Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 21:28:36 JST Bread up, Bro
   Forget ACAB, it's AJAF time
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 21:29:28 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to
     it feels like people are done with this to a degree which is significant
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 21:33:36 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • DMA
     @DMA that's before the current year, it doesn't matter.
   • Embed this notice
     DMA (dma@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 21:33:37 JST DMA

     in reply to
     NAFTA was set by?
   • Embed this notice
     PopulistRight (populistright@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 21:48:48 JST PopulistRight

     in reply to
     @sickburnbro Yes, they are very effectively mislead by the fake "court show." Ignorant morons. Nothing actually we need done requires a court-fight.
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 21:48:48 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • PopulistRight
     @PopulistRight I don't think most people are morons. Respect for law is the foundation of civilization. The subtle part that the system has not taught people about is bad judges, and that they do exist.
   • Embed this notice
     PopulistRight (populistright@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 22:15:54 JST PopulistRight

     in reply to
     @sickburnbro The "liberal judges" bit has been an active part of uniparty-trick politics of the fake-right flavor "side" for decades - with conservative ones called "fascist" by the fake-left at the same time, of course. They are cranking it up a notch now, as an effective distracting tactic.
     
     The top issues that matter are booting the "here to work" 49-Million Illegals (of ~50) + the millions of "leegal" ones, and ending all the wars. None of this show-biz effects either, as we get daggers from Trump in our back on both.
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 22:15:54 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • PopulistRight
     @PopulistRight Yes, the entire system doesn't want to get rid of all the invaders because they brought them here on purpose, obviously. What I think is important is that a significant amount of people understand that now.
     
     The Trump admin is putting in real effort to get them out of here, but the resistance is 100%, exactly like I expected it to be, and mentioned mulitple times.
     
     We had a fucking sitting senator go to a foriegn country and cry tears for a fucking MS-13 gang banger.
     
     What is important is how radicalizing this is to normal Americans.
   • Embed this notice
     Anime Wong (elliptica@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 22:38:52 JST Anime Wong

     in reply to
     @sickburnbro Judicial review only works in a high trust society.
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 29-May-2025 22:38:52 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • Anime Wong
     @Elliptica and you can't judgical your way back into a high trust society once it's gone
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:21:37 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • Anime Wong
     • That Would Be Telling
     @ThatWouldBeTelling @Elliptica indeed, it's always been a power struggle, and I think the founders knew that was likely to happen - thus the design they chose.
     
     That said, maybe the more explicit form of that is "Judicial review can only ever hope to work in a high trust society"
   • Embed this notice
     That Would Be Telling (thatwouldbetelling@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:21:38 JST That Would Be Telling

     in reply to

     • Anime Wong

     @Elliptica @sickburnbro "Judicial review only works in a high trust society."

     I'm sure that's true, but did we ever really have one? Concept established by fiat in the US in 1803 becoming part of our small c constitution, and was contentious pretty much since then??

     Here we have a counter-revolution being Resisted by our Deep State. The Congress could fix this by jurisdiction stripping (the founders did not trust judges), but they're mostly of the Deep State. Or disestablishing much or all of the Federal judiciary below the Supreme Court. Or we could interpret Article III "good behavior" as not requiring an Article I impeachment to oust these judges. Etc.

     "The purpose of a system is what it does."

   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:26:33 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb:
     • Anime Wong
     • That Would Be Telling
     @TrevorGoodchild @ThatWouldBeTelling @Elliptica Yes. If one were trying to get that outcome, this exact way would be nearly the best way you could go about it.
     
     I read that the trade judge that ruled against Trump's tariffs specifically broke their rules about randomly selecting judges for the panel.
     
     If true, it means, just like that DC judge, they are really pushing the outer limit of what they can get away with, which is bad in multiple ways for them.
     
