5 ms·
That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.
by baggy_trough 1y ago
That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.
- ceejayoz 1y agoUnless the Feds are planning to regulate - which, for the next few years, seems unlikely - that's functionally the same.
- drewser42 1y agoSo wild. The Republican party has hard-pivoted to a strong, centralized federal government and their base just came along for the ride.
- baggy_trough 1y agoThe strong federal government that bans regulation?
- ceejayoz 1y agoThey're not banning regulation, they want total control over it.
- baggy_trough 1y agoThey in fact are banning regulation at the state and local level.
- ceejayoz 1y agoYes, which is a big fat regulation on what states and local governments can do.
- baggy_trough 1y agoWould removing their regulation to ban regulation be banning regulation or not?
- ipython 1y agoOk. From the party of “states rights” that’s a bit hypocritical of them. I mean- they applauded Dodds which basically did the exact opposite of this- forcing states to regulate abortion rather than a uniform federal standard.
- baggy_trough 1y agoDobbs did not force states to regulate abortion. It allowed them to.
- ceejayoz 1y agoYes, that's the hypocrisy. Abortion: "Let the states regulate! States' rights! Small government! (Because we know we'll get our way in a lot of them.)" AI: "Don't let the states regulate! All hail the Feds! (Because we know we won't get our way if they do.)"
- baggy_trough 1y agoI agree that the policy approach is inconsistent with regards to states' rights. I was simply pointing out that your statement about the effects of Dobbs was false.
- ceejayoz 1y agoNot my statement.
- baggy_trough 1y agoah correct, the statement I was replying to.
- rixed 1y agoI haven't followed those discussions (assuming there have been any kind of public discussions) but I guess the justification behind this is that IA is such a strategic industry for the USA that no state should dare to interfere. Like, say, the development of nuclear weapons. Wouldn't that have been awfull for the US people if, for instance, say the state of Nevada or the Marshall Islands could have banned nuclear tests..? /s
- baggy_trough 1y agoYes, you're certainly right about that, without the /s.