3 ms·

> The federal government has made a lot of noise about using AI lately, with the Trump administration and DOGE pushing for its adoption and trying to eliminate

by k310 1y ago

> The federal government has made a lot of noise about using AI lately, with the Trump administration and DOGE pushing for its adoption and trying to eliminate state-level regulations, while government agencies increasingly adopt it to replace employees eliminated in widespread layoffs and rely on it for critical decision making. Why, I'm old enough to remember when the GOP was for "State's Rights" and against "Big Government". These moves are a federal government a.k.a. autocratic, centralized takeover of the entire country. And GOP legislators are furiously wagging fingers at trillion dollar deficits while granting more centralized power to the executive branch, including power over the judicial system. (i.e. encumbering suits with burdensome costs) AI is just the latest, coolest weapon in the holster. The world turned upside down.

msgodel 1y ago
I think if the democrats (or whoever replaces them) ran a state's rights candidate and everyone finally agreed to disagree you would have support from the Right. There doesn't seem to be any political will on the Left to actually do that though.
- fragmede 1y ago
  If you really believe that after sending the marines to California, I have a bridge to sell you.
- jfengel 1y ago
  That seems unlikely to me. Much of Trump's platform was about disliking everything Democrats do. It's hard for me to imagine that any single policy change by the Democrats would attract a significant fraction of Trump voters. Further, "states' rights" always seems to be a code for "things that I cannot control at a national level but at least want to manage at a level I can control". For example, a Democrat running on a strict states-rights level might say "New York and California should be allowed to require firearms registration", and I don't see that attracting a single Republican voter, but that's one consequence of truly devolving control to the states. (It is a perfectly valid reading of the second amendment to require registration, just as very few people have trouble reading the second amendment to restrict felons from gun ownership.) So I see "states' rights" as a talking point rather than a serious policy proposal. Most of those who claim to support it seem perfectly willing to federally regulate matters that are important to them.

by k310 1y ago

msgodel 1y ago

I think if the democrats (or whoever replaces them) ran a state's rights candidate and everyone finally agreed to disagree you would have support from the Right. There doesn't seem to be any political will on the Left to actually do that though.

fragmede 1y ago
If you really believe that after sending the marines to California, I have a bridge to sell you.
jfengel 1y ago
That seems unlikely to me. Much of Trump's platform was about disliking everything Democrats do. It's hard for me to imagine that any single policy change by the Democrats would attract a significant fraction of Trump voters. Further, "states' rights" always seems to be a code for "things that I cannot control at a national level but at least want to manage at a level I can control". For example, a Democrat running on a strict states-rights level might say "New York and California should be allowed to require firearms registration", and I don't see that attracting a single Republican voter, but that's one consequence of truly devolving control to the states. (It is a perfectly valid reading of the second amendment to require registration, just as very few people have trouble reading the second amendment to restrict felons from gun ownership.) So I see "states' rights" as a talking point rather than a serious policy proposal. Most of those who claim to support it seem perfectly willing to federally regulate matters that are important to them.