9 ms·
It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a
by jleyank 1y ago
It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper.
As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.
- jabjq 1y ago[flagged]
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoThe taxpayer was lied to repeatedly and under the belief of many many many lies, unwittingly voted to get rid of it.
- jabjq 1y ago[flagged]
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoAre you saying they weren't lied to? Like Trump saying he knew nothing about Project 2025 which was a lie.
- nosianu 1y ago> Are you saying they weren't lied to? I think Trump & team have been very open about their intentions. There's even his entire first presidency to look at. At most, some of his voters might be surprised that he actually follows through on exactly what he promised (for example some of those voting for him now surprised about being targeted by ICE, including farmers fearing for their cheap workforce). So sure, lots of lies, on the other hand and at the same time everything was planned and prepared quite openly.
- intended 1y agoWe can actually show that the American public are lied to, and continue to be lied to. Yes - I can get the point you are making - “democracy for me but not for thee” is BS. Sure! But the evidence is that theres one media network which is simply selling whatever story works, along side a 50+ year effort to kill trust in institutions. We can even show that the republican machinery gave up on bipartisanship - hell, it’s even public knowledge. But that wouldn’t make a whit of a difference to voting patterns, or your point. Because your point doesn’t need to be based in the long history of complicated malfeasance that rots all English speaking democracies. It’s anchored in your current state and argument. So yeah, people voted.
- const_cast 1y ago> unpalatable See, this is a weasel word. Nobody said it was unpalatable, they said it was bad, because it is. Do you want bad things to happen? No? Okay then, everyone should be on the same page.
- unethical_ban 1y agoDid they say "Democracy is bad"? For that matter, did they say "Democracy is good"? No, they didn't. In case you don't know, that's called a "straw man fallacy".
- throwawaymaths 1y agowell the republican party has been talking for decades about removing EPA, DOE, etc. and has gotten lots of votes on those premises, so "they" make good on that promise and now the "voter has been lied to"? you could have made the same claim if the republicabs did nothing.
- thisisit 1y agoPeople who keep parroting this take are the most hypocritical bunch I have ever seen. Because if the premise is true then when these institutions existed then those were also voted by taxpayers to exist, right? But that time these “taxpayers” made noise about how government can’t be trusted and majority is muzzling their right of speech and first amendment etc etc. Now they when they are in the majority they turn around and say stuff like majority rules, government can be trusted etc. And I know people like to play both sides so let me add. The big government hoopla exists only on one side.
- pfannkuchen 1y agoWell the behavior of agencies has changed quite a lot since that whole mechanism was voted into existence, no? Sometimes it takes awhile for the consequences of a change to play out.
- thisisit 1y agoAnother smoke and mirror argument. The “majority” government which decided that these agencies should get tax payers money was there till 6 months ago. So, it has not been “awhile”.
- lazide 1y agoAll systems exist ‘on belief’. And it’s objectively done better than all other known systems it has been running concurrently with (in both longevity and impact).
- pinkmuffinere 1y ago> it’s objectively done better than all other known systems (in longevity and impact) I think the US is probably the country which has had the greatest positive impact on the world in the last 150 years (purely a personal opinion). But even so, we’ve only been around like 300 years total. It’s crazy to say that we have _objectively_ had the biggest and longest impact, when there are civilizations that existed for so much longer, and which made massive contributions to the world.
- lazide 1y agoYou might want to re-read my comment. I made no such long term or meta claims.
- pinkmuffinere 1y agoI guess I’m just missing it, I’ve re-read the thread and it still seems like you’re discussing the US? What am I missing? The parent comment you replied to is > It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper. As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.
- lazide 1y ago‘systems it has been running concurrently with’. Aka during the same times. What other gov’t during the same time period has lasted as long or longer (none that I am aware of), let alone has produced prosperity, etc. to the same extent? And it isn’t actually gone yet, either.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoRepublicans have been attacking government and destabilizing society for decades. This has not happened overnight and it won't be fixed overnight.
- bitlax 1y agoBut then you look at Baltimore and think "y'know, I think there's a bit more to it."
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoWhat is happening in Baltimore?
- bitlax 1y agoYou can't know much about Baltimore without knowing the problems it has, so I'd suggest you take some time and get caught up. I'm not going to waste my Saturday doing a writeup on the dirtiest city in America. I think it's more likely you do know what I'm talking about, so you might as well cut to the chase and share your paean to Baltimore's grittiness or your argument for how its problems are all the fault of Republicans.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoI have no idea what you are talking about but you are combative for no reason.
