Arrival presents some good philosophical questions, and does so in an interesting setting. The top questions are:
How does language affect our perception?
If you knew your fate, would you still do things the same way?
As such it's qualitatively a good Sci-Fi film. Should it be ranked as one of the best? I don't know, and honestly I don't care, because such rankings are always subjective.
So, I think if there's an issue with Arrival, it's the whiplash of using a hard[ish] sci-fi structure to address the first question, then zoom straight into the second. We're given a pretty solid, small story about how we might plausibly handle first contact, and specifically the linguistic aspect of it, but the truth that comes out of it is that it was language itself which is the key to transcending space and time, and all so we can ruminate on the philosophical equivalent of "Should we love our pets when we know they live shorter, smaller lives than us?"
It's quite the flex for the movie we were watching, and feels a little unearned. There was definitely a little bit of "I'm stoned and this is deep". As a dog owner, I at least appreciate that the answer was "yes," LOL.
I do still think it's good and it was very well done. Many movies wouldn't even be worth this discussion.
Philip K. Dick is famous for saying 'reality is that in which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.' Languages, perceptions, are still materially beliefs and changing beliefs doesn't change reality. I wanted to see HOW the language allowed you to perceive time and it never got there.
I wanted to see HOW the language allowed you to perceive time and it never got there.
Interestingly enough the short story on which Arrival is based on, Story of Your Life, goes a bit into this. I'm not going to spoil it because it's super cool.
It's not about perception changing reality it's the other way around. The movie is a meditation on the Sapir Worf hypothesis, that the structure of language literary changes how you perceive the world.
I don't think some pseudo science jargon about tachyons in her delta waves would have enhanced the story. The how isn't important, what matters is the way it changes her life and how she deals with it. It's an exploration of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis but given more of an emotional tinge. I also loved the design of the aliens and the way they living outside linear time affected their culture and personalities.
I don't think some pseudo science jargon about tachyons in her delta waves would have enhanced the story.
Its not. It doesnt try to give a hard science explanation, it gives an explanation of perspective that offers actual insight. Ted Chiang doesn't write hard science fiction, but it's very well thought out science fiction, imo.
I disagree that you don’t own it. Just because a business writes something into its terms and conditions, that doesn’t mean it is legitimate. The user behind the account has a stronger claim to the value of the account than the website - the user was the one who created the value, not the website. The website created the platform and then the marketplace, but the users are the ones who impart the value.
If the username is just a username and not being sold, then there isn’t really anything actionable, but because X are looking to sell it for significant value then it is actionable, and the user has the stronger claim.
This would be like a bank claiming all the money in your savings account because you haven’t made any deposits or withdrawals recently.
Ownership of identifiers, that includes usernames, is regulated by Trademark laws.
If you keep using a moniker, like a username, to conduct trade under it, and/or have it registered as a trademark (which requires you to use it in trade or lose it), then you can legally claim it.
Otherwise, Twitter or any other platform, can do whatever they want with it.
Correct. What decides the rights, is the use. A registered but unused mark loses the rights, while a used but unregistered one keeps the rights (just becomes harder to prove).
And it needs to be used for trade. Like, someone’s personal nick, not used for trade, would have no rights. But the nick of someone using it to be an influencer, or a furry artist, would give them some rights.
SWIM lives in such a country, and recently got hit by a “virtual fee” for account inactivity. Since it isn’t a “real fee”, it doesn’t increase debt, which would be illegal, but the bank will still happily apply it the moment SWIM were to ever put any money in the account.
SWIM looked around the web, and there are more people who got hit with that out of the blue… after they apparently introduced the “functionality” in 2018, but decided to “delay it” until 2023 because of COVID and stuff.
Calling it a “virtual fee” and just letting them sit there without doing anything, allows the entity to claim having more clients than they actually have, and look like it’s being owed more that it will ever get paid.
