Given the measurable shift away from consumer protection and prosecution of corporate greed as well as the micromanagement of the DOJ, I think the answer is "in that hypothetical situation, what would SBF have to offer the White House?"
Of course, with the DOJ RIFs and brain drain it's uncertain he could be successfully prosecuted.
So while there is plenty of viral brainrot media out there, reading substantive material that promotes understanding or introspection looks almost the same. And it's more profound than what I'd be thinking about in the dentist waiting room or long hardware store line.
Yes. That was the most clear cut case of authoritarianism I've ever seen in the post Berlin wall era.
It's not hard to grasp if you read a constitution and see how right to assemble, right to work, right to bodily autonomy, right to speak, all got attacked in different degrees in different countries across the world with apparent widespread support. Of course, censorship of any alternative played a part and non compliance by people who pretended to comply happened all the time but by and large the authoritarian tune was sung.
Now, you can call me one of the typical labels that were in vogue back then but, it doesn't really change facts.
No. Another one who doesn't get it. It shouldn't be done.
The problem is that you don't get it. You think that saying "we all agree on X but it's bad for society" gets you to eventually acknowledge there's a safer way to do X, at least partially.
I'm saying you shouldn't even pretend the first statement is acceptable and that implementation is the problem .
Now, that's very nuanced for some and I'll get the "you're missing the point, he doesn't want surveillance".
The point you are missing is that he presented what he knew to be norms and used language to indicate that they are norms (should vs must) and you are somehow confused into thinking that he presented them as inalienable facts. Commenters thought that if they pointed out the nuance of normative assertion vs enforcement you would see the distinction but you continue to fail to distinguish a normative assertion from a factual one.
I also disagree with you that widespread agreement on norms is some problematic slippery slope. Failure to distinguish between norms and objectivity as you are doing is what leads to widespread norms being enforced absurdly by a tyranny of the majority.
I read that SCOTUS told the administration to pay for completed work. Considering USAID has been essentially dissolved, I wouldn't say they knocked down "the whole USAID thing". Unless I missed some news.
Amazingly, four of five justices said the President should be able to refuse to pay contractors for completed work from funds Congress had already allocated. WTF.
Or maybe it’s more amazing it wasn’t six of them saying that.
One really lovely part is how this would permanently make every government contract more expensive, if they got their way. Just great.
Right they won't even acknowledge that there was nothing unreasonable about those funds. Already allocated and promised. Why even say it's backed "by the reputation of the United States" if we won't even pay the bills we've already told we were going to pay. If they find fraud then sure cancel the deal. However they are using "abuse and inefficiency" as weasel words to get out of paying our debts and contracts that the current regime doesn't like.
SCOTUS said the money could not be frozen, but I don't think they put a deadline on when it had to be paid out. So it's not over.
The VP and Musk have both written recently about how the judiciary can't tell the executive branch what to do. I think Vance called it illegal. Regardless, law is meaningless if no one will enforce it.
Of course, with the DOJ RIFs and brain drain it's uncertain he could be successfully prosecuted.
reply