Being genuinely puzzled rather than "acting as though our American shipmates etc"
You read SoF regularly - are you seriously telling me that, for example, you haven’t realised @Nick Tamen and @Ruth know this ? Or you don’t realise they are American ?
On the previous page I was the first person to answer your question, and I did so under the the impression that it meant something like "What percentage of Americans don't know that they will be the ones paying the tariffs?"
Note that my interpretation doesn't posit an either/or, where it's either 100% of Americans are stupid or 0% are, and asks a question that could logically be asked about ANY economic misperception in any country, eg. "What percentage of Brits really thought all that money was going to Europe instead of to the NHS?"
Personally, I always find it helpful to phrase things that way.
Apparently, the anti-Tesla movement is putting notes on people's Teslas, reading "Sell your car".
Not sure if that makes any sense, since Musk doesn't lose any money if an already-bought car gets re-sold. Plus, since the new owner is likely to continue driving the car around, the visibility of Tesla is not reduced.
Apparently, the anti-Tesla movement is putting notes on people's Teslas, reading "Sell your car".
Not sure if that makes any sense, since Musk doesn't lose any money if an already-bought car gets re-sold. Plus, since the new owner is likely to continue driving the car around, the visibility of Tesla is not reduced.
I think the logic is something like people selling Teslas, and not wanting to buy Teslas, will suppress the second hand value of a Tesla, and so make buying a new Tesla look like a worse proposition. They're trying to create an environment in which nobody wants to own a Tesla.
Apparently, the anti-Tesla movement is putting notes on people's Teslas, reading "Sell your car".
Not sure if that makes any sense, since Musk doesn't lose any money if an already-bought car gets re-sold. Plus, since the new owner is likely to continue driving the car around, the visibility of Tesla is not reduced.
I think the logic is something like people selling Teslas, and not wanting to buy Teslas, will suppress the second hand value of a Tesla, and so make buying a new Tesla look like a worse proposition. They're trying to create an environment in which nobody wants to own a Tesla.
So, you mean, I won't buy a new Tesla, because I'll know that its value will be peanuts if and when I decide to re-sell.
Okay, so if I see a note on my Tesla saying "Sell your car", that gives ME the message that someone doesn't like Tesla. But if I sell it, there's no further augmentation of the message, because the new owner will still drive it around anyway.
Okay, so if I see a note on my Tesla saying "Sell your car", that gives ME the message that someone doesn't like Tesla. But if I sell it, there's no further augmentation of the message, because the new owner will still drive it around anyway.
Well, sure. The world is not full of people who can afford to buy swasticars and then hide them away somewhere, so the number of used Teslas on the roads isn't going to decrease significantly. But encouraging people to sell their Teslas where they can, and not buy a Tesla (new or used) where they can generates an environment where "nobody" wants a Tesla. And if that means that used Teslas are driven by people who can't afford anything less Nazi, that accomplishes the goal of the Tesla boycott.
So what? I could easily and almost effortlessly leave that same message on several cars every day, day after day, just on my daily walk. It's just a note on a car, not a paid advertisement in the Sunday New York Times.
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Psalm 109.
[Sighs] yeah, yeah. Like I wanted the reminder that I have to pray for that creature. And not THIS way, tempting as it is.
One problem with America, as with England (I suspect, never been there but I read a lot,) is that the economy is unevenly distributed, which means that individual communities in America have wildly different experiences of "the economy."
When the local economy has been circling the drain, it's an especially galling experience to have people telling you "Hey! The economy is improving! Cheer up and vote for the political party that you've spent your life resenting!" It sounds like insanity.
Note, I'm miles past having sympathy with these folks, and my empathy is wearing super thin. But I do understand, as an American, where some of these wild differences of opinion come from.
Some folks are shortsighted and selfish, but I don't think I'm willing to say that's the same thing as stupid. And it's fucking stupid to refuse to consider the position of your political opponents if politics is "war by another means," which it is. I got kids at stake. I don't take this frivolously. Kindly fuck off if you do.
