The head of the US Copyright Office has reportedly been fired, the day after the agency concluded AI companies' use of copyrighted material does not fall under existing doctrines of fair use
It's quite interesting how American's have always been about their government's "checks and balances" to prevent tyranny, but all it took was one person who was fine with saying, "fuck your checks and balances" to effectively create a dictatorship, and the whole government is left blabbering, "you can't do that" with no mechanism to actually do anything meaningful to remove the tyrant.
Like, I'm sure there were "checks and balances" in place for employing directors of these various governments offices, so it's almost comical that a President can just fire anyone who doesn't agree with him. I suppose it's not surprising for a country with very little worker protections, though.
While there are certainly flaws in the American system of government, this is not the result of one man simply being above the law. There are plenty of existing ways to stop this from happening but half of the government is actively supporting his efforts. There is no system of government that can survive when the people who are charged with enforcing the rules collectively decide not to enforce them. At that point the specifics don't matter.
That's a great point. Doesn't much matter if there are methods in place if many are complicit in the tyranny.
It's all social contracts. When those break down, a lot of shit breaks.
Also when one party refuses to do jack shit about the approaching storm, hoping for the status quo and retaining their little bits of power. That doesn't help either.
Americans have the means to remove their tyrant, but I guess most of them don't care enough to use those means.
I have the means and the desire to do what you're suggesting but when it comes down to it my desire to protect my family outweighs my desire to protect my country. At least for now that seems the wiser choice for me personally, and I suspect that is true for a lot of others as well.
The problem is that there's no clear line to delineate what that decision should hinge on. If you asked me 10 years ago where the line is I probably would have said somewhere well behind us now. Still, I know what will happen to me and my family if I'm the one to act first and that familial preservation instinct is difficult to overcome. Choosing to be first through the breach, so to speak, is a heavy burden to bear.
I think that dilemma is what prevents most who are predisposed to act from choosing to act, more so than a lack of knowledge about the situation.
I like how you wanks use the same arguments as easy wins like "We have freedom of speech, do you?" or "The people are outnumber the government army, we have 2nd ammendment for a reason"
But when it really comes down to it, there's an long essay like yours on how it's fucking not practical like EVERYONE ELSE WAS SAYING ALL ALONG.
It's like the world had already figured different scenarios and the likely outcome , but you ate the propaganda shit and now you have to fester in it.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions about me and how I live my life. That's fine, but I'm not all that interested in being a sounding board for your frustrations with my country.
It's quite interesting how American's have always been about their government's "checks and balances"
Hahaha, that's a good one.
The US has always been about slave owners on stolen land to be in power with all its perks but without any of its responsibilities by putting as much wool over everyone's eyes as much as they can.
Every supposed check and balance the US has is to keep these oligarchs in power.
And they're all laughably theatrical like putting in enormous importance into term limits, like it's some kind of pinnacle of democracy.
As if dictators will stop dictating because there's a clock involved.
All it does is stop the public from choosing the one leader that isn't corrupted by monied interests over and over again.
It does not stop a leader from speedrunning into doing whatever he wants.
Given we have millions who actively voted for this shit and millions more who didn't bother to vote against this shit, nothing surprising (that's even without counting in the fact those millions are not directly voting for heads of departments etc)
What I find hilarious is that around half a year before I used to see the sentiment that "no such thing as good Russians, see what they are allowing to happen". Well, kudos for those they-are-so-evil-we-are-not people (sarcasm, of course), how are you doing against a delusional tyrant put in place of power by rich fucking idiots? (question is rhetorical, my piece is done)
Donald Trump is a symptom of much greater problems.
I honestly thought your comment was going to blame corporations instead of orange man, but I guess that wouldn't be very neo-liberal of you.
There are a lot of people working with Trump. It's not just him that's the problem.
If America as it is known survives this, massive reforms will have to take place.
Random things like:
And at the end of it, governance should be made boring again. One shouldn't get into the job to be Lauren Boobert the reality TV trash soundbite handjob star. It should be a paper pushing position that keeps the country and its "economy" going.
Probably some other stuff this ramble forgot to add.
It's weird how business, boards, even HOAs seem to have a better set of checks and balances than the US Federal government.
Not that it actually matters, but Qualified Immunity is also against the actual laws that were passed.