> US can't do much due to internal politics (well a lot of people don't like Trump...)
I don't know why you're throwing this out casually, like the difficulty is merely due to political dissent? People "don't like" Trump precisely because all of his policies are exactly like this idiotic attack on Iran - poorly thought out, and inevitably end up doing the exact opposite as what he claims they will do. Trump's whole modus operandi has always been aggressive escalation against other parties, then making negative-sum "deals" to extract wealth. This half-works in business but absolutely fails in international relations (why all of our traditional allies are sitting this one out, at best).
You keep attributing these actions to the "US", but the truth of the matter is that the competent people at the top who was coming up with options like "here is a plan but it requires hundreds of thousands of US troops for years" would have been sidelined and replaced with a Party loyalist sycophant who said it would be easy. For further reading, see this HN thread on the Military Failures of Fascism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47523207
2. The "elected" government is explicitly prohibited from policing speech, and mostly strongly political speech.
3. That restriction is framed in terms of natural rights that apply to all human beings, not merely citizens.
Sorry, there is no "however you feel about" both-sidesism to be had in this situation. The time for discussing and debating differing political viewpoints is after we've ousted the fascists and restored our Constitutionally-limited government bound by the rule of law.
I'm a libertarian, so I think many of the policies and narratives pushed by Democrats leave much to be desired. In fact I was both-sidesing up until 2020 or so (5d-chess and all). But at this point, I'm no longer going to be suckered by any of the fascists' dishonest appeals to things that I care about. In fact, I am going to criticize them even more because they are burning the credibility of appeals to individual liberty.
Yes, but as the US decided to put whoever they have in charge now, it's up to them to remove it.
We always complain when Russia or China is meddling in any country's affairs but we should accept it when a Canadian does it in the US because we don't like who's in charge.
A president is still supposed to be subservient to the Constitution. Border guards as well. There was no referendum on getting rid of the Constitution.
Furthermore under the Constitution, Canadians have every right to protest. As an American, I heartily thank those who do.
Your comment sounds an awful lot like the motivated reasoning that brushes aside these structures in favor of simple authoritarianism.
> sounds an awful lot like the motivated reasoning that brushes aside these structures in favor of simple authoritarianism.
You know that's a stretch.
Just because I think that no country should meddle in another's affair doesn't mean that I agree with whatever's happening down there.
>A president is still supposed to be subservient to the Constitution. Border guards as well. There was no referendum on getting rid of the Constitution.
The current administration is just the tip of the problem-berg, but if millions of people see it as normal and I see it as a problem, what should we do now ?
> Just because I think that no country should meddle in another's affair
A random person wanting to cross the border to attend a protest is not a "country meddling in another's affairs". It's an individual wanting to join a protest.
Let's not resort to hyperbole here.
If the Canadian government was telling its citizens to go cross into the US and join protests, then yes, that would be a country meddling in another's affairs. That's not what happened.
Luckily these fascists control the SCOTUS so they can politely say "Mindslight, you're wrong because we can ignore previous case law whenever we want". Well, luckily for them, not for the rest of us.
What’s learned helplessness when it isn’t learned but willed? SCOTUS has rejected “these fascists” multiple times. Electoral consequences to this administration are mounting. It’s wild to continue to ply lines of lazy nihilism when the evidence points so clearly the other way.
Because while there have been a few noticeable rejections, such as the tariff ruling, its been a majority of heads he wins, tails his opponent loses, with this court.
> while there have been a few noticeable rejections, such as the tariff ruling, its been a majority of heads he wins, tails his opponent loses, with this court
While "the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with the Trump administration," it has been far from the "control" rhetoric posited above. Most of this was on the emergency docket. Major cases have been decided against Trump, from reimbursements for DOGE cancellations to restricting Trump's use of the Alient Enemiest Act and National Guard [1].
Those notables are not consistent with a fascist court, but a very right-wing one. Between those two are a lot of ground.