[editing to take this back to the topic]
And yeah, Ill Douche is likely to fuck them over along with the rest of us, but "being fucked over" is kinda what they expect from life. So they won't be disappointed, I expect. It's a grim place.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon wrote in a statement. “Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin. We will not yield on this commitment.”
Better boost the DEI staff in organisations then, because currently under-resourced DEI staff help significantly to make sure appointments (whether employment, promotion or studentships) are based on merit rather than prejudice relating to race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. Better resourced DEI will help end those prejudices.
So a press representative of Trump was asked about the French politician who is asking for the Statue of Liberty back. Her answer was that the low level politician should remember that if it wasn’t for US soldiers the he would be speaking German. On top this being an insult it seems the rest of the allied forces and the French resistance don’t count.
Since the judgment that a sitting President can not be charged with while they are President (for federal things) does that mean that Trump can do what he is doing and ignore the Courts? He has deported some people, as far as this Brit knows he can’t do. Legal Eagle highlighted a case of a green card holder married to an American being arrested because he vocally supported Palestine and has been moved around the country, away from his pregnant wife to avoid him having his day in court. It does seem Trump can do what he wants.
Not only does it seem (to this Brit) that Trump can do whatever he pleases, but also that this immunity will apply to any successor, be they Vance, another Republican, or a Democrat.
I appreciate (and hope!) that I may be mistaken in my surmise.
Not only does it seem (to this Brit) that Trump can do whatever he pleases, but also that this immunity will apply to any successor, be they Vance, another Republican, or a Democrat.
I appreciate (and hope!) that I may be mistaken in my surmise.
I assume the only way out of that eventuality is to get a constitutional amendment saying the president is not exempt from the law.
Not only does it seem (to this Brit) that Trump can do whatever he pleases, but also that this immunity will apply to any successor, be they Vance, another Republican, or a Democrat.
I appreciate (and hope!) that I may be mistaken in my surmise.
There's a fairly good chance, with the current SCOTUS, that im(p/m)unity will only apply to Republican presidents.
Not only does it seem (to this Brit) that Trump can do whatever he pleases, but also that this immunity will apply to any successor, be they Vance, another Republican, or a Democrat.
I appreciate (and hope!) that I may be mistaken in my surmise.
I assume the only way out of that eventuality is to get a constitutional amendment saying the president is not exempt from the law.
Not only does it seem (to this Brit) that Trump can do whatever he pleases, but also that this immunity will apply to any successor, be they Vance, another Republican, or a Democrat.
I appreciate (and hope!) that I may be mistaken in my surmise.
There's a fairly good chance, with the current SCOTUS, that im(p/m)unity will only apply to Republican presidents.
There is no point in having a constitutional amendement if the political establishment is not prepared to uphold the Constitution, or only do so in a hyper-partisan way. "Culture eats policy for breakfast" as they say...
There is no point in having a constitutional amendement if the political establishment is not prepared to uphold the Constitution, or only do so in a hyper-partisan way. "Culture eats policy for breakfast" as they say...
Too bad we don't have a parliamentary system where it would only take one vote--okay,, maybe a few more--to cause the complete collapse of the government. But even then, it often takes the majority coalition to get to the point where they say enough is enough. Here, we may just have to wait two years at least, but eventually four years to try again.
There is no point in having a constitutional amendement if the political establishment is not prepared to uphold the Constitution, or only do so in a hyper-partisan way. "Culture eats policy for breakfast" as they say...
Too bad we don't have a parliamentary system where it would only take one vote--okay,, maybe a few more--to cause the complete collapse of the government. But even then, it often takes the majority coalition to get to the point where they say enough is enough. Here, we may just have to wait two years at least, but eventually four years to try again.
Again, I'm not sure it ultimately matters what sort of system there is. The people involved have to be committed to the system and the rule of law in order for it to work. Any system can slide into autocracy if those driving it don't have the will to prevent this.
And - sorry for the double post - this is why the current Republican party carries so much blame. They know what Trump is like and many of them were prepared to say so when he wasn't yet the Republican nominee in 2016. They should have left the party rather than fall into line under Trump.