     If a judge doesn't follow the rules, what good are they?
   • Embed this notice
     Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb: (trevorgoodchild@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:26:34 JST Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb:

     in reply to

     • Anime Wong
     • That Would Be Telling
     @sickburnbro @ThatWouldBeTelling @Elliptica At this point it is a very hard sell to say that a pure one-man fiat dictatorship where judges are simply disappeared would be worse than this joke of a 'society'
   • Embed this notice
     EvilSandmich (evilsandmich@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:32:59 JST EvilSandmich

     in reply to

     • Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb:
     • Anime Wong
     • That Would Be Telling
     @sickburnbro @TrevorGoodchild @ThatWouldBeTelling @Elliptica We already have a dictator in the form of "Boy Banging John Roberts and his Four Bitches" so Zion Don, for all his many many faults, would be far preferrable.
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:32:59 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb:
     • Anime Wong
     • EvilSandmich
     • That Would Be Telling
     @EvilSandmich @TrevorGoodchild @ThatWouldBeTelling @Elliptica that would be an Oligarchy, and my general feeling is that, historically, Oligarchies tend to be worse.
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:44:39 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb:
     • Anime Wong
     • That Would Be Telling
     @ThatWouldBeTelling @Elliptica @TrevorGoodchild indeed, you always have to judge in a society. The tricky part is that when you have a "judiciary" as a group, perverse incentives start to creep in.
   • Embed this notice
     That Would Be Telling (thatwouldbetelling@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:44:40 JST That Would Be Telling

     in reply to

     • Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb:
     • Anime Wong

     @sickburnbro @Elliptica "If a judge doesn't follow the rules, what good are they?"

     Indeed, but that doesn't say deleting the entire institution is a good idea.

     Even the "pure one-man fiat dictatorship" suggested by @TrevorGoodchild for anything larger than a village is going to have to delegate judicial power so he won't have all his consumed by all the cases that arise.

     I mean, is Stalin going to be presiding over every domestic dispute?? Yep, the USSR had a family court or civil/criminal courts that handled that end of things. And you need a judicial system to avoid "self help" and the resulting blood feuds.

     Dictatorships also don't solve the succession problem, and that of course includes monarchies, there's even wars named after this like War of the Spanish Succession.

     Perhaps take many steps back and assume any given "good" political system lasts only so long at maximum? Even those monarchies underwent various changes, right? Magna Carta for example.... Formal term limits for systems of government?????? :cirno_shrug:

   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:57:47 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • rein
     @rein We don't actually know what he believes in. He probably holds that close to his chest.
     
     What we do know is the system sees him as a extinction level threat in the way they haven't seen any other person in the last 20 years.
   • Embed this notice
     rein (rein@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 30-May-2025 00:57:48 JST rein

     in reply to
     @sickburnbro Well this isn't "the people" it's a right winger on twitter. The only one whose decision ultimately matters on this issue is Trump himself.
     
     Of course he needs legitimacy to justify what he needs to do. But the problem is he won't do it anyways because he believes in the law unironically.
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 31-May-2025 20:54:46 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • PopulistRight
     @PopulistRight What, as an example, would be something that would make you think he is "trying to get them out of here"?
   • Embed this notice
     PopulistRight (populistright@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 31-May-2025 20:54:47 JST PopulistRight

     in reply to
     @sickburnbro Trump is not even remotely "trying go get them out of here." He is doing fake "court fight" BS to fool people into thinking he is. "Due Process" for deportations is long-established court-precident, and is NOT the way to actually solve the problem, which is ...
     
     99% of illegals are here to work, but Trump won't give the order to felony-bust their employers, so they will never leave. And, Trump now says he wants a "path to shamnesty" - where we pay for their round-trip home/back - for that 99%, who keep Americans poor. The gangsters do NOT make us poor by competing for jobs, so should be the lowest priority.
     
     The public were aware of this problem way back when we stopped the "Gang of Eight" shamnesty attempt by McCain, Rubio, et-al. We have been screaming for the existing, court-cleared felonies - which worked well, before - to be re-enforced again, for decades.