- bitlax 1y agoDo you forget your various salvos as soon as you post them?
- jrflowers 1y agoI like your reasoning here. Seeing as most people on the internet are from Maryland, assuming that every poster has an opinion about Baltimore is both logical and useful for conversation. One time I saw somebody post that they’d never been to that city so I assume that they were workshopping a character for an outlandish piece of speculative fiction.
- ergonaught 1y agoAll societies are consensus realities wholly dependent upon participation. The system was fine but no one has yet constructed a system that can withstand weaponized mass stupidity. Even the ones created to combat corruption fail to account for this danger. So.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- echelon 1y agoWeaponized social media. That's what wasn't predicted.
- wyldfire 1y agoMaybe the abnormal thing was the century or so we had of papers/radio/TV guided by ethics or professionalism or some delicate trustworthiness-equilibrium. And now we have returned to a state where humanity is guided by inventive stories and manipulated by propaganda.
- pfannkuchen 1y agoThis implies that the period with massively more centralized control of information had a truer consensus reality. That seems… unlikely?
- neltnerb 1y agoAt least they mostly felt the need to pick a single consensus reality to approximate. How well it represented common experience, well...
- beezlewax 1y agoIt was better than the illusion of freedom of information a lot of people have now. In reality mass manipulation is happening on a global scale at unprecedented levels.
- 1y ago
- yieldcrv 1y agoMany developed nations made fun of our delusional checks and balances concept for a long time We collectively dismiss external criticism on flimsy rationales like there never being a military coup here, or even more amusingly “at least we can talk about it” as if that is good enough, or is unique to the US at all
- exoverito 1y agoWe've already had a coup in 1963, but Americans are such a thoroughly propagandized people that they don't even know it happened.
- yieldcrv 1y agotell me about the coup to change the regime of the US Government in the US
- exoverito 1y agoArguably the real regime did not change, since the deep state was already in control. Eisenhower had warned of the Military Industrial Complex in his farewell address just a couple years earlier. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had unanimously approved Operation Northwoods, a false flag attack to justify war with Cuba, which JFK had rejected. JFK also fired Allen Dulles, director of the CIA, after the botched Bay of Pigs operation and planned to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." Unsurprisingly, JFK was assassinated shortly afterwards by a Manchurian candidate, Jack Ruby inexplicably killed Oswald, and then Ruby went insane in prison, probably due to MK ULTRA type operations. In sick twist of irony, Allen Dulles served on the Warren Commission, the blatant conflict of interest was lost on many. I could go on. To put it lightly, consensus reality is manufactured to a significant degree. Even those who imagine themselves to be rebels, like woke leftists, are in large part the product of COINTELPRO type operations. If establishment media like Colbert and the NY Times are pushing the position of 'The Resistance' then you can be quite certain it's controlled opposition. Same applies to types like Charlie Kirk or the Daily Wire.
- ivape 1y agoIt's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Word up. Most people that ever lived, lived under some authoritarian or unjust rule. Some lived in a full terror state. Americans are just so lucky and take so much for granted. One can ponder, “what was the moment it all happened?” - there wasn’t a moment. It’s a total frog boiling in water situation. We’ve been boiling. Taste the water, it’s frog soup. Given that this admin has 3 more years, it’ll be frog bone broth once the bones melt. It is so fucking crazy that if you actually let the unintellectual border-line savage illiterates fulfill their chaotic fantasies that you truly do get a backward bumble fuck country. Anyway, I’m going back to my regular programming of watching Mexican farmers jump from buildings to their death as they run from ICE, and my president sell scam crypto and sneakers and shit. Shout out to the American Dream.
- patcon 1y ago> the unintellectual border-line savage illiterates fulfill their chaotic fantasies that you truly do get a backward bumble fuck country it's ok if you don't have energy to understand otherwise rn, but please know that there's more to it than this. to understand is the only way out that's not total war. and yes, i'm angry too.
- jfengel 1y agoI don't understand. And as far as the can tell, the only thing preventing total war is the belief that it might be possible to fix it next year. And no matter who wins, the other side will be convinced it was by cheating. And that has no alternative but total war. I have looked long and hard for an alternative but I'm not seeing one.
- verisimi 1y agoThe solution is to decrease your high investment in the politics show, and put your energy where it matters - the people around you, yourself. Do something real instead.