There is no point in having a constitutional amendement if the political establishment is not prepared to uphold the Constitution, or only do so in a hyper-partisan way. "Culture eats policy for breakfast" as they say...
Too bad we don't have a parliamentary system where it would only take one vote--okay,, maybe a few more--to cause the complete collapse of the government. But even then, it often takes the majority coalition to get to the point where they say enough is enough. Here, we may just have to wait two years at least, but eventually four years to try again.
Again, I'm not sure it ultimately matters what sort of system there is. The people involved have to be committed to the system and the rule of law in order for it to work. Any system can slide into autocracy if those driving it don't have the will to prevent this.
Yes. The USA, France, and South Korea all use the montesquian system, but have very different political cultures.
Here, we may just have to wait two years at least, but eventually four years to try again.
You're so sure US elections will be free and fair in 2026 and 2028.
Can't speak to other states, but I am pretty sure my state will be as close to free and fair as it can be. Nevertheless, it is what we have. It has happened even through Republicans have tried to stifle votes in some states, the voice of the people is heard. Consider how the vote in Georgia has changed. Texas is changing in spite of the restrictions Republicans have put in place.
Little factoid: about 23% of voters in congressional districts are on social security. These people vote. If the Republicans allow Trump to change the Social Security System, they will suffer the consequences. The senior population often speaks louder in the mid term elections.
Since the judgment that a sitting President can not be charged with while they are President (for federal things) does that mean that Trump can do what he is doing and ignore the Courts? He has deported some people, as far as this Brit knows he can’t do. Legal Eagle highlighted a case of a green card holder married to an American being arrested because he vocally supported Palestine and has been moved around the country, away from his pregnant wife to avoid him having his day in court. It does seem Trump can do what he wants.
You’re confusing two things. The SCOTUS holding was that a sitting or former president cannot be charged with violating federal criminal law.
That doesn’t mean a president cannot do what he wants without regard to the courts—at least not in theory. (What actually happens may, of course, be different.)
And there is, of course, the (likely apocryphal) line attributed to Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
It’s important to remember that in all of the lawsuits challenging what the administration is doing, the main defendants are typically are typically lower-ranking officials who are actually implementing the directives—secretaries, assistant secretaries, program heads, etc. Those people can be held be held in contempt for not abiding by court orders.
And the very clear bias of the current SCOTUS notwithstanding, I wouldn’t bet on that bias winning out in a power battle between the executive and the judiciary. I think the Chief Justice’s recent comment on threats of impeachment may be worth noting.
Since the judgment that a sitting President can not be charged with while they are President (for federal things) does that mean that Trump can do what he is doing and ignore the Courts? He has deported some people, as far as this Brit knows he can’t do. Legal Eagle highlighted a case of a green card holder married to an American being arrested because he vocally supported Palestine and has been moved around the country, away from his pregnant wife to avoid him having his day in court. It does seem Trump can do what he wants.
You’re confusing two things. The SCOTUS holding was that a sitting or former president cannot be charged with violating federal criminal law.
That doesn’t mean a president cannot do what he wants without regard to the courts—at least not in theory. (What actually happens may, of course, be different.)
And there is, of course, the (likely apocryphal) line attributed to Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
It’s important to remember that in all of the lawsuits challenging what the administration is doing, the main defendants are typically are typically lower-ranking officials who are actually implementing the directives—secretaries, assistant secretaries, program heads, etc. Those people can be held be held in contempt for not abiding by court orders.
And the very clear bias of the current SCOTUS notwithstanding, I wouldn’t bet on that bias winning out in a power battle between the executive and the judiciary. I think the Chief Justice’s recent comment on threats of impeachment may be worth noting.
Thanks. So as said Trump is just ignoring the courts. Does hat not equal contempt?
I am pretty sure my state will be as close to free and fair as it can be.
