6 ms·

That is literally not oppositional veto power. You're asking what is currently a one party state to disempower itself or infight. That's absurd. The problem is

That is literally not oppositional veto power. You're asking what is currently a one party state to disempower itself or infight. That's absurd. The problem is unchecked power. You can't expect those in power to check themselves. When there is no forceful resistance at all to obviously insane completely radical policy that experts are "confused" by, we should all be very very worried.

zozbot234 2y ago
The whole point is that the U.S. are far from a one party state right now. We are going to see midterm elections relatively soon, the result of which will most likely dictate the rest of Trump's presidency. If he loses his support in Congress, the potential for further damage will be checked significantly.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  > relatively soon 2026 is a loong way off considering the pace that Trump is setting the place on fire. Yet he still has time to play golf. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-has-another-miracle-golf-victory-at-his-own-course/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-has-another-miracle-golf...
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  We aren't experiencing bad policy, we are experiencing an attack on rule of law, a coup, and "a revolution that will be bloodless if the left allows it to be." Russia has elections too and you should probably think about how they are different and why they are different, and how that relates to rule of law.
  - dangus 2y ago
    The jury is still out on whether what you are saying is hyperbole. We can't assume the worst-case outcome despite the serious danger of that outcome should it occur. We definitely should think about how Russian elections are different and why they're different. For one thing, in the US the executive branch and federal government has very little control over elections by design. The current administration can say whatever it wants about elections, it has no power to stop a disaster for them in 2026 if the pendulum swings enough. It is extremely hard to change the constitution like was done in Turkey or Hungary. It is extremely hard to remove lifetime appointment judges from the opposition administration. Executive orders are easily reversed and laws must be repealed to undo them. If laws were easy to undo the ACA would be gone by now. Just because the current administration is acting like it completed a successful coup doesn't mean that it actually has in reality. Don't take what they say to be truth, because they constantly lie. The would love for the opposition party to think that they have taken over and that there is no hope. All they've done is won one single election by very slim margins and tossed out a bunch of executive orders. The current administration loves tariffs simply because it's the most impactful lever the president can use without congressional approval besides commanding troops. The current administration literally cannot do much else in terms of lasting policy and they are too lazy and incompetent to approach congress with any actual ideas (something that the Obama and Biden administrations excelled at, e.g. the ACA and Bipartisan Infrastructure bill). The US constitutional system has survived authoritarian-minded presidents before. And of course, that's not to say the US system is perfect or even an especially fair and representative system. But it has very strong protections against permanent dictatorship or an outright coup.
    - itsthecourier 2y ago
      great analysis
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      > The jury is still out on whether what you are saying is hyperbole The president of the Heritage Foundation said “we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” https://archive.is/Ku2KG https://archive.is/Ku2KG -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/03/heritage-foundation-trump-revolution/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/03/heritage-... This is a direct quote from a major institution behind the current administration that is well known to be a major force for choosing judicial candidates for the GOP. I understand it feels like hyperbole, but that's not because it's hyperbolic, it's because it's hard to accept. Accepting it would cause a lot of grief and grief is disabling. Accepting it creates a sense of responsibility or a sense of helplessness, neither of which feel good. Accepting it means that we aren't just in a bad situation, we are in a literal emergency. It means action is necessary now. A secretary of defense and a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff have said he is a threat to the constitution and the country: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/milley-farewell-speech-trump-dictator-00119130 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/milley-farewell-spe... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-m... 4 prominent republicans have Sieg Heiled including musk and bannon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E9pXCuJnbc&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E9pXCuJnbc&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw&t=18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw&t=18s Here's the head of the OMB saying he wants to put government workers in trauma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBH9TmeJN_M&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBH9TmeJN_M&t=6s https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-vought-center-renewing-america-maga https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-v... These are primary sources... This isn't hyperbole. > We can't assume the worst-case outcome despite the serious danger of that outcome should it occur. We