> IMO the issue is not propaganda at all, but real physical problems that are not being addressed.
I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, a big reason the real problems aren't being addressed is because of propaganda.
To my mind, the biggest problem is ultimately wealth/power consolidation in the hands of a shrinking group, resulting from massive consolidation of markets, repeatedly eliminating taxes on the most wealthy, and legalized bribery finally cemented in the Citizens United ruling.
As a regular worker, you have limited job mobility because there are fewer businesses within any market you may specialize in, those remaining players in the market often act as cartels, and emboldened shareholders demand layoffs on the regular. It feels like you're drowning in costs because housing has long outpaced inflation while your typical yearly raise rarely meets or exceeds it.
You can turn to your representatives for some relief, but voting Republican is guaranteed to make the problem worse (and they aren't shy about telling you they'll screw you over for the benefit of the wealthy), while voting Democrat doesn't actually make things better because they're controlled by the same special interests and merely present the illusion of an alternative.
The consolidated media, owned almost entirely by wealthy individuals with explicit mandates to support right-wing messages (e.g., Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, Sinclair Broadcasting group, and now Paramount Skydance) and constantly tell you that all your problems are really the fault of immigrants and other minorities - hence how we ended up with ICE-occupied cities, while simultaneously only making the problem worse with tariffs, which both increased prices and led to a slump in job creation.
You mean like renditioning the head of one nation nation because of drugs after having pardoned another former head of a nation who was convicted of importing drugs?
> It's pretty clear that constitution implies some sort of immunity, and that it is necessary to protect successive presidents from throwing each other in prison.
How so? Please elaborate.
I would point out that there's explicit language in Article I, Section 6 about House and Senate members being immune from prosecution for carrying out their duties:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
However, there is nothing in Article II regarding a grant of immunity to the President.
I could see an argument that the President should probably be protected from arrest during his term, similar to Congressmen, but there's very clearly no mention of such protection in in the Constitution I can find.
However, that's nothing compared to the broad protections the Roberts court handed him in Trump v. United States: protection from investigation, even after his term expires.
I would recommend reading the briefs, listening to oral arguments, and/or reading the decision of the SC case where this was decided, if you are genuinely curious. There are a lot of well sourced argument for and against. These things are not decided out of nowhere.
This passage just says that they can't arrested while they are actually in the house while it is in session. Reads to me, once they leave they can be arrested in the parking lot.
> That one reads more like "all questions about their activities must be asked in the House and no where else",
Read literally, perhaps, but US courts have interpreted that clause more broadly to give general immunity to legislators for their legislative activities. For example, from Gravel v. US [0]:
> Rather, [Gravel's] insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible.
> The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution -- for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting.
Or from Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund [1] (citations omitted; there are a lot of them!):
> The question to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity." If they do, the petitioners "shall not be questioned in any other Place" about those activities, since the prohibitions of the Speech or Debate Clause are absolute[].
> Without exception, our cases have read the Speech or Debate Clause broadly to effectuate its purposes []. The purpose of the Clause is to insure that the legislative function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed independently.
> "The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators." []. In our system "the clause serves the additional function of reinforcing the separation of powers so deliberately established by the Founders." [].
> The Clause is a product of the English experience. []. Due to that heritage, our cases make it clear that the "central role" of the Clause is to "prevent intimidation of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary []," []. That role is not the sole function of the Clause, however, and English history does not totally define the reach of the Clause. Rather, it "must be interpreted in light of the American experience, and in the context of the American constitutional scheme of government...." []. Thus, we have long held that, when it applies, the Clause provides protection against civil as well as criminal actions, and against actions brought by private individuals as well as those initiated by the Executive Branch.
Entirely fair points that give weight to the thesis that Constitutions evolve by their lengthy interpretations over time ( "living documents subject to ammendment and interpretation" )
Bare bones, stand alone, Ye Olde clauses such as this are subject to a breadth of literal interpretation.
What did they "really" mean?
What do we want it to mean?
I count the modern US Supreme Court literalists as deceptives, hell bent on framing original clauses to extract the meaning they want in order to apply them how they wish.
> I never understand what's the point of those protests.
For one, it's about showing politicians just how unpopular these policies are. If you can convince a large enough swath of Republican congressmen their seats aren't so secure, they may start to break with the administration.
On the more extreme end: I doubt many of the protesters are familiar with it, but there is a 3.5% rule[1] in political science that states when nonviolent protestors grow to about 3.5% of the population, authoritarian regimes become likely to fall from power.
Neither candidate was ever going to push back against Israel's genocide of Palestinians.
While it was very disappointing the Democrats weren't exerting significant pressure against Israel, and Kamala gave no indication she'd act any different, it was delusional to believe Trump was going to be any different. He was very clear that he supported Israel as well, and he went as far as to claim he'd support Netanyahu even more strongly than Biden. Sure, he sabre-rattled a bit about wanting the war in Gaza to end before he took office, but he also indicated he'd support residual IDF actions (i.e., continued killings of Palestinians) within Gaza afterward.
There was never a candidate who was going to push back against Israel, no matter how much you or I would have liked for there to have been one.
AIPAC has a terrifyingly strong grip on American politics.
The only way to address this and other similar problems is through campaign finance reform, which the incumbents will never allow. It doesn't mean we shouldn't stop pushing the issue though.
> We have to abandon the appeal to authority and take the argument on its merits, which honestly, we should be doing regardless.
I don't really agree. In virtually any field, when those who have achieved mastery speak, others, even other masters, tend to listen. That does not mean blindly trust them. It means adjust your priors and reevaluate your beliefs.
Software development is not special. When people like antirez (redis) and simonw (django) and DHH (rails) are speaking highly of AI, and when Linus Torvalds is saying he's using AI now, suggesting they may be on to something is not an appeal to authority. And frankly, claiming that they might be saying nice things about AI because of some financial motive is crazy.
> And frankly, claiming that they might be saying nice things about AI because of some financial motive is crazy.
I'm actually taken aback by the vehemence of the anti-AI brigade on HN. It seems objectively crazy to me to suggest someone like antirez, with a long visible history now has an agenda to push AI products, so he writes blog posts to do so.
This is just genuinely going into the wilfully blind territory now, and your post is the one downvoted for pointing it out.
I think we are properly into holy war territory and people on either side are losing their minds, and their objectivity.
> From watching the videos, especially this latest one, she tried to hit the officer.
I don't see this at all. She was turning her steering wheel hard right when the officer was standing at the front left corner of her vehicle, indicating her intent was to drive around the guy. You can see that in the two or three seconds before the officer's camera jerks.
If this was the only video we have of the incident, you might be forgiven for assuming that she was unsuccessful in avoiding him, but the earlier video caught from a different perspective made it look like the officer hopped out of the way untouched. In any case, even if contact was made, it wasn't severe enough for the officer to drop the phone despite being held in one hand while at the same time drawing and firing his gun multiple times at the driver.
I've seen far worse strikes/near-misses happen when parents teach their teenagers to drive for the first time where everyone walks away unhurt.
The records themselves are likely still copyrighted due to the collaborations, but you are free to record your own performance of the songs on said records.
reply