Blue states can have electoral machinery (both literal and legal) that is free and fair, and the elections can still be fucked up. Free link to NY Times piece on Republican efforts to undermine Democrats' ability to run:
With Orders, Investigations and Innuendo, Trump and G.O.P. Aim to Cripple the Left
The president and his allies in Congress are targeting the financial, digital and legal machinery that powers the Democratic Party and much of the progressive political world.
Executive actions intended to cripple top Democratic law firms. Investigations of Democratic fund-raising and organizing platforms. Ominous suggestions that nonprofits aligned with Democrats or critical of President Trump should have their tax exemptions revoked.
Mr. Trump and his allies are aggressively attacking the players and machinery that power the left, taking a series of highly partisan official actions that, if successful, will threaten to hobble Democrats’ ability to compete in elections for years to come.
It’s important to remember that in all of the lawsuits challenging what the administration is doing, the main defendants are typically are typically lower-ranking officials who are actually implementing the directives—secretaries, assistant secretaries, program heads, etc. Those people can be held be held in contempt for not abiding by court orders.
If the president is immune from criminal law and has the power to pardon anyone acting on his orders who violates federal criminal law on his orders (something Trump has already done multiple times), that seems like the American judiciary has set itself up for irrelevance.
In today's New York Times [ gift link ], Jamelle Bouie argues that the Trump administration is acting not just unconstitutionally but also anti-constitutionally.
But there are other ways to evaluate the actions of a government. You can ask a somewhat different question: not whether an action is constitutional, but whether it sits opposed to constitutionalism itself. You can ask, in other words, whether it is anti-constitutional.
The project of constitutionalism, the historian Henry Steele Commager wrote, is the project of “government under law, by law, through law, in conformity with law.” It is, to borrow from John Locke, “to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it.” And in the American political tradition, it is the central principle that “governments are not omnipotent” but of “only limited authority.”
Part of the conceptual basis of constitutionalism is a division between sovereignty and government. Sovereignty is the possession of supreme authority over the polity, and government is the instrument of that sovereignty. In an absolute monarchy or dictatorship, sovereignty belongs to the man or woman in charge, who commands the state in its entirety. In a constitutional system such as ours, sovereignty belongs to the people, who invest their authority in a set of rules and norms, a constitution, which binds and subordinates the government to their ultimate will.
The Congress may make law, the president of the United States may be head of state and head of government, and the Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution, but as instruments of the people’s sovereignty, each is bound by ordinary statute and higher law.
This brings us back to the notion of anti-constitutionalism.
An anti-constitutional act is one that rejects the basic premises of constitutionalism. It rejects the premise that sovereignty lies with the people, that ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the officers of that government are bound by law.
The new president has, in just the first two months of his second term, performed a number of illegal and unconstitutional acts. But the defining attribute of his administration thus far is its anti-constitutional orientation. Both of its most aggressive and far-reaching efforts — the impoundment of billions of dollars in congressionally authorized spending and the attempt to realize the president’s promise of mass deportation — rest on fundamentally anti-constitutional assertions of executive authority.
It’s important to remember that in all of the lawsuits challenging what the administration is doing, the main defendants are typically are typically lower-ranking officials who are actually implementing the directives—secretaries, assistant secretaries, program heads, etc. Those people can be held be held in contempt for not abiding by court orders.
If the president is immune from criminal law and has the power to pardon anyone acting on his orders who violates federal criminal law on his orders (something Trump has already done multiple times), that seems like the American judiciary has set itself up for irrelevance.
It may well have, though at least theoretically, civil contempt is still available. For now.
It’s important to remember that in all of the lawsuits challenging what the administration is doing, the main defendants are typically are typically lower-ranking officials who are actually implementing the directives—secretaries, assistant secretaries, program heads, etc. Those people can be held be held in contempt for not abiding by court orders.
If the president is immune from criminal law and has the power to pardon anyone acting on his orders who violates federal criminal law on his orders (something Trump has already done multiple times), that seems like the American judiciary has set itself up for irrelevance.
It may well have, though at least theoretically, civil contempt is still available. For now.
