News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by AndrewKemendo on Monday July 01, 2024 @11:36PM (#40853329)
Government for thee and not for me seems to be the going (and historically traditional) approach - hence why fascists are attractive to people who want to be “lords”

Being able to do what you want, so long as you “kiss the ring” has unfortunately been a reliable path to temporary and virtueless power

Unless the non-activist citizen votes to give their power to the most virtuous, they generally default to giving away power to someone they believe will ultimately give them priority with the least amount of impact to their core personality trait

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by rayiner on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @07:14AM (#40855477)
You’re analyzing this wrong. Trump has the edge among “non-activist” citizens: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/politics/turnout-2024-electio...

Trump’s authoritarianism appeals to people who feel that he can control the various unelected people they feel have too much power over their lives and society: career bureaucrats, corporate HE, NGOs, universities, etc.

Remember the 2017 “Resistance” against Trump? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resistance-from-with....

This revealed that no matter which party wins the election, the fourth branch of government is staffed and run by Democrats. All the three letter agencies are staffed by 95% Democrats. And people think that Trump can bring them to heel.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Hammershaft on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @09:14AM (#40856324)
> All the three letter agencies are staffed by 95% Democrats.

[Citation Needed]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by rayiner on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @09:31AM (#40856469)
Assuming that campaign donations are evenly distributed between democrats and republicans: https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2016/10/federal-employe...

I’ll add many federal employees are members of professional organizations. And in the last decade, professional organizations have become overtly political. And all of these are staffed mainly by democrats. Paul Clement, one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our generation, left Kirkland, known as a conservative firm, over the firms opposition to second amendment cases: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022/06/23/kirkland-ellis.... This is a firm that will not hesitate to represent the worst Russian oligarchs, mass polluters like BP, etc.

Another example is SFFA. A super-majority of the public opposes racial preferences in college admissions and hiring. But not a single prominent law firm authored an amicus brief in support of overturning affirmative action.

Half the country doesn’t trust credentialed professionals anymore, and with good reason

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by RavingGoat on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @10:06AM (#40856844)
"The former State Department secretary led the businessman by 5 percentage points among federal employees in a July poll by the Government Business Council, the research arm of Government Executive Media Group, with 42 percent of respondents saying they would vote for Clinton, compared to 37 percent who said the same for Trump."

From your article, that sounds more like close to even instead of your exaggerated 95%.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by mikhael28 on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @06:01AM (#40864448)
And I suppose non-credentialed people are more trustworthy then?
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by throwaway7ahgb on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @08:44AM (#40865416)
Not for imposing will on the people, that is for elected officials.

I trust credentialed people for providing facts and research in their domain, not writing policies.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by rayiner on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @09:11AM (#40865638)
The point is that credentials plus $3.50 will buy you a coffee in our democratic system. The system shouldn’t be designed to give more weight to your views on broad value issues-say through the actions of unelected bureaucracies or professional organizations—just because you have credentials.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by EasyMark on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @09:30AM (#40865789)
You won’t find it because it’s impossible. Majority democrats? Probably they’d be more likely to be attracted to a government service office. 95%?they pulled it out of their posterior.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by AndrewKemendo on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @10:19AM (#40856968)
We’re actually saying the same thing: the plurality of voters just want to be in the “winning gang” so they can feel protected from the scary world
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by browserman on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @10:30AM (#40857062)
Very “funny” to hear you rail against unelected enemies of the people like bureaucrats, NGOs, academics etc and then wholeheartedly endorse a system in which unlimited executive power can be invested in someone who doesn’t even win a majority of the population’s vote. That’s your brain on fascism, I guess.