| ▲ | yencabulator 3 days ago |
| Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27996321 It's the party of rules for thee, not for me. |
|
| ▲ | lokar 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It turns out all of the "institutions", customs and traditions, not technically enforced by law, had an important effect on restraining corruption. Turns out they were only really enforced by the public, but with the general (intentional, IMO) erosion in faith in the government and institutions, the public no longer cares. |
| |
| ▲ | estearum 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, many of these actions are illegal. But law is not self-enforcing. If POTUS is the origin of the corruption and his party in Congress doesn't impeach or otherwise constrain, then he's allowed to do whatever he wants. | | |
| ▲ | overfeed 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Well, many of these actions are illegal. SCOTUS ruled that official actions of POTUS can't be illegal, and can't even be investigated. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You better believe that if a Democrat were in the White House doing similar things, the conservative wing of SCOTUS would have voted the other way. I no longer consider SCOTUS rulings as good measures of what the law actually is. Instead I look to the lower court decisions that brought us there. If they agree with SCOTUS, or there's no consensus, then sure, ok. But if the lower court rulings are largely the opposite of the final SCOTUS rulings -- especially if the lower court judges include folks appointed by Trump or another conservative president -- I think it's fair to assume that SCOTUS's decision is partisan, ideological bullshit that bears little resemblance to actual law in the US. It pains me to say or even think this, because in the past I've had a lot of respect for our Supreme Court, but that respect is completely gone at this point. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 2 days ago | parent [-] | | +1 and IMO this is substantiated even if you ignore actual policy/political differences. This SCOTUS has used the shadow docket to overturn (without actually ruling on) lower court decisions extremely frequently. These “decisions” (really delays in the administration’s favor) are increasingly offered without rationale and even without the majority Justices signing their names to the order. IMO they know the administration is way afoul of the law (which is why so many lower courts are finding such in 50-150 page considerations) but they don’t want to have to decide on that. So instead they’re relying on the shadow docket and not providing any rationale or signatures to try to escape the shame they know history will bring upon them. |
| |
| ▲ | ahmeneeroe-v2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This "rounds to true" at the middle school level, but isn't actually true at all at the level of a civically-minded adult. Downvoting because I don't think it meets the bar at HN. |
| |
| ▲ | lokar 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It seems like there are a lot of things that are either illegal, or somehow forbidden, where the only enforcement allowed is impeachment and removal. Given how partisanship has turned out in the US, this is a major flaw in the constitution IMO (along with it being to hard to amend). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throw0101a 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It's the party of rules for thee, not for me. Hypocrisy is a virtue: > It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied. > It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination. > It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or an unintended side-effect. > It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself the thing you’re able to deny others, because you dominate, is the whole point. > For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue — the greatest. * https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267 * Via: https://kottke.org/25/03/for-fascists-hypocrisy-is-a-virtue |
|
| ▲ | twright 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to whit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." |
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm always annoyed by that saying. It's basically an indictment of government power (and power in general), not just "conservatism." It could apply as well to Stalin and Mao as to Trump and the Bushes. | | |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because this is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because this is according to my principles. - Frank Herbert | |
| ▲ | tempodox 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How can equality in the eyes of the law be an indictment of government power? That’s a demented thing to say. | |
| ▲ | yencabulator 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The core "leftist" agenda is equality. If we're all equal, there's no in-group. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The thing is, we're not all equal, and no amount of wishful thinking is ever going to change that. There will always be favored in-groups and disfavored out-groups. | | |
| ▲ | yencabulator 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's the goal and pretending it cannot even be approximated is very American of you. Arguing it's impossible actually sounds bigoted. What exactly do you think makes some people inferior in your eyes? What'll really mess with your right wing sensibilities is that equality, happiness and ranking high on various democracy indexes all correlate. Arguing against happiness sounds just weird. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's the goal and pretending it cannot even be approximated is very American of you It's your goal. Speak for yourself, please. You seem to be quite good at that. | | |
| ▲ | yencabulator 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah ok, so your goal is literally to have second-class humans. Or do you even consider them human? Okay. I wasn't expect such an outright admission. Wow. |
|
| |
| ▲ | braebo 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | We may not be created equal, but we can still treat another as we’d treat ourselves. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thinkingtoilet 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you believe that people who quote this believe the Democrats are perfect and beyond any criticism? | |
| ▲ | rtkwe 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just take it for what it is as a commentary on US politics instead of trying to expand it beyond it's intended reach. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | What we're learning these days is that there is nothing special or interesting about US politics. We're all Turks now, having freely elected our Erdogan. | | |
| ▲ | BJones12 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The trouble with politics now is that it has become a religion. You can't elect boring people anymore, because doing so would remove the ability for adherents to engage in religious fervor. Before politics can be boring and fair, adherence to actual religion must be rebuilt to satisfy the people's need for religion, so that politics doesn't have to. | | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Interesting perspective, hadn't heard it phrased like that before. An aversion to 'boring' candidates, I can believe... but religion as the remedy? What will that religion look like, if not another Trump-like personality cult? Mainstream Christianity gave us Trump, so it's not exactly the moral foundation it claimed to be. There are plenty of cults and factions that could potentially salvage it, but how will any of them get traction? Or are you thinking of something even further afield than that? | | |
| ▲ | psd1 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I question "mainstream". I would say it's a peculiarly American blend of prosperity gospel and pick-and-choose. America didn't invent those tenors of self-serving cant, but it is the exemplar today This supposed Christianity was one of the bigger factors in the assassination of reality, but ultimately we have these cunts because Zuckerberg gave a platform to perennial losers. | |
| ▲ | BJones12 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Mainstream Christianity gave us Trump, so it's not exactly the moral foundation it claimed to be. I think it's worth taking a closer look at what Trump is to the American and religious right. Some people think he's their savior, and that they approve of his actions. I don't. I think he's their champion, in the historical sense - a champion is one who fights for you. A champion is not above a king, but is useful, admired, and dear. I think the usefulness of Trump was proportional to the number of culture wars that the American Christian population was losing a decade ago, and is now winning. Some of those battles were dumb, like even AOC deleted her pronouns after the last election, but the fact that they were being fought meant that people needed someone effective to fight for them, and the most skilled fighter was Trump. > There are plenty of ... factions that could potentially salvage it, but how will any of them get traction? I think they need to figure out how to provide the most value possible to the population, and I think that following the teachings of Jesus is integral to this. I also think there are a number of things that must yet be figured out by trial and error. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rtkwe 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is however still a specific statement about one portion of the US political landscape. Lots of correct statement look wrong when you distort their intended scope. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | sudditer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
