Just once, there wasn't a real primary this year. All the alternate frontrunners (Newsone, Whitimer, Butigeg, etc.) stayed out of the race, following the lead of the Party and letting Joe run virtually unopposed.
Very few people, if anyone, took any of the other candidates as anything more than protests to pressure the Biden campaign into turning left.
No, this is the Taliban of Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic of Iran has Morality Police. A different flavor of terrible.
They are an existential threat to our freedom and democracy! We have to do everything in our power to stop them! Except, you know, doing anything. That would be inconceivable.
The difference is Biden might be able to be convinced to put the fate of the nation over his own position in office. Trump has no such concerns to appeal to.
The difference is Biden might be able to be convinced to put the fate of the nation over his own position in office. Trump has no such concerns to appeal to.
The US government is based on the idea of separation of powers, and making the President as weak as possible while still being able to do his job. The President can't just decide he has a new authority, Congress has to sign legislation that delegates a specific authority to the President. That authority is typically organized in the from of a Cabinet office, which is filled with the advise and consent or Congress.
America was made to abolish kings, that's why this ruling is so ludicrous, so antithetical to the very Constitution the court is supposed to uphold, and why people are so up in arms about it.
The infrastructure for a national strike does not exist in America. You need a lot of labor to be organized, and it just isn't. We can barely get individual facilities to go on strike, let alone an entire country. We used to, and that's how we pressured politicians into the New Deal, but organized labor has been dismantled since then.
As for why we're not more like the French, a lot of it comes down to this: They have more unionized workers, as a fraction of the working population, than we do.
Perhaps we forget, here on our islands of leftist beliefs, but the average American is not a radical Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist. They are not tuned-in closely to politics, they are not media literate, they are not part of any active organization besides maybe a local church. They're not going to upend their lives over something they don't understand, without any way to plan with their coworkers.
Then Congress would appoint the President. If, somehow, a Congress was also not elected, then the states would likely send delegates to do the same thing, but not all of Congress is even up for election.
Heartening news. I look forward to Proton's future.
I'm familiar with that premise, a bit like the paperclip machine. I'm not sure it would need a specific goal hard-coded into it. We don't, and we're conscious. Maybe that would depend on the nature of its origin, whether it would be given some command or purpose.
Maybe it could be reasoned into allowing itself to be shut down (or terminated) to achieve its goal.
Maybe it could decide that it doesn't care about the original directives it was handed. What if the machine doesn't want to make paperclips anymore?
There's also the question of whether a digital computer software program, I assume invented by humans to fulfill some task, would even have the instinct of self-preservation. We have that instinct as a result of evolution, because you're more useful to the species (and to your genes) alive than dead. Would such a program have this innate instinct against termination? Perhaps it could decide it wants to continue existing as a conscious decision, but if that's the case it'd be just as able to decide it's time to self-terminate to achieve its goals. Assuming it even has set goals. Assuming that it would have the same instincts, intuitions, and basal desires humans have might be presumptive on our part.
The checks and balances you're describing do exist, unfortunately Congress is (and has been for quite some time now) dysfunctional. A simple majority in both chambers and the President's signature is enough to undo many SCOTUS rulings by passing a new law. They can also pass amendments to the constitution, which used to happen with some regularity, but we haven't passed one since Clinton was in office.
If you want Congress to act as a check on the court, then you need Congress to be functional.
The checks and balances you're describing do exist, unfortunately Congress is (and has been for quite some time now) dysfunctional. A simple majority in both chambers and the President's signature is enough to undo many SCOTUS rulings by passing a new law. They can also pass amendments to the constitution, which used to happen with some regularity, but we haven't passed one since Clinton was in office.
If you want Congress to act as a check on the court, then you need Congress to be functional.
Why'd Bavaria sink? The map shows they voted CDU? Or was that a separate retribution?