The user behind the account has a stronger claim to the value of the account than the website
Legally, they absolutely do not. Regardless of how shitty it is, a user has no rights whatsoever to anything on these platforms. Doesn’t matter if you’ve had an account on Twitter since day one, have a million followers, and because of that facilitated tons of ad revenue for the platform. Literally none of it belongs to you in any tangible or legal way.
These are chickens that people never believed would come home to roost. These social media companies have been around for so long and feel like such major players that people don’t think about things changing, and what that change means when they’ve built entire communities or businesses on these platforms. This is what happens when you build a life or career on a foundation you don’t control. The rug can be pulled out from under you at any time, and you have no recourse whatsoever.
You’re not even a tenant to these companies. You are not the customer. You’re the product they serve up.
This would be like a bank claiming all the money in your savings account because you haven’t made any deposits or withdrawals recently.
Many banks have features and services that require a minimum average daily balance and/or a certain number of transactions each month. Plenty of them have inactivity fees. And they’ll tell you that you signed papers agreeing to these things. Are those agreements valid? Doesn’t matter. Can you afford to sue a billion dollar banking and investment company to find out?
N.B.: I’m not endorsing these practices. Just describing the reality of them. Social media is a cancer. Capitalism is killing the planet. And all these problems lay therein.
The reality is that we often don’t know what rights we have until we attempt to take them to court and see if they carry weight. At some point companies move into the territory of fraud. The question is where that line is. This could well land on the wrong side of the line if a few judges decide it’s not reasonable.
No, the user absolutely does have rights to things on the platform. For example, reddit likes to talk big about “their data”, but in fact this data belongs to the users. Reddit claims an extensive licence to the data users provide them, but that data belongs to the user that created it.
It is akin to copyright. An artist has full ownership of the material they create, while their music label or whatever has rights to distribute it. So a media organisation can sell music rights to a dodgy politician for their election campaign, and that is legitimate, but it is still the artist’s work. In this example, the artist has already agreed to and been paid for the use of their work.
Like I say, just because a business puts it in their terms and conditions, that doesn’t mean it is legitimate. Just because it hasn’t been properly challenged, just because people haven’t yet thought of it as worthwhile to jump through the legal hoops, does not mean it is legitimate, let alone right.
Contracts require consideration. If I give you Intellectual Property rights to something I create, you must give me something in return. “Access to a website” is not really consideration - the website is free to access, regardless of whether I contribute, thus it cannot be taken as reasonable consideration in exchange for the value I provide. You should pay me if you profit from my work.
Websites and digital enterprises have got away without paying users for a long time. When it started, it didn’t seem like there was any significant value to any of it. Now, businesses like Facebook and Google have taken that “valueless” data and exploited it so much as to place themselves amongst the wealthiest organisations in the world - it is abundantly clear that user data does have value, even if that value requires work to be derived.
It also requires work to build a car, but you still have to pay for the nuts and bolts. Users should be paid for the nuts and bolts they provide, which digital businesses merely collect, then use to manufacture their product.
This really needs to be emphasised:
The user is not the product. The user is the supplier of raw materials. The supplier deserves to be fairly paid.
It does become a little different with usernames. In this case, the platform would normally claim ownership of usernames, which, per their terms can conditions, have no value (you’re not allowed to sell your account). However, when the business starts to place tangible value on the usernames that people have invested time in - beyond that of shady 3rd party websites that breach the terms of the website the username comes from - then things become fair and reasonable game for legal challenges.
The usernames would have no value if it weren’t for the users that held them. If Twitter/X reclaimed all the usernames and started selling them, people wouldn’t buy them for any significant amount, they would go to another platform and impart value there instead.
This is nothing but the latest example of sociopathic assholes trying to see how much shit they can get away with taking for free. Just because no one notices the theft, that does not mean no theft has been committed.
Like, platforms don’t actually own your data and usually explicitly state so; if for no reason other than not having liability for what you post.
If they did actually own the data (beyond having the very broad license to use it) they’d also have to curate 100% of it, otherwise they’d get sued to oblivion by copyright holders and whatnot.
