goodluckchuck

10 ms·

91.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
I could see it being close, but also feeling an urgency to get there first / believing you could do it better.
92.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
… engage in corruption only to the extent that it is profitable or it otherwise suits their desires / morality. Governments however, will be corrupt even when corruption loses them money and is contrary to their own self-interest.
93.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
That may make the Brazilian government less authoritarian, but that doesn’t make anyone else more authoritarian. If anything, the fact that Musk is opposing even a very small act of authoritarianism would suggest that he is very strongly
94.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
A ruling of a court - even the highest court of the land - does not make something law. Courts get things wrong all the time.
95.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
How do you get to authoritarian, when it’s the Brazilian authorities demanding that people be silenced? Perhaps you’re referring to some unrelated situation where X has been censoring people?
96.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
Governments tend to be corrupt by their very nature.
97.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
I would push back some. Humans have communicated orally long before writing and lectures / interviews / discussions remain highly effective. After all, not everyone was in favor of the pulp that churned from mass-market printing p
98.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
True, but it’s a numbers game. If there are 5 electric cars on the market, 2 are Teslas and the others are Nissan Leaf comparables then Tesla will get a lot of sales. If there are 80 different models on the market and Tesla makes 5 models…
99.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
I’m mostly referring to the design language. The newest Model 3 refresh looks a lot like the previous Model 3, which looks a lot like a shorter Model S. Then look at the visual difference between Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Mazda. Tesla has impro
100.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
And a technical sense yes but the only new model they’ve released recently is the cyber truck. Otherwise their sedans and crossovers outwardly appear to be basically the same thing they were selling in 2012. Meanwhile, BMW has a fleet of ei
101.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
It’s misleading when Tesla is one company with 4 old models and 1 new model, and the competition is 17 companies with dozens and dozens of mostly all brand new models.
102.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
So 2-3x better than Stellantis. Their CEO must be further right than a willow.
103.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
Uber didn’t ask for any regulatory approval.
104.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
If you want to be a dictator, then you have to say you’ll be a benevolent dictator and that people will have work and there will be food and they will have shelter and an education. Would-be dictators don’t get very far telling people they’
105.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
The rules exist so that certain people have a pool of “off the books” informants / assets that they can leverage. If you allow them in, then you lose the stick. If you can’t grant citizenship, then you lose the carrot.
106.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
The Feds know where most illegal aliens live and work, they just don’t do anything about it.
107.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
I think you could get 90% of the way to “all” with information that’s already in federal databases. People have jobs. Look at the fake / duplicate SSNs. So, John Smith with SSN 999-99-9999 is a White Male born in 1943, but the family a
108.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
Yeah, you understand and you’re right that the current rules accurately describe the current prevailing wisdom, but that’s kind of tautological. Some of the weak spots are rational basis review being too deferential. Certainly a law is cons
109.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
I don't understand what you mean by varying powers of review.
110.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
I would push back on the need for a "paradigm" because as much as lawyers like rules and predictability, the judicial process is ultimately a matter of judgment. Discussion about the "factors" a court should consider is
111.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
This is a step towards a deeper and more established flaw: differing standards of review. It is clearly a violation of equal protection to give "strict scrutiny" to some claims, "intermediate scrutiny" to others, and the
112.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
I think the heart of the question was whether it is even a valuable service. Does it serve enough people to be worthwhile. Even if it’s tax-funded, everything has to pay for itself one way or another (i.e. tax receipts).
113.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
Not intent, but the location and nature of the order. If it’s not in a war zone, not targeting an enemy combatant, etc. that’s not an order that falls within the scope of the core actions of a commander in chief.
114.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
Impeachments take time because the impeachments we’ve had so far have tended to be political theater. I have no doubt that if there was a bi-partisan super-majority wanting to remove the president, they’d hop on a Zoom call and have it done
115.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
Yes. It does limit theoretically limit the evidence, but it’s the same crime whether they accept the money and follow through with the appointment or reneg and appoint someone else. The crime is in the solicitation.
116.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
They said in effect that using Seal Team 6 would be presumptively immune, and at that point the court would have to consider whether prosecuting a president for assassinating his rival would impose a chilling effect that would impair future
117.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
IMO The rule of law derives from precedent. Prior to courts there was the rule of the monarch. The common law then developed as courts resolved disputes. It was all gap. The authorities would say the accused did something wrong and should b
118.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
Congressional incompetence is partially an act. They spend most of the year deflecting and complaining that they can’t get anything done, then in a burst here and there, they kick out a multitude of new laws. There’s a substantial level of
119.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
I don’t buy the idea that this creates uncertainty. When I read a statute I have a level of certainty as to what it means. When I read executive branch rules interpreting the statute I have a better understanding of what the executive inten
120.
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
You’re evidently not partisan enough, because it is the wrong thing when the other guy does it. /s Or, if you become less partisan, you may see that it is the right thing for the right reason.

More ›