Thus far judges have been pretty lenient (to my eyes) with some of the obvious rat-fuckery engaged in by Trump regime lawyers. What's your read: has the behaviour not reached the level of contempt yet or are judges just being extra cautious given the political climate and trying to be as sure as they can be that whatever they do is going to stand on appeal and be (possibly literally) unimpeachable?
It’s important to remember that in all of the lawsuits challenging what the administration is doing, the main defendants are typically are typically lower-ranking officials who are actually implementing the directives—secretaries, assistant secretaries, program heads, etc. Those people can be held be held in contempt for not abiding by court orders.
If the president is immune from criminal law and has the power to pardon anyone acting on his orders who violates federal criminal law on his orders (something Trump has already done multiple times), that seems like the American judiciary has set itself up for irrelevance.
It may well have, though at least theoretically, civil contempt is still available. For now.
Thus far judges have been pretty lenient (to my eyes) with some of the obvious rat-fuckery engaged in by Trump regime lawyers. What's your read: has the behaviour not reached the level of contempt yet or are judges just being extra cautious given the political climate and trying to be as sure as they can be that whatever they do is going to stand on appeal and be (possibly literally) unimpeachable?
More the latter, I think, coupled with a traditional reluctance to hold government officials in contempt.
Comments
I am genuinely puzzled. Is that allowed?
Democracy, eh? The least worst system, apparently.
Is what allowed ?
Being genuinely puzzled rather than "acting as though our American shipmates etc"
You read SoF regularly - are you seriously telling me that, for example, you haven’t realised @Nick Tamen and @Ruth know this ? Or you don’t realise they are American ?
What's that got to do with you stupidly implying Americans all know or don't know the same things?
How many Brits understood the impact Brexit would have on them? Not enough.
On the previous page I was the first person to answer your question, and I did so under the the impression that it meant something like "What percentage of Americans don't know that they will be the ones paying the tariffs?"
Note that my interpretation doesn't posit an either/or, where it's either 100% of Americans are stupid or 0% are, and asks a question that could logically be asked about ANY economic misperception in any country, eg. "What percentage of Brits really thought all that money was going to Europe instead of to the NHS?"
Personally, I always find it helpful to phrase things that way.
Not sure if that makes any sense, since Musk doesn't lose any money if an already-bought car gets re-sold. Plus, since the new owner is likely to continue driving the car around, the visibility of Tesla is not reduced.
I think the logic is something like people selling Teslas, and not wanting to buy Teslas, will suppress the second hand value of a Tesla, and so make buying a new Tesla look like a worse proposition. They're trying to create an environment in which nobody wants to own a Tesla.
So, you mean, I won't buy a new Tesla, because I'll know that its value will be peanuts if and when I decide to re-sell.
Okay, so if I see a note on my Tesla saying "Sell your car", that gives ME the message that someone doesn't like Tesla. But if I sell it, there's no further augmentation of the message, because the new owner will still drive it around anyway.
Well, sure. The world is not full of people who can afford to buy swasticars and then hide them away somewhere, so the number of used Teslas on the roads isn't going to decrease significantly. But encouraging people to sell their Teslas where they can, and not buy a Tesla (new or used) where they can generates an environment where "nobody" wants a Tesla. And if that means that used Teslas are driven by people who can't afford anything less Nazi, that accomplishes the goal of the Tesla boycott.
Yes, a silly question ... well, not so much a question, more an exclamation that was badly phrased. Sorry if offence was caused, it wasn't intended.
When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Psalm 109.
[Sighs] yeah, yeah. Like I wanted the reminder that I have to pray for that creature. And not THIS way, tempting as it is.
Grump grump grump grump grump.
When the local economy has been circling the drain, it's an especially galling experience to have people telling you "Hey! The economy is improving! Cheer up and vote for the political party that you've spent your life resenting!" It sounds like insanity.
This is an older song. The songwriter - Jason Isbell - is a firebreathing leftist from Alabama, but he gets it. And I do suspect there are analogous parts of the UK. "Rust belt" isn't a pretty expression. Success means getting the hell out of dodge, and so the folks who are left behind are...welp, "sucks to be you" is the expected attitude.
