Neither is how to use the em-dash, which was front page on HN the other day.
That being said, this is tech news, albeit indirect. When the rule of law is tossed into the woodchipper, it kind of affects everything, including tech.
I understand that it may be too divisive, but maybe whoever runs HN can moderate these threads so they maintain some substance and don't devolve into screaming matches.
moderation on HN is largely left to the users, and stuff like this getting flagged is an indication of what the community wants at large. there is still an absolute ton of political stuff that doesnt get flagged
Fair enough. But part of the reason I like HN is there is a lot of thoughtful discussion about non-tech things. FWIW, I'm probably more conservative than most--e.g., I think undocumented immigration is a genuine problem in the US and "defund the police" is just nonsense.
But I don't see respect for due process these days and that is an enormous problem.
I'll stop there. Thank you for the reply.
the problem with political discourse, in terms of the comments we see, is that it's overwhelming not about sharing interesting information, but rather just expressing opinions - opinions that are mostly formed by the content we expose ourselves, which is content that is overwhelmingly influenced by billionaires and the established ruling elites. if your worldview very closely aligns to any corporate news outlet, whether it be CNN or Fox News, then you're probably mostly a result of what those owners want you to belief.
Defenders aren't required to resort to any sort of force. Merely a commitment to truth, and tirelessly repeating it is useful.
All persons have a right to due process.
The idea a political party owns the Constitution, gets to define what it means contrary to the text, is as untruthful as 2+2≠4
It’s that basic.
Make them reject the Constitution outright. Some people associated with the regime have done exactly that. If it’s not wrong, why hide it? They admit their opposition to the Constitution.
If suspected criminal non-citizens are persons, the law says persons get due process. If the simplest reading of text can be set aside by mere opinion, on what basis can’t it be set aside for anybody at anytime based on an updated opinion, equally contrary to the law?
No one is safe at all.
Well, Musk emphasised, they need to go after the people who are 'behind' the protests. He already shared multiple tweets with 'leads' (for now it's only Soros and the likes).
I'd argue South Korea or Peru are more democratic countries because they've actually had presidents thrown in prison.
> "You didn't have that on Jan. 6, I can tell you. You didn't have anything like that on Jan. 6, which is sort of amazing," Trump said.
All the police officers (one of whom died the next day) beaten and assaulted with weapons by the Jan 6 rioters, how few Teslas were they worth?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immig...
Constitution does not matter in this administration. They control the ICE and just do whatever they want. It's not like a judge can physically stop ICE from arresting and deporting people.
Failed impeachment (or conviction) is much better than no impeachment at all.
Also they should impeach signalgate people. Rather than write strongly worded letters.
They tried that, it didn't work, and no one cares anymore.
You don't get someone like Trump without having a garbage opposition. If his critics really want to counter him, they need to take extreme measures, like:
1. Refactoring their platform into something that can attract super-majoritarian support, and win even in "red" states.
2. Running broadly popular candidates.
However, I predict they'll take the easy route: tend to their base and give swing voters a harder choice, and blame the voters if they don't win.
Also, it's fair to blame the voters if they make a bad choice. Voters have the most agency, it's their responsibility to choose wisely. The choice has been crystal clear for a long time now.
Afaik, he either invents a national emergency reason to not hold elections, or does a gerrymandering++ to make sure he wins.
That’s been the centerpiece of the D playbook for years—pull towards the center. Hell, in the last election Harris even got Dick fucking Cheney to stump for her. Dick Cheney, one of the most republican Republican vice presidents, on stage trying to get a Democrat elected president!
And it failed. It’s an utterly garbage strategy that fails every time. This advice needs to be thrown out and never suggested again.
So what you're suggesting is that Democrats refactor their platform into a Republican platform in order to win over Republican voters?
That might work, but I don't know how effective it would be as a counter to Republicanism.
>2. Running broadly popular candidates.
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were broadly popular, or at least not significantly less popular than Donald Trump by some measures. Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump (popular, not electoral.) Even Kamala Harris only lost by a small margin.
And even that's a little sensationalistic. (Trump says a lot of things. And this is an off-hand comment he made on Truth Social...) But even there he only went as far as to say the vandals had "a very good chance" of going to jail for "up to" 20 years, and that "perhaps" they'd go to El Salvador.
Also, we all know judges issues sentences, right? I mean, a president can say what he hopes will happen... But ABC7.com shouldn't be this credulous.
You are a fool if you think this isn't a threat.
I guess I'd put it this way. I think we can agree that it is sensationalistic to report something that won't happen.
I'm not a Trump booster - but I do think these two HN comments are giving him too much power.
Presidents have no power to remove judges. (And everybody knows it - especially judges.) Wishing that his friends in Congress would help him out by launching impeachment hearings won't make it happen -- mainly because it would need something like 7 Democratic votes in the Senate to actually succeed. (So "threatening" a judge... does nothing. You might as well stand in a field and say "Ooh, I wish you weren't a judge any more!")
It's also convoluted to say there's some credible threat in the fact that Trump nominates judges. (What are you saying -- that during the vetting process for future judges he'll ask each candidate, "What's your stance on sending future parking lot protesters to foreign prisons for 20-year sentences?")
It's mildly newsworthy that he's talking out loud about such an outrageous hypothetical. But it's clearly just posing as powerful and in control for his base. A president does not have this power - and I honestly don't think he even cares. He just wants to act like he does for a few moments on Truth Social.
The only really newsworthy thing here is the protests upset him enough that he had to specifically address it with some made-up hypothetical to make himself and his base feel like he's not losing popular support.
Though, actually, even if you are correct and there is a magic line in the sand of unconstitutionality that he somehow will not or cannot cross, that’s _still_ news, in that it must then be read as “president is issuing illegal threats” or “president is stark raving mad”. There is no way to read this as “not news” or as “not concerning”.
This is the problem with thinking "that doesn't apply to me" when you see abuses of privilege and position - we need to think of others in our community, not just focus on ourselves.