- 1y ago
- guelo 1y agoIt's not going away with a whimper, the supreme court is killing it on purpose. There are laws that created departments that the president does not have the power to destroy. There is also the impoundment act that forbid a president from redirecting or not spending appropriated money. These laws are being ignored because the supreme court has gone full partisan. One study estimates that the Supreme Court will be "conservative" [1] for at least the next 100 years. If Dems don't try to do something to represent 50% of the country that is panicking then they're complicit. [1] tearing down hundreds of years of precedent is not conservative, this is an extremist court.
- loeg 1y ago> If Dems don't try to do something about to represent 50% of the country that is panicking then they're complicit. Uh. What are they supposed to do with a Republican trifecta? Do you mean "win votes in future elections so they can govern?"
- guelo 1y agoWhen they get power again they need to challenge the court's extremism. I've seen ideas like term limits or packing the court with more than 9 judges.
- nerdsniper 1y agoIdeally there will be enough representation in congress to remove justices like Thomas for blatant corruption / conflict of interest.
- exoverito 1y agoIt'd be nice if we could remove congress members for blatant corruption too, e.g. Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. Or prevent further Weekend at Bernie's politicians like Diane Feinstein and Joe Biden.
- loeg 1y ago
- throwawaymaths 1y agoisn't this the separation of powers working though? for once the trump administration has waited for judicial review to act.
- refurb 1y agoThe EPA sits under the executive branch. Thus the chief executive (President) has the say on how the executive functions. There are limitations, but if a research arm was created purely by executive power, then it can be stopped through executive power. The system works as intended.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoTrue. Doesn't make it any less stupid.
- refurb 1y agoThe stupidity of it (or lack thereof) wasn’t the point of the comment I replied to.
- ARandomerDude 1y agoWe haven’t really followed the Constitution for about 100 years now, sadly. We pay lip service to it but it’s mostly a historical curiosity at this point. If anyone doubts this, take a moment to read the document in one sitting. It’s remarkably short. Compare what you read to the government you’ve had all your life.
- whycome 1y agoI’ve always thought that the electric chair would be the definition of “cruel and unusual” to the founding fathers.
- exe34 1y ago"interstate commerce" has a lot to answer for regarding the creeping scope of the executive powers.
- rayiner 1y agoIf we followed the constitution the EPA wouldn’t even exist! Clearly the founders didn’t create this complicated three-branch system only to have most of the government being run by “independent agencies” exercising executive, legislative, and judicial powers.
- kergonath 1y agoThese agencies work with delegated powers. It is completely impossible for such a limited number of people as the American Congress to be experts on everything. They need advisors and structures to help them understand the world and make the right decisions, but also to make sure that these decisions are enforced. This may not be fully developed in the US constitution because the world was much simpler back then, but it is entirely compatible with it.
- rayiner 1y agoThe notion of Congress “delegating powers” to administrative agencies is entirely incompatible with the constitution. The administrative agencies do not merely “advise.” They make regulations with the force of law (legislative power), enforce those regulations (executive power), and adjudicate violations of the regulations (judicial power). That concentration of the three powers into a single entity is the very thing the Constitution goes to great lengths to avoid.
- asperous 1y agoThe framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. The solution was to have many competing factions. I think first-past-the-post, corporate election influence, and mass media consolidated power into a single faction that ended up causing the system to break down (in that the branches don't seem to be checking each other's power right now). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
- insane_dreamer 1y agoThe Founders would never have approved of Citizens United.
- rtpg 1y agoSure they would have! The elite of the United States that lead the revolution were all extremely mercantile and many were coming to the colonies to run their own little fiefdoms away from the crown. One should acknowledge how many of the freedoms locked into the founding ideology of the US is pretty close to what libertarians reach out for. I don't know many libertarians arguing against Citizens United. That isn't to say that the US can't aim for something different, and that the core of the nation today likely believes many different things. We can choose our own destiny without trying to ascribe every good idea to what a group of people thought at the founding of the country.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tzs 1y agoYes they would have, for many of the same reasons the ACLU did [1]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united
- techjamie 1y agoI'm probably being cynical, but I take their reasoning for opposition with a grain of salt when they themselves partake in lobbying. Removing it would hurt them, too. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-union/lobbying?id=D000031473 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-un...
- Loic 1y agoIt is more than depressing. During my PhD/Postdoc, we had excellent collaboration with the EPA on stuff which then really improved the life of people in the US. These agencies need to do research to stay ahead of/keep up with the development. Context: we developed chemicals toxicity prediction models. This was 20 years ago, this allowed the EPA to quality check applications made by chemical companies.
