12 ms·

How is the entire country just passively accepting this... This the most tepid, pathetic generation there has ever been.

by fleek 2y ago

Trasmatta 2y ago
What do you expect the average person to do about it? Protests are happening on a weekly basis. What are YOU doing about it? It's easy to accuse others of being "tepid and pathetic" from the comfort of your own home.
- MegaButts 2y ago
  The current protests are tame and quite frankly pathetic. If your protests aren't strong enough that the government fears you, there's no reason to believe an apathetic government will even acknowledge you. Until the citizens of the US are willing to shut things down, expect nothing to change. Look to other countries for examples of effective protest and understand that effective protest requires sacrifice, not just an afternoon walking around with a sign.
  - Trasmatta 2y ago
    I see a lot of comments like this from people not even willing to take the step of going to a protest in the first place. Expecting someone else to generate the critical mass needed to effect the change you're talking about, without lifting a finger themselves. The people "spending an afternoon walking around with a sign" are doing a lot more than the people shitting on them for it. Mass movements have to start somewhere, they don't come out of thin air. Why not criticize all the people sitting at home, rather than calling the ones actually trying "pathetic"?
    - MegaButts 2y ago
      > Why not criticize all the people sitting at home, rather than calling the ones actually trying "pathetic"? This is quite the whataboutism. Just because I criticize the protestors doesn't mean I'm defending people that don't protest. You're right, it's a start. But pragmatically it's still not meaningful. Until the protests are strong enough that the government actually feels fear there is no reason to expect anything to happen. That's just reality.
      - Trasmatta 2y ago
        It's a whole lot more meaningful than the people who sit at home waiting for someone else to do something. Again, movements always start somewhere.
        MegaButts 2y ago
        If the protest is ineffective then the protest is ineffective. I don't care how hard you tried, I care how effective you were. Pragmatically, if the protest doesn't change anything, it's not any better than sitting at home. If that protest leads to bigger protests that ultimately change something, then that matters. Yes, everything has to start somewhere. But that doesn't mean every start is meaningful if it goes nowhere.
        voidhorse 2y ago
        Huh? I think you've reached a reduction ad absurdium that would suggest quietism as the best policy, you claim: protests aren't meaningful unless they get results but protests also have to start somewhere but these starts have no results so better not to start Do you really expect a singular protest which will change the world order over night? It might give us some personal satisfaction to claim others are ineffective and weak, but in the annals of history, that amounts to even less than a sign bearing march. If you really want to make an impact put forward some positive prescriptions, like the strikes you mentioned, I agree that actual strikes would be a good step. I hope you are actively sharing these recommendations to people who can organize and not just putting forward diffuse ineffectual critique to strangers on hacker news
        MegaButts 2y ago
        I never said you shouldn't protest. I said the current protests are pathetic.
        voidhorse 2y ago
        Fair enough. I will say that you do not need to explicitly say something for your line of argumentation to imply it as a logical consequence. I would stress that such a judgement (that the effort is pathetic) is not constructive. What we need right now are concrete, constructive, positive suggestions on how to make these efforts more effective. Value judgements like this, as much as they might make us feel better by giving us a claim to superiority, accomplish nothing.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      For protests to have any bite they must be coordinated, focused and persistent. While neither the countries largest unions, nor the opposition is calling for any direct action (be they demonstrations, boycotts, or general strikes) it is unlikely that they will be any of the three. Now protests can be demonstrative and the more you protest the likelier you are at protesting again, and if the climate is right some organizations might join and call for others to participate. But what usually happens though is police violence suppressing them as soon as they look like they are gaining any steam (see e.g. Occupy Wall Street or BLM). That said, as long as the opposition and the large unions are lame, any direct action will remain pretty restricted.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    The government isn't going to fear anything that's a protest unless it affects their reelection. It would be helpful if you give examples of the other protests you reference, as I think you might be lacking verbosity and other words may be more accurate to use.
    - jrs235 2y ago
      Strike reelection and replace with power.
    - prawn 2y ago
      For that reason, if I was seeking change, I'd go aggressively after any Republican who isn't shutting this sort of thing down. Seek public statements in opposition or link them as complicit. Do it in a way that has a lasting effect. Trump will flame out. Musk's fallback is wealth. But there are others quietly riding on their efforts who will then wash their hands of them when the opportunity arises.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Musk is out there calling Tesla protestors terrorists. If what you're doing is enough to get you labelled a terrorist by the opposition, then you're doing something they fear.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Protests have never caused political change. Not once in history. Protests cannot cause political change. They do a few things, but actually causing change is not one of them. They show how many people support something; they group those people together enabling the spread of ideas; they group those people together enabling the state apparatus to take them all down in one go.
