programmerpass

“we would be arguing”? I wouldn’t.

I would argue it should be illegal for the police, media, and others who have significant roles in society to lie and that they should be criminally prosecuted.

The only tragedy that I see is that most people seem to scream something in relation to free speech when the idea of criminally prosecuting folks for lying is mentioned. I prefer truthful discourse with serious consequences over whatever most call “free speech”.

What is “pro-47”?

MSM is corrupt. That was the point. It does not matter the side.

The reason Chevron likely compelled the Executive Order, at least in part, is because the Trump administration likely views the ability for agencies to self-resolve ambiguities in their own rules as bad and potentially obstructive to their agenda.

For example, an agency might self-resolve an ambiguous rule to say they can’t be fired or similar, which would directly conflict with what the Trump administration wants to do.

While it was overturned, perhaps there are fears of other loopholes that they see that can accomplish this beyond simple case law.

Chevron was outrageous from purely a legal perspective. Chevron likely caused this Executive Order and rightfully so.

This would apply only to the 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General.

Currently those laws (which are technically called “rules”) are interpreted by the agencies themselves, with the reasoning being that the subject matter expertise of those agencies is the most important factor in deciding any dispute relating to any rule. The laws and judicial process works differently when it comes to agencies under the executive branch.

Having an external governing individual is better than self-governance in most systems, so this seems sensible given that those agencies have a history of interpreting rules in ways that are self-interested and clearly not to the spirit of the rules, which likely resulted in this Executive Order.

Fascinating that Trump doesn’t even come close to breaking the record.

Does anyone know what the majority of the Executive Orders related to for the high-volume presidents and if those Executive Orders were eventually reversed or not? It’s a dense question though would be neat to know.

Agreed

Well, it’s going to have to pass the Elon Misk audit now. Bless his efforts.

This is definitely not accurate.

You need to be vibe checked.

Most people, based on my experience, would rather support Elon Musk than support a strategy recommended by an individual who believes that the MSM should be trusted.

Not to mention that most of your sources to support your points are from far left MSM sources.

Your reasoning is exactly why there is so much support for Elon Musk. You probably made more Elon Musk fans just by your post.

Most people seem to believe the government is broken and MSM is a huge reason for this.

Great question. I don’t have a good answer.

Could a be a “facts and circumstances” type of legislation similar to the IRS. Many IRS rules go back to the “facts and circumstances” of a particular case to evaluate all the nuances relating to it.

If an activity is profitable but the government can prosecute you for taking place in that activity, there in no correlation. That’s the point.

Advertising was dangerous because there was a perception that the previous US government would politically prosecute anyone who opposed them. Companies advertising on X, and hence supporting opposition such as Musk, would fall into this category.

The inverse: ensure companies that are already working with companies are not leaving them for illegitimate reasons.

There should be a law in place whereby if you a prove a company was engaged in profitable advertising or activities and stopped doing those activities in response to political stances the company can be prosecuted.

Not sure where this would fit into the law though something like this would certainly curtail cancel culture like activity.

Agreed.

It was profitable to do so a year ago, it was simply dangerous politically. Now given Trump is in office and aligned with Musk, it’s politically beneficial.

That seems to be the truth.

“The survey highlights two interesting facts: 46% of tech employees have noticed an increase in DEI investments in 2020, and 51% companies now report on DEI metrics. However, the report also highlights the need for continued action. 14% of technology companies today do not invest in DEI programs and initiatives.”

Source: https://www.spiceworks.com/hr/diversity-inclusion/news/51-of...

I’ve found 5-10 more similar sources via a quick google search.

While the law did not compel a business to report dei metrics to my knowledge (besides boards of public companies via the SEC), the impact of mass virtual signaling had the practical effect of compelling businesses of embracing dei or face being labeled as racists or immoral, which is a form of coercion by itself. I’d argue it would have been be better if such actions were simply deemed as illegal rather than racists or immoral. So with that said, I would argue the previous state of affairs was significantly worse with dei measures in place.

Putting the power back to the law rather than to a group of loosely collected virtual signalers is a better world imo.

Well, if businesses had to prove that each hire is related to dei, which was the previous state of affairs, many would argue that is when evil creeps into business culture.

So, it goes both ways, supposedly.

The CNBC piece omits details that other coverage has:

“The trial resulted in jurors finding that while Toptal did everything of significance it was required to do under its contract with Grosz, Grosz had breached the contract, harming Toptal.”

Source: https://www.law.com/2023/11/13/latham-nets-freelance-platfor...

Bloomberg also has an article stating that the jury evaluated fraud and breach against Toptal, which Grosz lost. If Toptal did “everything of significance” and was found not liable for fraud or breach, then the jury concluded that Toptal did not mislead him or do anything wrong.