Police said Perkins threatened a tow truck driver attempting to repossess his vehicle. The tow truck driver left the house but returned later with officers. In a press release, police said Perkins turned a gun toward the officer, “causing the officer to fire.”
In a statement posted on Instagram Wednesday night, the family’s lawyer said the police and the tow company got it wrong.
Merritt said on Instagram that Perkins went outside to investigate why the dog was barking. He said Perkins didn’t know the police were outside with the tow truck driver.
“In a matter of seconds the men hidden in the dark surrounding his property revealed themselves and simultaneously opened fire,” the statement added. “He never had a chance to surrender. Officers didn’t announce their presence until the very last moment. Steve was committing no crime. Officers surrounding Steven in his front yard fired over a dozen rounds striking him seven times— killing him. They later discovered the attempted repossession was a mistake.”
We need to start prosecuting the police for second amendment violations. It is not a crime to have a weapon on your own property. This is murder and a violation of the victim's second amendment rights.
Damn right, and it’s why I refuse to relent on the second. Anyone wants to repeal or and revoke the individual mandate, they damn well better be advocating for cops to be disarmed first.
Yeah, I know, that seems crazy, but the truth is that the cops attack in numbers, and their victims are trying not to get killed. If the victims just saw cops and started taking out their enemy, it wouldn’t be quite so one sided.
That explains why they murder people in a myriad of ways who very clearly don’t have guns, who they never say had guns and still get away with it, huh?
Liberals are brain dead on this issue. You have been propagandized to the point of idiocy. I’m sure you think that America has a rash of mass shootings that far outstrip every other country, and a bunch of other myths, as well.
But we can’t even seem to get our various governmental agencies to do anything useful on a regular basis, and (being honest), cops as they are serve as a better tool of oppression. Let’s face it, that’s the real goal of most governments, keeping the majority in line so we don’t rise up and take back what has been stolen. The only difference between various countries is what tools are currently the preferred tools.
In Germany out oppression is bureaucratic in nature. The police however are trained well to handle public disturbances and the like in a peaceful manner.
It’s not like our police shoots up civilians on a regular basis. There are problems, but they aren’t nearly as widespread. Also clarify for me: what do you mean by gangs? I have yet to see police roam the streets looking for someone to kill. You’re also not in mortal danger if you’re mentally ill and someone calls the police.
I agree. If the US populace were ever to be disarmed, the police should be disarmed first. I am more likely to be shot by (or have my dogs shot by) a cop than I am by a gang member or my spouse or some other random person.
I'm working in aging right now. Heard of Dr. David Sinclair since he was the corresponding author on a paper I was curious about... So this is what his lab is doing.
Two important disclaimers:
Success in cellular research rarely translates to something viable in the clinic. A lot of chemicals don't behave the same way in cells as in actual animals or humans. Heck, a good number of phase 2 drugs even fail, and these haven't even made it into phase 1... so I wouldn't be too optimistic about them.
The journal Aging is not the most prestigious journal especially for someone working at Harvard Medical School (HMS) to be honest. I'd be more excited if this was published in Nature Aging or Nature Communications or something. If this ever gets published in New England Journal of Medicine (a very prestigious journal only for clinical studies) then we have some news.
The link between cell senescence and aging is something actively being studied tho.
And, if anyone is curious about this topic: I'm also very actively following Dr. Vadim Gladyshev who is also from HMS and is working in aging, I believe he is doing some wet lab-biology on a similar area as well. Feels like his research is sometimes a bit ahead of his time but I think his work has great potential.
Honestly fuck reddit. I was so tired of it, but there was nowhere else to go. At least I can develope a more healthy relationship with social media here
I was logging into Reddit to delete my posts (Which Chrome removed the Nuke Reddit History extension, thanks I guess) and on the front page was just gross homophobic memes. Yeah, I don't think I'll ever going back.
When the subreddits went private I visited reddit three times, then a couple of times the next day, then once the following day. I haven't visited today and honestly I'm not missing it too much. If I get the urge to visit I just come here and it acts as my reddit nicotine patch.