> Those notables are not consistent with a fascist court, but a very right-wing one. Between those two are a lot of ground.
That’s an opinion you can have but that I don’t share. I also would posit that the current SCOTUS thinks they still can maintain control while ceding further and further power to an imperial presidency when Trump is in charge.
The existence of some major cases being decided against Trump when the majority have been decided for him and the opposite logic is applied to presidents on the other side, are only part of why this current conservative government keeps checking off the 14 points of ur-fascism
It's going to be great when people realize these are an avenue for protest that can't be whitewashed by "AI" the way online forums can. I wouldn't be surprised if cash usage goes up.
You've answered your own question - there is no policy with Trump. He certainly knows how to hone in on issues that get people riled up, but as far as solutions the only things he has are echoes of plans decades out of date, performative vice signalling, and bluster. In normal times department bureaucrats would keep the policies halfway sane, but he's made sure to replace them with yes-men that just go along with his chaos. You either see this, regardless of your political inclination, and thus you're "anti-Trump". Or you remain transfixed by the cult of personality thinking there must be some grand genius plan waiting behind the scenes (ie the real "TDS" that the term is meant to obscure).
But bad actors already do this, as there is a monetary incentive to implement adversarial interoperability. There is then an incentive to not scale it up too much, lest that implementation get cut off sooner. For example, I certainly don't think all of the spam ads I see on Faceboot Marketplace are from individual people manually creating accounts and typing them out.
nit: Some vehicles can use a two stage charging system where if the ECU is not trying to charge the battery and the power draw is otherwise low, the voltage sits in a lower range rather than constantly float charging the battery. This can surprise you if you're trying to diagnose a battery issue!
How do you choose between this argument that immigrants from other cultures are crucially supporting the Democratic party, and your other common argument that immigrants from other cultures are more inclined to vote reactionary?
When you do pick one, do you at least stick with it for the whole day? Or do you switch between them from thread to thread?
Both facts are true, both facts are bad. In the long run, immigrants will culturally change both parties just as they change the whole country. What will happen, and is already happening, is that American politics will begin to resemble Latin American politics. People voting for who promises more free stuff most of the time, punctuated by periods of right-wing authoritarian reaction.
Your original comment included the implication that this was a deliberate pillar of the Democratic party. ("[one] party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed"). That is outside of the scope of a dispassionate analysis, so regrouping at one is a bit disingenuous.
But responding to your new goal posts - if immigration is so central to this dynamic, then why is most of the support for the current authoritarian reactionary promising more free stuff still coming from non-immigrants? Shouldn't the noble non-immigrants see the populism trap and heartily reject it? And since they aren't, wouldn't a better explanation just be that politics in general is decaying towards simplistic populism? And that this focus on immigrants is merely another simplistic populist narrative (from both parties really, even though only one has made it central to their platform).
> Your original comment included the implication that this was a deliberate pillar of the Democratic party. ("[one] party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed")
Wait, hold on. That’s a purely factual statement. Immigrants are 10% of the electorate. If they support one party 2:1, that’s enough to swing many presidential elections. In fact, half of Trump’s win in 2024 is attributable to immigrants going from Biden +27 to Trump +1. Without immigrants (and their kids), it would be very hard for Democrats, in their current form, to win a national election. That’s just a factual statement.
I don’t think being a party that can only win with immigrant support is a “deliberate pillar” of the party. It’s just a consequence of traditional American culture being very different from the cultures in other countries when it comes to views about government.
> then why is most of the support for the current authoritarian reactionary promising more free stuff still coming from non-immigrants?
I'm not taking issue with the factual background, but rather your motivated reasoning around it (including taking current statistics, imagining changing one thing in isolation, and considering that causal).
We could just as easily say that newer immigrants are more likely to vote Democrat because they are fresh with the reasons they came to this country in the first place plus they just got done studying for the citizenship test, whereas families who have been here for a while take our country for granted which is why they so easily buy into narratives aimed at destroying it.