Note, I'm miles past having sympathy with these folks, and my empathy is wearing super thin. But I do understand, as an American, where some of these wild differences of opinion come from.
Some folks are shortsighted and selfish, but I don't think I'm willing to say that's the same thing as stupid. And it's fucking stupid to refuse to consider the position of your political opponents if politics is "war by another means," which it is. I got kids at stake. I don't take this frivolously. Kindly fuck off if you do.
[editing to take this back to the topic]
And yeah, Ill Douche is likely to fuck them over along with the rest of us, but "being fucked over" is kinda what they expect from life. So they won't be disappointed, I expect. It's a grim place.
If only... They would all be as skinny as rakes.
That was fast.
I appreciate (and hope!) that I may be mistaken in my surmise.
I assume the only way out of that eventuality is to get a constitutional amendment saying the president is not exempt from the law.
There's a fairly good chance, with the current SCOTUS, that im(p/m)unity will only apply to Republican presidents.
Points taken - thank you, both.
Too bad we don't have a parliamentary system where it would only take one vote--okay,, maybe a few more--to cause the complete collapse of the government. But even then, it often takes the majority coalition to get to the point where they say enough is enough. Here, we may just have to wait two years at least, but eventually four years to try again.
Again, I'm not sure it ultimately matters what sort of system there is. The people involved have to be committed to the system and the rule of law in order for it to work. Any system can slide into autocracy if those driving it don't have the will to prevent this.
Yes. The USA, France, and South Korea all use the montesquian system, but have very different political cultures.
You're so sure US elections will be free and fair in 2026 and 2028.
Can't speak to other states, but I am pretty sure my state will be as close to free and fair as it can be. Nevertheless, it is what we have. It has happened even through Republicans have tried to stifle votes in some states, the voice of the people is heard. Consider how the vote in Georgia has changed. Texas is changing in spite of the restrictions Republicans have put in place.
Little factoid: about 23% of voters in congressional districts are on social security. These people vote. If the Republicans allow Trump to change the Social Security System, they will suffer the consequences. The senior population often speaks louder in the mid term elections.
That doesn’t mean a president cannot do what he wants without regard to the courts—at least not in theory. (What actually happens may, of course, be different.)
And there is, of course, the (likely apocryphal) line attributed to Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
It’s important to remember that in all of the lawsuits challenging what the administration is doing, the main defendants are typically are typically lower-ranking officials who are actually implementing the directives—secretaries, assistant secretaries, program heads, etc. Those people can be held be held in contempt for not abiding by court orders.
And the very clear bias of the current SCOTUS notwithstanding, I wouldn’t bet on that bias winning out in a power battle between the executive and the judiciary. I think the Chief Justice’s recent comment on threats of impeachment may be worth noting.
Thanks. So as said Trump is just ignoring the courts. Does hat not equal contempt?
Blue states can have electoral machinery (both literal and legal) that is free and fair, and the elections can still be fucked up. Free link to NY Times piece on Republican efforts to undermine Democrats' ability to run:
If the president is immune from criminal law and has the power to pardon anyone acting on his orders who violates federal criminal law on his orders (something Trump has already done multiple times), that seems like the American judiciary has set itself up for irrelevance.
In today's New York Times [ gift link ], Jamelle Bouie argues that the Trump administration is acting not just unconstitutionally but also anti-constitutionally.
It goes on from there and is well worth the read.
Thus far judges have been pretty lenient (to my eyes) with some of the obvious rat-fuckery engaged in by Trump regime lawyers. What's your read: has the behaviour not reached the level of contempt yet or are judges just being extra cautious given the political climate and trying to be as sure as they can be that whatever they do is going to stand on appeal and be (possibly literally) unimpeachable?
Thanks for that @Doublethink. It was one of the most clearly explained, and terrifying things I have listened to or read in my life.
You said:
Can you cite a source for that quote? To my knowledge, Andrew Jackson never said them.