minimaxir 2y ago
Because the checks and balances system of government doesn't work if the people who would enforce said system are also complicit.
- voxadam 2y ago
  Agreed, it seems like we've moved on from comparatively focused examples of regulatory capture to full on governmental capture.
wrs 2y ago
Passively? Actively. A majority of voters handed over all the keys to these guys in full knowledge of the kind of people they are and what they wanted to do.
- deathanatos 2y ago
  > A majority of voters handed over all the keys Due to the weird way our nation works, it was a minority of voters. (A plurality in this case, though our electoral system also doesn't require that.) But yeah, the keys were handed over by the populace as much as was required by how our elections occur. I keep wondering where the line is, for those on the right. It seems like wherever you would draw a line in the sand … we're past that point.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Eligible voters that did not vote due to apathy/laziness/politics are complicit.
    - 998244353 2y ago
      GP's comment was about accepting this actively vs passively, not about being complicit.
  - saturn8601 2y ago
    >I keep wondering where the line is, for those on the right. It seems like wherever you would draw a line in the sand … we're past that point. Been thinking about this for years. I've come to the conclusion that there might be two seperate groups. 1. People that have nothing left to lose. Their life is ruined due to their community falling on hard times and if they see the people they perceive at fault suffering then they are satisfied. 2. People who love to watch the other side suffer but have themselves not felt enough pain yet. It has to really hurt for them to stop. I think the economy crashing in 08 was a moment where many of them quieted down for a tiny bit until the pain stopped.
    - 2y ago
thegreatpeter 2y ago
Rolling back the last 5 years of spending to save 15% of the federal budget maybe doesn’t require folks to do much about it?
- mikeocool 2y ago
  Since these guys are mostly targeting non-defense discretionary spending, cutting 15% of the federal budget means cutting literally everything. I’d guess lots of people don’t actually want the entire government minus the military, social security, and medicaid eliminated, whether they admit it (or realize it) or not. Like the FDIC is pretty nice. Also non-defense discretionary funding has not actually increased that much in recent years. There was a spike in 2020 due to COVID, but it has returned to pre-covid levels.
  - thegreatpeter 2y ago
    I don't know anything about the FDIC being eliminated. I see a lot of unnecessary overseas spending getting eliminated. I see a ton of real estate getting eliminated. $130B added up real quick and it's only been a month. You can see the "Wall of Receipts" here, which is updated about every 2 weeks (in my personal experience) https://doge.gov/savings https://doge.gov/savings
- brazzy 2y ago
  They're doing no such thing, of course. They're targeting political enemies and anything that hinders their donors/puppet masters from getting richer at the expense of everyone else. The effect on spending will be minimal, and smaller than the (negative) effect on income.
  - justanotheratom 2y ago
    "targeting political enemies and anything that hinders their donors/puppet masters from getting richer at the expense of everyone else" Give some examples. Atleast DOGE is trying to provide data (https://doge.gov/ https://doge.gov/).
techpineapple 2y ago
If it makes you feel any better, the rich are about to get a whole lot richer.
- justanotheratom 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    Did something happen in 2020? Something big??
    - justanotheratom 2y ago
      in 2020, yes something bad happened, which negatively affected Trump's numbers. Read the report in the link.
      - kristjansson 2y ago
        yes effects of big exogenous shocks are famously limited to exactly presidential term boundaries.
        justanotheratom 2y ago
        effects of excuses are thankfully limited to presidential term.
  - techpineapple 2y ago
    Woah, great gotcha! Did you really come to Hacker News to denegarte people you thought didn’t have a basic understanding of Economics? Right now I have a problem with both. Maybe deregulating the SEC helps poor people? I don’t hear anyone making that argument right now though.
    - 2y ago
linguae 2y ago
Honestly, our legal remedies are quite limited: 1. All three branches of government are controlled by the MAGA Party. I call it the MAGA Party, not the Republican Party, since the Republican Party has long been purged of serious Never Trumper opposition. 2. There are not enough Democrats in Congress to impeach and convict Trump of any unconstitutional acts. 3. There is no mechanism available to recall congresspeople or to trigger a special election, and the next election of congresspeople isn’t until November 2026, a year and a half away. 4. I live in a blue state (California) with blue representatives (San Francisco Bay Area) at the federal level. What good would it do me to write senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla or congressman Mark DeSaulnier? 5. The people who have the most power to change things are people who have red representatives, since they have the 2026 midterm elections to worry about. However, many of the people living in such districts voted for Trump and are largely on board with the MAGA agenda. Why would they write their representatives? 