I just wish it wasn't always the first few results when you look up information on certain topics. Especially for really niche issues since it's often the only place with answers right now. That's basically that only time I visit reddit at this point.
Yeah I've been the same, and when I've browsed the comments there is so much aggro. Makes me wonder if it's always been like that and I was just blind to it.
Overall, the experience here is 1000 times better than Reddit
Removing relay from my home screen has helped a lot. I've accidentally gone to old reddit a couple times and didn't click on any links but most times I catch myself and come here instead.
When Democrats have control of Congress and the White House they pass all sorts of legislation to advance the public good, aid workers, care for the poor and disabled, strengthen public education, and provide for the needs of ordinary people. Occasionally they overreach or their programs don’t work or even backfire; they then fix them or try something different.
When rightwingers run our government, though, they pass laws like Taft-Hartley that gutted union rights, rip up voting rights, make it easier for fossil fuel companies to pollute and timber companies to clear-cut, and dial back people’s access to welfare and healthcare programs. And, of course, start wars (Grenada, Iraq/Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq) and pass tax cuts for their billionaire patrons.
Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, and Biden all proposed and put into law sweeping programs to build America and enhance the public good ranging from Social Security, the right to unionize, the minimum wage, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid and greater funding for education.
Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump all went for tax cuts for billionaires and worked to gut or privatize the agencies, infrastructure, and programs Democrats had set up.
There’s a reason for this.
— Leftwing governments believe in democracy, and so try to accomplish what’s best for the majority of people while protecting the rights of the minority; rightwing governments practice autocracy on behalf of the morbidly rich. Sometimes, like the old USSR or modern Venezuela, repressive and authoritarian rightwing governments pretend to be left-wing, but the police state aspects of their governance give the game away.
— Rightwingers don’t see democracy as a benefit or even an ideal; they see it as an impediment to further comforting the already-comfortable while enriching themselves in the process. Instead of building up disaster preparedness through strengthening, for example, FEMA, they work to redirect those government dollars back to their friends through things like $600 billion a year in oil industry subsidies and over $20 trillion (cumulatively) in Republican tax cuts to billionaires since 1981.
The result — when rightwingers are in charge — is government that’s not paying attention to real threats and, when they come, responds with profound incompetence or cynical exploitation
I do have some disagreements around the edges of this but God damn it’s refreshing to see someone in mainstream media set their sights on what’s actually going on, and then go straight for the throat and keep digging.
Craziest part to me is how successful some right wing groups are at convincing the poor to follow along. Those that quite literally benefit the most from the social programs are willing to vote against their own interests to support the elites.
How mind boggling is it that rednecks are literally willing to overthrow their beloved country for a NY trust fund baby and reality TV star? Then he goes and helps the rich even more and they love him for it. He pisses all over “law and order” and the military. They don’t care. Just wild.
I know a lot of their feelings come from fringe topics like immigration/sexuality, but it’s still amazing considering the economic situation they’re facing. The lack of education and critical thinking is evident.
They’re not the poor. They’re temporarily disenfranchised billionaires who just haven’t joined their contemporaries yet. They’ll never see themselves as the poor.
They spend literally billions of dollars a year on arranging for propaganda in order to create this outcome. It’s sad that it works so well yeah, but they’re pretty good at it and they have effectively all the money and talent in the world to make it happen.
Because hating an outgroup is always easier than accepting that current hardship is the result of a complex interplay of factors that aren’t entirely understood and that might require counterintuitive solutions that aren’t guaranteed to work.
“Capitalism is good, therefore being rich is good” seems logically consistent, thus “too much concentration of wealth is bad for capitalist societies” is nontrivial and requires some mental work to understand. If the other guy says “nah, rich people are cool; it’s those other people that are different from you that run everything” it’s more immediately palatable.
So how do you get poor people to back the interests of rich people instead of their own? Segregate them and blame subsets of them. Don’t Be a Sucker is as relevant today as it was in 1947.
Two neighbors are arguing about their property line.