To be clear, I’m not characterizing why immigrants vote democrat. When I talk about the home counties being dysfunctional that’s not a dig at democrat policies. They could come here and vote republican and it would present the same problem.
What else would anyone expect from a combative elderly person? It's always "I don't need help!" as they continually find something new to fuck up. The only difference here is there were a bunch of fools who thought it was a good idea to put this type of person in charge of our country instead of forcing him into a memory care home.
Your assertion of age is way off. Most people are going to be well into adulthood by the time they've flown enough to perceive the "security" process as its own thing.
Read my comment again. The assertion I was responding to was "Do you not remember", not were you not alive.
I'm well past the minimum age for renting a car, but I would not say that I remember airport security before the TSA - because I didn't experience it enough for it to have left any impression.
I do remember a much more recent trip to a foreign country, where on the return we were just walking through an airport hallway when I realized we had just gone through the security point. That is the way to do things.
We really need some straightforward way to carry a mostly-wiped phone, and then download an app, input credentials [0] (stored in your head), and have everything [1] downloaded from a cloud server and ready to go.
[0] since I'm spelling this out, one of those credentials should be a passphrase such that the server doesn't have access to your data
[1] modulo data/apps you actually want on a phone in a foreign country, of course
Interesting idea. But, in your vision, what would be the main difference between this approach and actually wiping your device, install just some basic apps you need during the travel (e.g. airline's app for the boarding pass and flight info) and then restore from your cloud backup at the end of the flight? Main difference I see is that Apple/Google wouldn't have access to your data, but this only makes sense if you're not using their services to start with.
Does iCloud not blast you with a bunch of "2FA" hassles the way Google does? That passwords are no longer complete account credentials makes this approach a non-starter, unless you want to come up with some protocol with a trusted person who stays home (with access to your account) and can perform those verification steps for you.
Even so I would still be worried about the nonstandard behavior of activating a new device in a foreign country causing my Apple/Google account to get straight up locked by their arbitrary and capricious "security" systems.
Passkeys are stored in your Apple Keychain. I don’t think you have to go through 2FA if you use a Passkey with Google.
I can throw my iPhone in the ocean, go to the nearest cell phone store/Apple Store and log into my Apple account and you won’t be able to tell the difference between my old phone and new phone - all apps, data, icon positions, passwords, photos, settings, bookmarks, history, messages etc will be restored
I don't really know how Passkeys or Apple Keychain works. But regardless I would think there has to be some other step to go from merely knowing a password to being able to access a cloud account (which includes the Keychain), no?
Are you saying that you can throw your phone in the ocean, have access to no other devices (including a SIM card), obtain a new phone, input your email+password, and reliably have that new phone onboarded? Because it certainly doesn't work that way in Android+GApps land from everything I've experienced - rather there is always a step where at the very least you have to authenticate using another logged-in session or email challenge.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s worked that way since 2011.
If you go into the Apple Store or your carrier, they hand you new phone, you log in to your iCloud account and it asks you which back up you want to use if you have multiple backups. You might these days have to enter your passcode from your old device.
You or they call your carrier or depending on your carrier you can register your e-sim directly from your phone.
I don't know why you're throwing this out casually, like the difficulty is merely due to political dissent? People "don't like" Trump precisely because all of his policies are exactly like this idiotic attack on Iran - poorly thought out, and inevitably end up doing the exact opposite as what he claims they will do. Trump's whole modus operandi has always been aggressive escalation against other parties, then making negative-sum "deals" to extract wealth. This half-works in business but absolutely fails in international relations (why all of our traditional allies are sitting this one out, at best).
You keep attributing these actions to the "US", but the truth of the matter is that the competent people at the top who was coming up with options like "here is a plan but it requires hundreds of thousands of US troops for years" would have been sidelined and replaced with a Party loyalist sycophant who said it would be easy. For further reading, see this HN thread on the Military Failures of Fascism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47523207
reply