pstuart

17 ms·

361.
by pstuart 5mo ago
> Congress won't stop the executive because the party that won the executive also won Congress by almost 4 million votes I remember when Nixon stepped down because his own party could not support his transgressions. The Republican p
362.
by pstuart 5mo ago
> The country is supposed to run on the principles of the constitution FTFY But then your counter is likely some form of originalism as you've been instructed. The current administration and it's pet SCOTUS have no interest in
363.
by pstuart 5mo ago
That makes no sense and is not what I was talking about.
364.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Wow man, FDR twice in a week and both cases awkwardly used. But yes, he wielded populism masterfully. As you made a point about southern segregationists it should be noted that it was general economic populism without emphasis on race. Wh
365.
by pstuart 5mo ago
We are very much in uncharted waters and the rules have been thrown out the window. At the risk of repeating myself, wherever we are it is effectively collectively by choice. It's all about hearts and minds, but really hearts. I'v
366.
by pstuart 5mo ago
I agree that it's fundamentally broken but I've been around to see it work and watch it fail. The executive branch obviously is going to wield as much power as it can, but only one party is actually advocating for the executive
367.
by pstuart 5mo ago
The courts have truly been the last line of defense. Congress being neutered is not an accident, hopefully it will be less fucked if the power balance shifts. And as the OP is inherently political in what it's calling out, that is not
368.
by pstuart 5mo ago
I'm curious to see how this is defended by the party members here. Science should be guided by science, not ideology.
369.
by pstuart 5mo ago
> Because it's rational. If you're from a dysfunctional country--sorry, I mean a "vibrant" and "rich" country--you don't want that following behind you. That makes zero logical sense on a couple levels.
370.
by pstuart 5mo ago
What if those stories are valid and it's self-selection rather than pure propaganda? And the war on science (and intellectualism) in the US is very much happening, so its not like the post is just making shit up.
371.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Sure, SQLite doesn't solve every problem -- but in many cases it solves the need at hand with the reward of one less piece of infra required to support it. I see obsessions with tooling/solutions constantly from experienced devs
372.
by pstuart 5mo ago
It's not partisan -- it's pointing a finger at a political party that has waged war on science. It's a factual assessment. A partisan take would be "other team bad because my team good"
373.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Like most people, unfortunately. But most people aren't entrusted with so much power and duty, and done so ostensibly for service to the people of this country.
374.
by pstuart 5mo ago
My only point was that the admin did whatever they did and, at least from the outside, appears to have been an "in and out" one-shot that worked in their favor. And the only reason I mentioned that , is because invading a sover
375.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Do you think that kids born in America (or anywhere for that matter) don't care about fitting in with the other kids? Did you? When you were a kid were you more concerned about your Bangladeshi heritage or not being an outsider amongst
376.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Was that "Rose-uh-velt" or "Roos-uh-velt"?
377.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition. It's a complicated subject and has been weaponized by the Right, artfully so. If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be con
378.
by pstuart 5mo ago
After the killings in Minnesota I tried reaching out to a MAGA acquaintance I've tried to engage with to find any sort of common ground (so far without any success). I was ignored, and I'm assuming that he's been taught that
379.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Potato, potato. The administration said words about stuff it did and the reasons for it, and then there's the stuff that happenend for the reasons they happened. It was about scratching an itch, not "spreading democracy". Con
380.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Remember how he said he could shoot somebody on Fifth Ave and not lose a single vote? Do you remember the shock and outrage (I was shocked for sure). But he was right. It's literally a cult and they'll drink the kool aid up till t
381.
by pstuart 5mo ago
I think they expect a repeat of Venezuela, which was a tidy operation for what it was (and something I highly disapprove of). But even though these operations are done in the name of "regime change", it's just about giving Tr
382.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Yeah, the CIA is all about CYA.
383.
by pstuart 5mo ago
I recall a comment that Sam was talking about selling AGI to the highest bidder, including hostile foreign governments, so not literally planning to destroy civilization but definitely selling it out. And for any equivalencies of the curren
384.
by pstuart 5mo ago
How much of this madness is fueled by the War on Drugs? Many people think it's to keep us safe from "dangerous drugs", but it's designed to create crime and control. It's heartbreaking and we could collectively end
385.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Nutritional science has failed us before -- the low fat movement and the panic over salt. And then there's ye olde Food Pyramid which was marketing for Big Ag. Another one was the concern of soy phytoestrogens, and claiming that only f
386.
by pstuart 5mo ago
But this isn't about the University of Iowa, it's about the "Center for Intellectual Freedom", which was created specifically to promote conservative values. I'm all for challenging assumptions and learning about di
387.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Again, free speech as commonly used, is about Constitutional protection from the government trying to curtail and/or punish individual's speech. Prior to the internet, the "free speech" you're thinking of was do
388.
by pstuart 5mo ago
Personal insults don't move the conversation forward. My point is simple: the opaque nature of the site is suspicious, and the wording about "debating" CEOs, etc is an interesting choice as well: rather than "engaging&qu
389.
by pstuart 5mo ago
The base of the issue is weaponizing fear and anger in the citizenry to better control them. Immigration has been an evergreen topic for that for the entire history of the US. In recent years, they've combined yet another favorite, rac
390.
by pstuart 5mo ago
I checked out their website -- it was carefully clean of leaking any agendas or biases out. I'm all for challenging assumptions and what not, but that should come with a willingness to change one's mind when confronted with compel

More ›