They have a hundred foot strip of land that is ten feet wide in dispute
They have an ugly fight about it all. One neighbor is super rich and the other neighbor is barely able to keep the lights on.
The rich neighbor agrees to leave the land alone while it’s in the courts … but also decides to invite his friends over to park their really expensive RVs on the hundred foot strip of land.
Everyone wonders why the poor neighbor is angry about it.
The rich neighbor also controls the water, food, and power going into that strip of land, and use that as leverage against the people who actually live there. Also, the people that live on that strip of land aren’t allowed to leave it, or they won’t be able to get back in. Also the rich neighbor likes to shoot the children and old women who live on that little strip of land.
Oh, and the rich neighbor “gifted” this land to the people who live on it after stealing the land they used to live on.
The rich neighbor also controls the water, food, and power going into that strip of land, and use that as leverage against the people who actually live there.
Well that seems like an opportunity for improvement. Disconnect Israeli power, food, and water supplies and connect Palestinian power, food, and water. Would be a good use of humanitarian funds.
Very short description: Israel and the West Bank (Palestine) agree on borders. Then Israel starts to build settlements (basically residential areas) for israeilis within the Palestinian territory.
Only real men who have their house in order, at the peak of human intelligence, grift the most mentally unstable, and attack the most vulnerable, members of society; get addicted to benzos and fly to Russia to be put in a medically induced coma to avoid enduring the consequences of their actions, ostracise themselves professionally, then spend the rest of their lives a talking head for the right wing propaganda machine.
Whoa - read the article. This is much worse than what's been commonly reported:
More than 30% of U.S. adults that used Twitter between March and May reported seeing content they consider bad for the world, according to a survey conducted by the USC Marshall Neely Social Media Index. That percentage was higher than rivals Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. Many users reported seeing tweets that condoned or glorified violence towards marginalized groups or explicit videos easily accessible to underage children.
Earlier this year, researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory found that Twitter failed to take down dozens of images of child sex abuse. The team identified 128 Twitter accounts selling child sex abuse material and 43 instances of known CSAM. “It is very surprising for any known CSAM to publicly appear on major social media platforms,” said lead author and chief technologist David Thiel. Twitter responded to the issue after being contacted by researchers. This year Twitter removed 525% more accounts related to child sexual exploitation content than a year ago, according to the company.
Twitter has been slow to catch and remove some harmful content since Musk fired or faced resignations for nearly 75% of Twitter’s staff, including the bulk of the trust and safety team, which is responsible for managing responses to content reports. On average, only 28% of antisemitic tweets reported by the ADL between December and January were removed or sanctioned. The group found the posts by drawing a 1% sample of all posts from Twitter’s API, or application programming interface. Twitter has since restricted the reported tweets that were found to violate policies, the company said.
"Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, we have seen the platform go from having one of the best trust and safety divisions in the industry, to one of the worst,” said Nadim Nashif, director at 7amleh-The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media.
During Musk’s tenure, content from extremist political groups and misinformation related to national politics have increased. QAnon-related hashtags rose 91% in May compared with a year earlier, with the majority of those tweets occurring in the last six months, according to research from the ADL. In the first six months under Musk, nearly a quarter of the top Covid-19 related tweets included information about vaccines that is unproved and untested, according to research done by Media Matters, a left-leaning nonprofit media watchdog group funded by donors. In November, Twitter removed bans against Covid-19 misinformation.
The challenge with the freedom of speech, not reach policy is, “there’s no way to verify what’s actually de-amplified,” said Yael Eisenstat, head of the Center for Technology and Society at the ADL. Meanwhile, Musk himself has also engaged with extremist voices, replying to antisemitic conspiracy theories and anti-trans narratives, which boosts those posts because he is followed by 148 million people.
So advertisers, remember, if you're paying for ads on twitter, you're directly funding racism, sexism, Qanon, and pedophilia. Yep, that's right - Musk is paying far-right content creators to post on Twitter - so your advertising dollars are going directly to rapists and sex traffickers like Andrew Tate.