don't have to assume the scenario to ask if it is possible. What prevents that scenario? That is the real problem. Without rule of law, there is nothing that stops it. The problem isn't that one particular story will come true, it's that there is nothing preventing any of the atrocities we have seen authoritarian regimes commit from happening because there is no red line, and no un-corrupted enforcement authority, and there is no substantive resistance. Nobody is even treating the end of rule of law as the emergency it is because it's not observable until the lack of law is abused, for example to send people to El Salvador without due process. Without due process, it could be you going to El Salvador. There have been no consequences for this. This is an emergency. We can't know for sure, but if the atrocities do start, this will have been the proof of concept. > It is extremely hard to change the constitution. I don't know how it was done in Turkey or Hungary, but I strongly disagree that it is hard to change it. It has been ruled that the constitution is not a document to be interpreted by you and me, but by the supreme court authoritatively, and only by his DOJ authoritatively (even against the supreme court) for the executive branch. Law is just paper unless enforced. China called the agreement with the UK "was a historical document that no longer had any practical significance." That type of thing can just be declared when you have the power to do so. Who will stop you? The enforcers on your payroll? If the supreme court rules the text on paper means something different, how is that meaningfully different than changing the words on the paper except in how tortured the justifications are? > It is extremely hard to remove lifetime appointment judges from the opposition administration. I really think you think you are standing on rock, when you are standing on sand. That intellectual sand you are standing on is the assumption of using rule of law to justify why you have rule of law, which is the thing in question. Without rule of law these statements which might have once been true become hurdles not limits. Maybe you can't dismiss a judge, but you can control which cases go to what judges and constructively dismiss them. Your budget of bad behavior is limited only by the consequences you experience... You have to have an answer for who enforces the law as it was understood and with the intent it was written. > Executive orders are easily reversed and laws must be repealed to undo them. Are you seriously asserting that this tariffs and their consequences will easily be undone? I'm not trying to attack, I am just shocked that you would say this. Will trees in national parks get un-chopped down? Will trails rebuild themselves? Will government workers, like those in the USDS, come back? Will oil go back in the ground? Will rivers de-pollute themselves? Will oil execs get less rich? Will government functions be un-privatized? Will mom get her retirement money back? Will those dying people on medicaid get their life or their family's money back? Will children receiving survivors benefits get the childhood years spent more stressed than they needed to be back? I get what you're saying in the literal sense, but I also think it is very wrong to talk about executive orders with this little weight. > Just because the current administration is acting like it completed a successful coup doesn't mean that it actually has in reality. Don't take what they say to be truth, because they constantly lie. The would love for the opposition party to think that they have taken over and that there is no hope. All they've done is won one single election by very slim margins and tossed out a bunch of executive orders. They are literally going through positions of authority and replacing them with loyalists. That is a coup. Here is a historian telling you that not only is it a coup, but if this happened in a foreign country you would recognize it as one: https://archive.is/fNpSS https://archive.is/fNpSS -- https://snyder.substack.com/p/of-course-its-a-coup https://snyder.substack.com/p/of-course-its-a-coup > The current administration loves tariffs simply because it's the most impactful lever the president can use without congressional approval besides commanding troops. The current administration literally cannot do much else in terms of lasting policy and they are too lazy and incompetent to approach congress with any actual ideas (something that the Obama and Biden administrations excelled at, e.g. the ACA and Bipartisan Infrastructure bill). This is ignoring what is happening in the bureaucracy. They tried to just not give states money, which in defense of your previous points, is currently a check on power, but doesn't have to remain so. > The US constitutional system has survived authoritarian-minded presidents before. And of course, that's not to say the US system is perfect or even an especially fair and representative system. But it has very strong protections against permanent dictatorship or an outright coup. Denial happens when the consequences of understanding reality causes negative emotions, so rather than accepting those negative emotions, you reject reality until reality asserts itself in to your life. Timothy Snyder would call what you said the politics of inevitability: Politics of Inevitability, Politics of Eternity (12m) -- Timothy Snyder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eghl19elKk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eghl19elKk8 It is very worth a watch, and it was recorded in 2018. Complacency is a problem. If nobody thinks they have to do something, then nothing gets done, and what we once thought was inevitable, is proven not to be, someone should have acted, but by the time we realize that someone is us, enough power may have been consolidated to make the cost too high.