6. We could protest through demonstrations and boycotts, but the protests need to be effective in order for them to not simply be demonstrative. Moreover, protests run the risk of getting hijacked by extremists and saboteurs, and authoritarians love exploiting crises to crack down on dissent. Protesting could be a potential trap. It’s a very bleak situation right now due to MAGA’s control over all three branches of government. The best we could hope for is: 1. Start planning for the 2026 elections NOW! Elections cost a lot of money and require a lot of planning. If MAGA loses control of Congress in January 2027, this could add a much-needed check to MAGA and could help with the 2028 election season. 2. With the way Trump, Elon, and others in power are carrying on, eventually segments of the MAGA voter base will be harmed by MAGA policies. I particularly see Trump’s tariffs to be quite painful. If enough Republican voters start openly expressing their discontent for MAGA policies, then this is a chance for MAGA to lose absolute control of power in January 2027.
- sitkack 2y ago
  Chuck "Vichy Democrat" Schumer really removed the only lever that the opposition party had, at all. https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jatnk4/chuck_schumers_betrayal_a_slap_in_the_face_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jatnk4/chuck_schume... https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5327600/house-democrats-outrage-spending https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5327600/house-democrats... This is the worse thing to happen to the US since Trump got back into office.
justanotheratom 2y ago
Well, that is your opinion. I am quite happy with what is going on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQNwJ4H_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQNwJ4H_w
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  Unless sarcasm, I don't envy you your learning journey over the next few years. Best of luck, and allow yourself to be forgiving of your past self.
  - justanotheratom 2y ago
    Hope you have the honesty to do the same.
    - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
      I will be very surprised, but if the Trump / Elon administration results in a better state of affairs for the world as a whole, then I will be eating a LOT of my own words, and I'll do it happily because "a better state of affairs for the world" is the kind of progress I want to see. Totally and absolutely that is the outcome I would prefer. There are just too many data points so far in the wrong direction in such a short amount of time that I can't see even a satisfactory outcome, never mind an outcome better than what existed prior. On the flipside: the co-operation of European countries is a good outcome, and a version of Europe that can defend itself against Russian aggression without any US assistance is a better situation than a worse one. I don't think it's good that NATO is essentially dead, but something better has a chance of rising from those ashes.
      - justanotheratom 2y ago
        "better state of affairs for the world" would be hard to argue one way or the other, so I doubt you will need to eat your words. any significant achievements of the previous administration in bringing about a "better state of affairs for the world"?
BLKNSLVR 2y ago
Not entirely an answer, but the judiciary is being somewhat existentially threatened by the effective. "They" are referring to Tesla vandalism as domestic terrorism (it's criminal vandalism and seriously generous, yes, but if setting a car on fire is domestic terrorism then lots of countries have more terrorists than they thought). "They" are black-bagging students who dare to suggest that maybe Israel shouldn't bomb Gaza so much. "They" refer to any difference of opinion as activism from radical lefty loonies. Fear is being sown in the general populace. But the rowdy Town Halls around the country are great signs of hope and resistance. The tepid ones are the spineless Republican representatives being actively derelict in their duty to their country, still attempting to defend Trump and Elon despite their legitimately worried and angry constituencies.
- Izkata 2y ago
  > "They" are referring to Tesla vandalism as domestic terrorism (it's criminal vandalism and seriously generous, yes, but if setting a car on fire is domestic terrorism then lots of countries have more terrorists than they thought). The intent behind the vandalism is what makes it terrorism instead of just vandalism.
  - Smeevy 2y ago
    What's the intent that makes it terrorism?
    - Izkata 2y ago
      To cause political change by making the population afraid to support one political party.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Smeevy 2y ago
        So,like driving a car into a group of protesters. Got it.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Oh you missed that we hate the SEC lol It is a creature of the New Deal where many of its programs exist on shaky constitutional ground, existing primarily because standing with the courts is difficult to achieve Although the New Deal is heralded in the history books, most programs of the new deal were declared unconstitutional within 10 years, and everything that remains should be heavily scrutinized with that knowledge The SEC stands out like a sore thumb when you really look at it When its not blatantly separating classes, it is the state arm of FINRA and openly captured. Just keep EDGAR for financial reports and thats it. They can’t even explicitly define what insider trading is and isn’t.
sershe 2y ago
Well, I for once dislike what they are doing, but mostly because what they are doing is both ineffective and loud. Instead of carefully, efficiently dismantling the federal regulatory state into nothing, they are not only failing to actually achieve much but giving the whole project a bad name. Which protest do I join? "Handsaws, not chainsaws! But do cut the trunk, and as close to the ground as you can!"