- briantakita 1y agoYet we have Microplastics, PFAS, & a slew of other dangerous contamination across the planet. And the military industrial waste is rarely mentioned. It seems the EPA cares more about enforcing CO2 production & making sure a homesteaders doesn't build a pond...than it does about extremely harmful & destructive chemicals dispersed across the planet by industrial & military waste. So I suppose the research is good but the emphasis & enforcement is what really matters. And while there have been historical wins, the agency seems increasingly like a political revolving door to entrench industrial incumbants.
- colechristensen 1y agoThe key failure is Congress seems not to care to defend or execute its power. They care about getting elected and their ability do obstruct... but they barely do anything. And the republicans are apparently all terrified of the executive. The democrats are meek and assume they ought to win just for showing up because they're "right".
- nielsbot 1y agoThey care about getting re-elected, true. And are therefore vulnerable to lobbying and PAC dollars. And therefore both parties represent corporations and the wealthy, not the voters.
- triknomeister 1y agoFor what it's worth. It's a democratic decision at the end of the day. It's not one man going about it.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoThat's assuming that votes were accurately counted and reported by the black box voting machines
- rayiner 1y agoThe EPA is in the executive branch and Americans recently hired a CEO of the executive branch that promised to cut a lot of stuff in that branch. This is entirely consistent with what you learn about american government in high school.
- mlyle 1y agoSilly me thought that congress had the power of the purse.
- rayiner 1y agoThey do. But you don’t need to appropriate from the Treasury to cut some department within the EPA.
- mlyle 1y agoYou do need to spend the 10 statutory accounts associated with the EPA as directed by Congress, though. So, there's an account funded by Congress with this statutory description: > For science and technology, including research and development activities, which shall include research and development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs; procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; and other operating expenses in support of research and development, $500,780,000, to remain available until September 30, 2027. Neutering the department that would normally do this and kneecapping the ability to spend that appropriation effectively sidesteps how the executive and legislative have divided responsibilities back to the founding of the Republic. This is a pretty big systemic issue. There's a normal amount of tug of war between the executive's implementation of congressional appropriation, but deliberately breaking multiple departments so that funds can't be effectively spent is something new that upends our normal checks and balances. In the past, when Congress tried to delegate the power to selectively suppress spending through mechanisms like the line-item veto, the Supreme Court struck it down as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Now, however, the executive branch is effectively wielding even greater power by deliberately impairing departments, circumventing Congressional appropriations without the constraints or oversight previously deemed essential. Now I understand that we may spin up a deliberately ineffective agency, and that courts have given the executive a lot of leeway on administrative structuring. But allowing the executive to deliberately frustrate congressionally appropriated expenditures undermines separation of powers.
- msgodel 1y agoAll of this stuff was hacked into the executive branch to begin with. People have been pointing out that the CFR is way longer than US code for a long time and someone finally dealt with it.
- bamboozled 1y agoSocial media is killing our societies, and it hasn't just affected politics, that just seems to be one of the lighting rods of all the shit. Social media has allowed the masses to be manipulated in a targeted way like we've never seen in history.
- Rebuff5007 1y agoIts a bit sad to me that the tech community here on HN doesn't seem to take any responsibility for all this. Surely some non-trivial percentage of the commenters / lurkers that are proud to talk about their mono-repo or their favorite react library had some part in the fact that millions think the covid vaccine has 5G.
- bamboozled 1y agoI have friends who worked or work at Meta who will sit in their mansions paid for by all this destruction telling you how bad the USA has become and how displeased they are with the current admin, and never mention the role of social media lol
- jjav 1y ago> As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive. The zero-day bug in the system that had not been exploited until now is that two of the three branches don't actually have any power of enforcement. So if the executive branch decides to just flat out ignore them, there are no consequences.
- pstuart 1y agoWe were warned from the beginning about the dangers of political parties: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/blog/george-washington-on-political-parties/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/blog/george-washington-o... That seems to be the major mis-step in trying to structure the government to be secure from capture; obviously the whole experiment was new so they can be forgiven for not addressing it. But we know now, and would be well-served to identify how to restructure things if given the chance. Unfortunately, the coup by the current regime seems to have been successful and it's going to have to get a lot worse before it blows up and we get something different.
- wan23 1y agoThe system depends on ordinary people to care about perpetuating it. If people vote for its destruction then destroyed it will be.