dangus 2y ago
It is not a "one-party state." It's a two-party state where one party has a temporarry slim majority. The Republican Party cannot pass significantly polarizing legislation since it can't overcome a filibuster. The Republican Party does not have the senatorial votes to impeach and remove any federal judges. On top of that, the US system divides power in a way that gives states and localities a lot of control where the federal government has no say. Almost all police by quantity of officers are operated by local municipalities who don't take orders from the federal government. The fact that cannabis was able to be legalized while being federally illegal shows how that works very well: without state and local police to enforce those laws, there is nobody to arrest you for violating federal law.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  I disagree with the slim majority statement. Maybe on paper that's true, but in terms of wield-able power, I think the budget and the bureaucratic purge proves that we are functioning as a one party state, maybe somewhat reluctantly, but that can clearly be overcome. I think there is fear of causing rebellion, but I don't think there is fear of consequences from the other party. I don't think there is any internal stability to the other party's resistance, nor do they have an ideological foundation on which to stabilize themselves and resist from. I disagree with your point about the filibuster. Talk of filibuster is important because of Mr Smith goes to Washington and its social history. It is symbolic only. As a tool of checking power it has no teeth other than to manage political spectacle and be a talking point in public opinion. I think it's main purpose is to support people's denial about power dynamics. They don't want to look as powerless as they are so they must reference a "weapon" they never intend to use. It is bluster. It is clear democrats are all bark and no bite and using it as a theoretical weapon. If they used it but failed to achieve a meaningful outcome, that would break people's denial and likely be the cause of civil unrest because everyone else will come to the conclusion that the DNC will absolutely not save them and we are on our own to fight or run. Jon Stewart's rebuke of Schumer says everything that needs to be said about that, IMHO. I will give you the senatorial votes for removing judges. That is at least a meaningful check on power. I can't deny that, and it does invalidate my absolutist statement. I would caution that positions of enforcement are being replaced by loyalists, and as that happens congress and the judicial branch will have less and less power. I am also not sold the the judiciary is functioning. The administration is claiming individual judges are trying to stop actions, when those judges are ruling that it is not them but the law that is stopping those actions. The fact that the GOP can get a message about activist judges out, but the DNC can't meaningfully "convince mom and dad," that law is under threat, that means that there is much much more to party power than what is on paper alone. I also accept that state power does invalidate my absolutist statement, to a degree. Universities are cowing to the federal government and states are unable to protect them. Structurally AFAIK, taxes are taken directly from citizens rather than paid by the citizens through the state which means that the states ability to check federal power is structurally quite weak. States also generally do not have strong political power, as in the type that flows from the barrel of a gun, due to unified federal military. Police forces have been a target for right wing infiltration for a long time. That thin blue line flag is nearly synonymous with conservatism and unchecked power, I would almost call it a paramilitary symbol, it clearly represents an insular exclusionary culture and seems to represent an anti-regulation, but pro-power standpoint, that flag represents that police are an "us" in an "us vs them" situation. Time and time again has proven that police's primary purpose is to protect the aristocracy and their assets anyway. I also think there is a meaningful and relevant distinction between non-enforcement of federal law, and enforcement of law, federal or state. Fighting corruption requires active enforcement mechanisms, it's not enough to not enforce. In an extreme case, in the tax example, which represents real actual physical power, if states went to ADP and said you will stop withholding federal income taxes/send federal income tax to the state, you potentially have a police/police or police/military face-off. I agree that it's much more grey here than the black and white I presented, but I think if you modeled us as a one party state, I don't think you'd find yourself having to explain too many actions taken in physical reality that contradict that assessment, although you clearly did label some that were anomalous to that assessment. I think we will see fewer and fewer anomalies as power is consolidated. The only thing that's made me hopeful in terms of checks on the power that is consolidating is Newsom's threat to unilaterally exempt California from the tariffs. That type of action shows a state potentially wielding real dissenting power and does give me some hope.