How is the entire country just passively accepting this... This the most tepid, pathetic generation there has ever been.

by fleek 2y ago

How is the entire country just passively accepting this... This the most tepid, pathetic generation there has ever been.

Trasmatta 2y ago

What do you expect the average person to do about it? Protests are happening on a weekly basis. What are YOU doing about it? It's easy to accuse others of being "tepid and pathetic" from the comfort of your own home.

MegaButts 2y ago
The current protests are tame and quite frankly pathetic. If your protests aren't strong enough that the government fears you, there's no reason to believe an apathetic government will even acknowledge you. Until the citizens of the US are willing to shut things down, expect nothing to change. Look to other countries for examples of effective protest and understand that effective protest requires sacrifice, not just an afternoon walking around with a sign.
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  I see a lot of comments like this from people not even willing to take the step of going to a protest in the first place. Expecting someone else to generate the critical mass needed to effect the change you're talking about, without lifting a finger themselves. The people "spending an afternoon walking around with a sign" are doing a lot more than the people shitting on them for it. Mass movements have to start somewhere, they don't come out of thin air. Why not criticize all the people sitting at home, rather than calling the ones actually trying "pathetic"?
  - MegaButts 2y ago
    > Why not criticize all the people sitting at home, rather than calling the ones actually trying "pathetic"? This is quite the whataboutism. Just because I criticize the protestors doesn't mean I'm defending people that don't protest. You're right, it's a start. But pragmatically it's still not meaningful. Until the protests are strong enough that the government actually feels fear there is no reason to expect anything to happen. That's just reality.
    - Trasmatta 2y ago
      It's a whole lot more meaningful than the people who sit at home waiting for someone else to do something. Again, movements always start somewhere.
      - MegaButts 2y ago
        If the protest is ineffective then the protest is ineffective. I don't care how hard you tried, I care how effective you were. Pragmatically, if the protest doesn't change anything, it's not any better than sitting at home. If that protest leads to bigger protests that ultimately change something, then that matters. Yes, everything has to start somewhere. But that doesn't mean every start is meaningful if it goes nowhere.
        voidhorse 2y ago
        Huh? I think you've reached a reduction ad absurdium that would suggest quietism as the best policy, you claim: protests aren't meaningful unless they get results but protests also have to start somewhere but these starts have no results so better not to start Do you really expect a singular protest which will change the world order over night? It might give us some personal satisfaction to claim others are ineffective and weak, but in the annals of history, that amounts to even less than a sign bearing march. If you really want to make an impact put forward some positive prescriptions, like the strikes you mentioned, I agree that actual strikes would be a good step. I hope you are actively sharing these recommendations to people who can organize and not just putting forward diffuse ineffectual critique to strangers on hacker news
        MegaButts 2y ago
        I never said you shouldn't protest. I said the current protests are pathetic.
        voidhorse 2y ago
