, how do prevent it from being abused for political purposes, and how do you keep the overruled people from becoming very cynical and dissatisfied with democracy as a result?
Keep asking those questions while trump implements project 2025. I’m sure once you figure it out, the stooges behind it will give up all that juicy executive power.
The executive is already 90% filled with people who not only are one party, but share a particular, distinctive ideology, who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the institutions they work for in service of that ideology: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resistance-from-with.... (Remember this happened before Trump did anything. It was based purely on federal workers’ moral objections to Trump’s stance on immigration.)
If Project 2025 succeeds behind its wildest dreams, it won’t even come close to even balancing things out.
> If Project 2025 succeeds behind its wildest dreams, it won’t even come close to even balancing things out.
You're pretty optimistic about that. Trump has amply demonstrated that he can be ruthless. And he'll bring on people as cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries who will be of the same mind.
No, its pessimism. Trump doesn’t have what it takes to restore the system to even a semblance of balance. I’m not sure it’s even possible given the decay in government-adjacent institutions like the law schools and bar associations.
What does “democracy” mean to you? A country where people vote, but unelected bureaucrats and lawyers actually run things and will do what they think is best?
Hypothetical: Trump is campaigning on immigration. Say he wins the election and issues an executive order to deport every single illegal immigrant. What should happen, in a democracy?
> What does “democracy” mean to you? A country where people vote, but unelected bureaucrats and lawyers actually run things and will do what they think is best?
"People" generally don't have the expertise to run things in a complex modern world. Bureaucrats and lawyers aren't always better, but pace Damon Runyon (quoting sportswriter Hugh Keough), that's the way to bet. [0]
"Democracy" in a complex modern world means that "people" periodically get an opportunity to toss out the bureaucrats and lawyers — because ballots are better than bullets.
The problem isn’t that bureaucrats and lawyers are exercising their expertise. It’s that they’re elevating their personal values above their jobs and institutions. They need to shut up and dribble.
I don't think the president should be above the law. I think most presidents have committed crimes and I'd like to see them face more scrutiny not less.
Because that person is elected by a nationwide polity, while prosecutors often aren’t elected, or are elected by politically skewed polities.
Half the country doesn’t share your faith that career prosecutors will do “what’s good for the country” instead of indulging their personal biases.
I would point out that prosecuting Trump under Sarbanes Oxley (a financial fraud law) for supposed insurrection doesn’t exactly engender trust and confidence in career prosecutors.
> Everyone fantasizes about government by an unelected group of experts, until they wake up one day and find out those unelected experts don't share their values at all -- and there's nothing they can do about it.
> Department of Transportation, with the approval of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, may declare a higher maximum speed of 70 miles per hour
Yes, because there are usually no less then 4 separate ways to turn it off (AP disconnect, trim switch, circuit breaker(s), servo override) and this includes small GA airplanes. The autopilot does not fly the airplane on intuition. It flies based on the way the pilot programmed it, malfunctions are expected and trained for and memory items are required for quick disabling of malfunctioning systems.
Autopilot not turning off is not a realistic scenario. There are multiple ways to turn them off, including cutting power entirely by pulling a circuit breaker. You'll often see a colored plastic ring attached to the AP breaker for this exact reason.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources_Against_...
reply