zozbot234 2y ago

The whole point is that the U.S. are far from a one party state right now. We are going to see midterm elections relatively soon, the result of which will most likely dictate the rest of Trump's presidency. If he loses his support in Congress, the potential for further damage will be checked significantly.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
> relatively soon 2026 is a loong way off considering the pace that Trump is setting the place on fire. Yet he still has time to play golf. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-has-another-miracle-golf-victory-at-his-own-course/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-has-another-miracle-golf...
hayst4ck 2y ago
We aren't experiencing bad policy, we are experiencing an attack on rule of law, a coup, and "a revolution that will be bloodless if the left allows it to be." Russia has elections too and you should probably think about how they are different and why they are different, and how that relates to rule of law.
- dangus 2y ago
  The jury is still out on whether what you are saying is hyperbole. We can't assume the worst-case outcome despite the serious danger of that outcome should it occur. We definitely should think about how Russian elections are different and why they're different. For one thing, in the US the executive branch and federal government has very little control over elections by design. The current administration can say whatever it wants about elections, it has no power to stop a disaster for them in 2026 if the pendulum swings enough. It is extremely hard to change the constitution like was done in Turkey or Hungary. It is extremely hard to remove lifetime appointment judges from the opposition administration. Executive orders are easily reversed and laws must be repealed to undo them. If laws were easy to undo the ACA would be gone by now. Just because the current administration is acting like it completed a successful coup doesn't mean that it actually has in reality. Don't take what they say to be truth, because they constantly lie. The would love for the opposition party to think that they have taken over and that there is no hope. All they've done is won one single election by very slim margins and tossed out a bunch of executive orders. The current administration loves tariffs simply because it's the most impactful lever the president can use without congressional approval besides commanding troops. The current administration literally cannot do much else in terms of lasting policy and they are too lazy and incompetent to approach congress with any actual ideas (something that the Obama and Biden administrations excelled at, e.g. the ACA and Bipartisan Infrastructure bill). The US constitutional system has survived authoritarian-minded presidents before. And of course, that's not to say the US system is perfect or even an especially fair and representative system. But it has very strong protections against permanent dictatorship or an outright coup.
  - itsthecourier 2y ago
    great analysis
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    > The jury is still out on whether what you are saying is hyperbole The president of the Heritage Foundation said “we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” https://archive.is/Ku2KG https://archive.is/Ku2KG -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/03/heritage-foundation-trump-revolution/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/03/heritage-... This is a direct quote from a major institution behind the current administration that is well known to be a major force for choosing judicial candidates for the GOP. I understand it feels like hyperbole, but that's not because it's hyperbolic, it's because it's hard to accept. Accepting it would cause a lot of grief and grief is disabling. Accepting it creates a sense of responsibility or a sense of helplessness, neither of which feel good. Accepting it means that we aren't just in a bad situation, we are in a literal emergency. It means action is necessary now. A secretary of defense and a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff have said he is a threat to the constitution and the country: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/milley-farewell-speech-trump-dictator-00119130 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/milley-farewell-spe... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-m... 4 prominent republicans have Sieg Heiled including musk and bannon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E9pXCuJnbc&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E9pXCuJnbc&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw&t=18s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw&t=18s Here's the head of the OMB saying he wants to put government workers in trauma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBH9TmeJN_M&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBH9TmeJN_M&t=6s https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-vought-center-renewing-america-maga https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-v... These are primary sources... This isn't hyperbole. > We can't assume the worst-case outcome despite the serious danger of that outcome should it occur. We don't have to assume the scenario to ask if it is possible. What prevents that scenario? That is the real problem. Without rule of law, there is nothing that stops it. The problem isn't that one particular story will come true, it's that there is nothing preventing any of the atrocities we have seen