        Fair enough. I will say that you do not need to explicitly say something for your line of argumentation to imply it as a logical consequence. I would stress that such a judgement (that the effort is pathetic) is not constructive. What we need right now are concrete, constructive, positive suggestions on how to make these efforts more effective. Value judgements like this, as much as they might make us feel better by giving us a claim to superiority, accomplish nothing.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    For protests to have any bite they must be coordinated, focused and persistent. While neither the countries largest unions, nor the opposition is calling for any direct action (be they demonstrations, boycotts, or general strikes) it is unlikely that they will be any of the three. Now protests can be demonstrative and the more you protest the likelier you are at protesting again, and if the climate is right some organizations might join and call for others to participate. But what usually happens though is police violence suppressing them as soon as they look like they are gaining any steam (see e.g. Occupy Wall Street or BLM). That said, as long as the opposition and the large unions are lame, any direct action will remain pretty restricted.
- giantg2 2y ago
  The government isn't going to fear anything that's a protest unless it affects their reelection. It would be helpful if you give examples of the other protests you reference, as I think you might be lacking verbosity and other words may be more accurate to use.
  - jrs235 2y ago
    Strike reelection and replace with power.
  - prawn 2y ago
    For that reason, if I was seeking change, I'd go aggressively after any Republican who isn't shutting this sort of thing down. Seek public statements in opposition or link them as complicit. Do it in a way that has a lasting effect. Trump will flame out. Musk's fallback is wealth. But there are others quietly riding on their efforts who will then wash their hands of them when the opportunity arises.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  Musk is out there calling Tesla protestors terrorists. If what you're doing is enough to get you labelled a terrorist by the opposition, then you're doing something they fear.
- immibis 2y ago
  Protests have never caused political change. Not once in history. Protests cannot cause political change. They do a few things, but actually causing change is not one of them. They show how many people support something; they group those people together enabling the spread of ideas; they group those people together enabling the state apparatus to take them all down in one go.

minimaxir 2y ago

Because the checks and balances system of government doesn't work if the people who would enforce said system are also complicit.

voxadam 2y ago
Agreed, it seems like we've moved on from comparatively focused examples of regulatory capture to full on governmental capture.

wrs 2y ago

Passively? Actively. A majority of voters handed over all the keys to these guys in full knowledge of the kind of people they are and what they wanted to do.

deathanatos 2y ago
> A majority of voters handed over all the keys Due to the weird way our nation works, it was a minority of voters. (A plurality in this case, though our electoral system also doesn't require that.) But yeah, the keys were handed over by the populace as much as was required by how our elections occur. I keep wondering where the line is, for those on the right. It seems like wherever you would draw a line in the sand … we're past that point.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Eligible voters that did not vote due to apathy/laziness/politics are complicit.
  - 998244353 2y ago
    GP's comment was about accepting this actively vs passively, not about being complicit.
- saturn8601 2y ago
  >I keep wondering where the line is, for those on the right. It seems like wherever you would draw a line in the sand … we're past that point. Been thinking about this for years. I've come to the conclusion that there might be two seperate groups. 1. People that have nothing left to lose. Their life is ruined due to their community falling on hard times and if they see the people they perceive at fault suffering then they are satisfied. 2. People who love to watch the other side suffer but have themselves not felt enough pain yet. It has to really hurt for them to stop. I think the economy crashing in 08 was a moment where many of them quieted down for a tiny bit until the pain stopped.
  - 2y ago

thegreatpeter 2y ago

Rolling back the last 5 years of spending to save 15% of the federal budget maybe doesn’t require folks to do much about it?

