←back to thread

757 points headalgorithm | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
majgr ◴[] No.42959854[source]
Living in Poland ruled by trumpists for 8 years I have these experiences:

- Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.

- It is better to not use social media. You never know if you are discussing with normal person, a political party troll, or Russian troll.

- It is not worth discussing with „switched-on” people. They are getting high doses of emotional content, they are made to feel like victims, facts does not matter at all. Political beliefs are intermingled with religious beliefs.

- emotional content is being treated with higher priority by brain, so it is better to stay away from it, or it will ruin your evening.

- people are getting addicted to emotions and victimization, so after public broadcaster has been freed from it, around 5% people switched to private tv station to get their daily doses.

- social media feels like a new kind of virus, we all need to get sick and develop some immunity to it.

- in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime.

replies(21): >>42959917 #>>42960125 #>>42960476 #>>42960691 #>>42960783 #>>42960898 #>>42960933 #>>42961214 #>>42961374 #>>42961618 #>>42961937 #>>42961953 #>>42962143 #>>42962171 #>>42962319 #>>42962493 #>>42962995 #>>42963639 #>>42963983 #>>42964597 #>>42965062 #
koolba ◴[] No.42962143[source]
> in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime.

What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? There’s plenty of situations where judges issue injunctions that are in effect until the case is resolved.

replies(5): >>42962286 #>>42962303 #>>42962418 #>>42963207 #>>42963240 #
sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[] No.42962418[source]
Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...

Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended.

https://www.rawstory.com/morning-joe-today-2671089005/

This is why we need reinforcement of the governmental structures and guardrails. The good faith handshake approach is broken, as we can see through current events. It is not resilient against a malicious executive.

replies(1): >>42963678 #
koolba ◴[] No.42963678[source]
> Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap.

Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt. I disagree with the liberal justices on just about every split decision, but I don't think they're on the take. They simply have a different philosophy of the law.

I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption.

> Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended.

I'm more concerned about the other direction where the (at the time) Senate majority leader expressly threatened the SCOTUS to vote a particular way or they will "you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-c...

replies(3): >>42963725 #>>42964010 #>>42964159 #
1. NickC25 ◴[] No.42964159{3}[source]
>Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt.

Have you heard of a gentleman by the name of Clarence Thomas? If you have, I'm sure you've heard about some of the gifts he's been given by people who had upcoming business before the court?

replies(1): >>42964230 #
2. sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[] No.42964230[source]
He ignored the link about Thomas' massive gift/donation totals in my earlier post. He's heard about it but might be willfully ignoring it.