authoritarian regimes commit from happening because there is no red line, and no un-corrupted enforcement authority, and there is no substantive resistance. Nobody is even treating the end of rule of law as the emergency it is because it's not observable until the lack of law is abused, for example to send people to El Salvador without due process. Without due process, it could be you going to El Salvador. There have been no consequences for this. This is an emergency. We can't know for sure, but if the atrocities do start, this will have been the proof of concept. > It is extremely hard to change the constitution. I don't know how it was done in Turkey or Hungary, but I strongly disagree that it is hard to change it. It has been ruled that the constitution is not a document to be interpreted by you and me, but by the supreme court authoritatively, and only by his DOJ authoritatively (even against the supreme court) for the executive branch. Law is just paper unless enforced. China called the agreement with the UK "was a historical document that no longer had any practical significance." That type of thing can just be declared when you have the power to do so. Who will stop you? The enforcers on your payroll? If the supreme court rules the text on paper means something different, how is that meaningfully different than changing the words on the paper except in how tortured the justifications are? > It is extremely hard to remove lifetime appointment judges from the opposition administration. I really think you think you are standing on rock, when you are standing on sand. That intellectual sand you are standing on is the assumption of using rule of law to justify why you have rule of law, which is the thing in question. Without rule of law these statements which might have once been true become hurdles not limits. Maybe you can't dismiss a judge, but you can control which cases go to what judges and constructively dismiss them. Your budget of bad behavior is limited only by the consequences you experience... You have to have an answer for who enforces the law as it was understood and with the intent it was written. > Executive orders are easily reversed and laws must be repealed to undo them. Are you seriously asserting that this tariffs and their consequences will easily be undone? I'm not trying to attack, I am just shocked that you would say this. Will trees in national parks get un-chopped down? Will trails rebuild themselves? Will government workers, like those in the USDS, come back? Will oil go back in the ground? Will rivers de-pollute themselves? Will oil execs get less rich? Will government functions be un-privatized? Will mom get her retirement money back? Will those dying people on medicaid get their life or their family's money back? Will children receiving survivors benefits get the childhood years spent more stressed than they needed to be back? I get what you're saying in the literal sense, but I also think it is very wrong to talk about executive orders with this little weight. > Just because the current administration is acting like it completed a successful coup doesn't mean that it actually has in reality. Don't take what they say to be truth, because they constantly lie. The would love for the opposition party to think that they have taken over and that there is no hope. All they've done is won one single election by very slim margins and tossed out a bunch of executive orders. They are literally going through positions of authority and replacing them with loyalists. That is a coup. Here is a historian telling you that not only is it a coup, but if this happened in a foreign country you would recognize it as one: https://archive.is/fNpSS https://archive.is/fNpSS -- https://snyder.substack.com/p/of-course-its-a-coup https://snyder.substack.com/p/of-course-its-a-coup > The current administration loves tariffs simply because it's the most impactful lever the president can use without congressional approval besides commanding troops. The current administration literally cannot do much else in terms of lasting policy and they are too lazy and incompetent to approach congress with any actual ideas (something that the Obama and Biden administrations excelled at, e.g. the ACA and Bipartisan Infrastructure bill). This is ignoring what is happening in the bureaucracy. They tried to just not give states money, which in defense of your previous points, is currently a check on power, but doesn't have to remain so. > The US constitutional system has survived authoritarian-minded presidents before. And of course, that's not to say the US system is perfect or even an especially fair and representative system. But it has very strong protections against permanent dictatorship or an outright coup. Denial happens when the consequences of understanding reality causes negative emotions, so rather than accepting those negative emotions, you reject reality until reality asserts itself in to your life. Timothy Snyder would call what you said the politics of inevitability: Politics of Inevitability, Politics of Eternity (12m) -- Timothy Snyder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eghl19elKk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eghl19elKk8 It is very worth a watch, and it was recorded in 2018. Complacency is a problem. If nobody thinks they have to do something, then nothing gets done, and what we once thought was inevitable, is proven not to be, someone should have acted, but by the time we realize that someone is us, enough power may have been consolidated to make the cost too high.