mikeocool 2y ago
Since these guys are mostly targeting non-defense discretionary spending, cutting 15% of the federal budget means cutting literally everything. I’d guess lots of people don’t actually want the entire government minus the military, social security, and medicaid eliminated, whether they admit it (or realize it) or not. Like the FDIC is pretty nice. Also non-defense discretionary funding has not actually increased that much in recent years. There was a spike in 2020 due to COVID, but it has returned to pre-covid levels.
- thegreatpeter 2y ago
  I don't know anything about the FDIC being eliminated. I see a lot of unnecessary overseas spending getting eliminated. I see a ton of real estate getting eliminated. $130B added up real quick and it's only been a month. You can see the "Wall of Receipts" here, which is updated about every 2 weeks (in my personal experience) https://doge.gov/savings https://doge.gov/savings
brazzy 2y ago
They're doing no such thing, of course. They're targeting political enemies and anything that hinders their donors/puppet masters from getting richer at the expense of everyone else. The effect on spending will be minimal, and smaller than the (negative) effect on income.
- justanotheratom 2y ago
  "targeting political enemies and anything that hinders their donors/puppet masters from getting richer at the expense of everyone else" Give some examples. Atleast DOGE is trying to provide data (https://doge.gov/ https://doge.gov/).

techpineapple 2y ago

If it makes you feel any better, the rich are about to get a whole lot richer.

justanotheratom 2y ago
[flagged]
- kristjansson 2y ago
  Did something happen in 2020? Something big??
  - justanotheratom 2y ago
    in 2020, yes something bad happened, which negatively affected Trump's numbers. Read the report in the link.
    - kristjansson 2y ago
      yes effects of big exogenous shocks are famously limited to exactly presidential term boundaries.
      - justanotheratom 2y ago
        effects of excuses are thankfully limited to presidential term.
- techpineapple 2y ago
  Woah, great gotcha! Did you really come to Hacker News to denegarte people you thought didn’t have a basic understanding of Economics? Right now I have a problem with both. Maybe deregulating the SEC helps poor people? I don’t hear anyone making that argument right now though.
  - 2y ago

linguae 2y ago

Honestly, our legal remedies are quite limited: 1. All three branches of government are controlled by the MAGA Party. I call it the MAGA Party, not the Republican Party, since the Republican Party has long been purged of serious Never Trumper opposition. 2. There are not enough Democrats in Congress to impeach and convict Trump of any unconstitutional acts. 3. There is no mechanism available to recall congresspeople or to trigger a special election, and the next election of congresspeople isn’t until November 2026, a year and a half away. 4. I live in a blue state (California) with blue representatives (San Francisco Bay Area) at the federal level. What good would it do me to write senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla or congressman Mark DeSaulnier? 5. The people who have the most power to change things are people who have red representatives, since they have the 2026 midterm elections to worry about. However, many of the people living in such districts voted for Trump and are largely on board with the MAGA agenda. Why would they write their representatives? 6. We could protest through demonstrations and boycotts, but the protests need to be effective in order for them to not simply be demonstrative. Moreover, protests run the risk of getting hijacked by extremists and saboteurs, and authoritarians love exploiting crises to crack down on dissent. Protesting could be a potential trap. It’s a very bleak situation right now due to MAGA’s control over all three branches of government. The best we could hope for is: 1. Start planning for the 2026 elections NOW! Elections cost a lot of money and require a lot of planning. If MAGA loses control of Congress in January 2027, this could add a much-needed check to MAGA and could help with the 2028 election season. 2. With the way Trump, Elon, and others in power are carrying on, eventually segments of the MAGA voter base will be harmed by MAGA policies. I particularly see Trump’s tariffs to be quite painful. If enough Republican voters start openly expressing their discontent for MAGA policies, then this is a chance for MAGA to lose absolute control of power in January 2027.

sitkack 2y ago
Chuck "Vichy Democrat" Schumer really removed the only lever that the opposition party had, at all. https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jatnk4/chuck_schumers_betrayal_a_slap_in_the_face_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jatnk4/chuck_schume... https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5327600/house-democrats-outrage-spending https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5327600/house-democrats... This is the worse thing to happen to the US since Trump got back into office.

justanotheratom 2y ago

Well, that is your opinion. I am quite happy with what is going on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQNwJ4H_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQNwJ4H_w

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
Unless sarcasm, I don't envy you your learning journey over the next few years. Best of luck, and allow yourself to be forgiving of your past self.
- justanotheratom 2y ago
  Hope you have the honesty to do the same.
  - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
    I will be very surprised, but if the Trump / Elon administration results in a better state of affairs for the world as a whole, then I will be eating a LOT of my own words, and I'll do it happily because "a better state of affairs for the world" is the kind of progress I want to see. Totally and absolutely that is the outcome I would prefer. There are just too many data points so far in the wrong direction in such a short amount of time that I can't see even a satisfactory outcome, never mind an outcome better than what existed prior. On the flipside: the co-operation of European countries is a good outcome, and a version of Europe that can defend itself against Russian aggression without any US assistance is a better situation than a worse one. I don't think it's good that NATO is essentially dead, but something better has a chance of rising from those ashes.
    - justanotheratom 2y ago
      "better state of affairs for the world" would be hard to argue one way or the other, so I doubt you will need to eat your words. any significant achievements of the previous administration in bringing about a "better state of affairs for the world"?

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

Not entirely an answer, but the judiciary is being somewhat existentially threatened by the effective. "They" are referring to Tesla vandalism as domestic terrorism (it's criminal vandalism and seriously generous, yes, but if setting a car on fire is domestic terrorism then lots of countries have more terrorists than they thought). "They" are black-bagging students who dare to suggest that maybe Israel shouldn't bomb Gaza so much. "They" refer to any difference of opinion as activism from radical lefty loonies. Fear is being sown in the general populace. But the rowdy Town Halls around the country are great signs of hope and resistance. The tepid ones are the spineless Republican representatives being actively derelict in their duty to their country, still attempting to defend Trump and Elon despite their legitimately worried and angry constituencies.

Izkata 2y ago
> "They" are referring to Tesla vandalism as domestic terrorism (it's criminal vandalism and seriously generous, yes, but if setting a car on fire is domestic terrorism then lots of countries have more terrorists than they thought). The intent behind the vandalism is what makes it terrorism instead of just vandalism.
- Smeevy 2y ago
  What's the intent that makes it terrorism?
  - Izkata 2y ago
    To cause political change by making the population afraid to support one political party.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Smeevy 2y ago
      So,like driving a car into a group of protesters. Got it.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Oh you missed that we hate the SEC lol It is a creature of the New Deal where many of its programs exist on shaky constitutional ground, existing primarily because standing with the courts is difficult to achieve Although the New Deal is heralded in the history books, most programs of the new deal were declared unconstitutional within 10 years, and everything that remains should be heavily scrutinized with that knowledge The SEC stands out like a sore thumb when you really look at it When its not blatantly separating classes, it is the state arm of FINRA and openly captured. Just keep EDGAR for financial reports and thats it. They can’t even explicitly define what insider trading is and isn’t.

sershe 2y ago

Well, I for once dislike what they are doing, but mostly because what they are doing is both ineffective and loud. Instead of carefully, efficiently dismantling the federal regulatory state into nothing, they are not only failing to actually achieve much but giving the whole project a bad name. Which protest do I join? "Handsaws, not chainsaws! But do cut the trunk, and as close to the ground as you can!"