dangus 2y ago

It is not a "one-party state." It's a two-party state where one party has a temporarry slim majority. The Republican Party cannot pass significantly polarizing legislation since it can't overcome a filibuster. The Republican Party does not have the senatorial votes to impeach and remove any federal judges. On top of that, the US system divides power in a way that gives states and localities a lot of control where the federal government has no say. Almost all police by quantity of officers are operated by local municipalities who don't take orders from the federal government. The fact that cannabis was able to be legalized while being federally illegal shows how that works very well: without state and local police to enforce those laws, there is nobody to arrest you for violating federal law.

hayst4ck 2y ago
I disagree with the slim majority statement. Maybe on paper that's true, but in terms of wield-able power, I think the budget and the bureaucratic purge proves that we are functioning as a one party state, maybe somewhat reluctantly, but that can clearly be overcome. I think there is fear of causing rebellion, but I don't think there is fear of consequences from the other party. I don't think there is any internal stability to the other party's resistance, nor do they have an ideological foundation on which to stabilize themselves and resist from. I disagree with your point about the filibuster. Talk of filibuster is important because of Mr Smith goes to Washington and its social history. It is symbolic only. As a tool of checking power it has no teeth other than to manage political spectacle and be a talking point in public opinion. I think it's main purpose is to support people's denial about power dynamics. They don't want to look as powerless as they are so they must reference a "weapon" they never intend to use. It is bluster. It is clear democrats are all bark and no bite and using it as a theoretical weapon. If they used it but failed to achieve a meaningful outcome, that would break people's denial and likely be the cause of civil unrest because everyone else will come to the conclusion that the DNC will absolutely not save them and we are on our own to fight or run. Jon Stewart's rebuke of Schumer says everything that needs to be said about that, IMHO. I will give you the senatorial votes for removing judges. That is at least a meaningful check on power. I can't deny that, and it does invalidate my absolutist statement. I would caution that positions of enforcement are being replaced by loyalists, and as that happens congress and the judicial branch will have less and less power. I am also not sold the the judiciary is functioning. The administration is claiming individual judges are trying to stop actions, when those judges are ruling that it is not them but the law that is stopping those actions. The fact that the GOP can get a message about activist judges out, but the DNC can't meaningfully "convince mom and dad," that law is under threat, that means that there is much much more to party power than what is on paper alone. I also accept that state power does invalidate my absolutist statement, to a degree. Universities are cowing to the federal government and states are unable to protect them. Structurally AFAIK, taxes are taken directly from citizens rather than paid by the citizens through the state which means that the states ability to check federal power is structurally quite weak. States also generally do not have strong political power, as in the type that flows from the barrel of a gun, due to unified federal military. Police forces have been a target for right wing infiltration for a long time. That thin blue line flag is nearly synonymous with conservatism and unchecked power, I would almost call it a paramilitary symbol, it clearly represents an insular exclusionary culture and seems to represent an anti-regulation, but pro-power standpoint, that flag represents that police are an "us" in an "us vs them" situation. Time and time again has proven that police's primary purpose is to protect the aristocracy and their assets anyway. I also think there is a meaningful and relevant distinction between non-enforcement of federal law, and enforcement of law, federal or state. Fighting corruption requires active enforcement mechanisms, it's not enough to not enforce. In an extreme case, in the tax example, which represents real actual physical power, if states went to ADP and said you will stop withholding federal income taxes/send federal income tax to the state, you potentially have a police/police or police/military face-off. I agree that it's much more grey here than the black and white I presented, but I think if you modeled us as a one party state, I don't think you'd find yourself having to explain too many actions taken in physical reality that contradict that assessment, although you clearly did label some that were anomalous to that assessment. I think we will see fewer and fewer anomalies as power is consolidated. The only thing that's made me hopeful in terms of checks on the power that is consolidating is Newsom's threat to unilaterally exempt California from the tariffs. That type of action shows a state potentially wielding real dissenting power and does give me some hope.