What feedback do you have on the first sentence, which is not hyperbole? Honestly curious. You appear to have very strong opinions on this topic, but you aren't replying to any of the comments pointing out 33 years worth of failed audits.
Is this most recent one particularly suspect compared to audits that have come before it, and more sketchy than ones that have failed during administrations run by the other party?
Sorry you’re asking ME for proof that 61% of the military’s budget isn’t secret from congress?
Dude, if that was even close to possibly true we would have a MUCH larger issue
Yeah, the pentagon only fails budgets because they don’t fucking know what they’re doing with the money. They sent two billion in cash to Iraq and lost all of it, but okay, none of this is because of their 33 years of recorded incompetence!
No, was asking you for your thoughts on this specific sentence, on its own:
Do you think the pentagon has EVER passed an audit?
Which you did eventually stumble into, but not before engaging in some mental gymnastics for the sake of accusing me of mental gymnastics. Thanks, sort of?
Honestly, are you a bot because holy shit do you not make any sense
Occam’s razor is that the pentagon is bad at accounting for their assets, not that they’re completely circumventing congressional oversight of the military unconstitutionally, which you seem to think is the case, and that it’s good, somehow.
Imagine licking the boot so bad that you twist two trillion dollars going up in smoke into a win
which you seem to think is the case, and that it’s good, somehow.
Imagine licking the boot so bad that you twist two trillion dollars going up in smoke into a win
We seem to keep coming back to how I supposedly think or assumptions about why I was asking the question. Either you have confused me for the original person you were replying to, or you're jackhammering straw men onto anything they might stick to while making a conscious choice to be a tool about it.
Maybe if Congress stopped automatically green-lighting every military expenditure request without question, instead of demanding concise monthy reports on service/equipment purchases AND verified location, the US taxpayer could feel confident that their leadership actually gives a shit about them.
I’m saying the representative pulled out of his ass an implication that $2 trillion worth of missing assets all went to Ukraine. The stuff that went to Ukraine almost certainly is accounted for.
As someone who’s witnessed the US Military’s “use or lose” budget in action, I’d put $100 on a lot of it being jammed in a closet, sitting at the bottom of an ocean, or conveniently lost to fire in a desert somewhere.
Especially considering it’s been a DoD problem for many, many years now. The audits they talk about in the article date back to as far as 2017… this isn’t a new issue.
Sheesh, one of the conspiracies about 9/11 was that the location of the pentagon hit was where they had just failed an audit. It’s a gigantic pit we’ve been ‘losing’ money in for decades, if not a full century.
The state of the DoDs finances is a legitimate concern, but OP and the ‘Pub the article cites are just bad faith trolling.
The truth is that in 1990, Congress passed a law directing all federal agencies to produce regular, audited financial statements. More than thirty years later, the Department of Defense is the only agency that has never passed a single audit. That’s under both Dem and Pub administrations.
The shot at Zelensky and the current geopolitical situation is just silly, stupid, and frankly the kind of thing a tankie would say 🙄
Andrew Tate? Let me tell you, he hasn't hurt a fly, not one bit. Why on earth would they be charging him with crimes? It's clear as day, folks, this is just another attempt by those liberals to punish people for being good in society. They can't stand it when someone stands up for what's right. Sad! We need to fight against this injustice, folks, and support those who are making a positive impact. Together, we will triumph over these baseless accusations. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain#Trump2024#TateIsInnocent
Poe's Law in action. You can not satirize extremists because a bunch of them will take it seriously. It's like the saying about if you let one Nazi in a bar, then it becomes a Nazi bar.
This is a news community, not a lousy impersonationators community. It's the wrong audience for this joke. I don't want news posts filled with bad comedians, so of course I'm going to vote against this. Trump gets too much attention as is, why would I want him to get even more attention on articles that don't even have anything to do with him?
I went into the article hoping most of the arguments against the facility would be because we shouldn’t throw heaps of dead monkeys at science, but it seems that the bulk of them are just garden-variety NIMBY / “oh, no, my property values” complaints.
This is turning out to be a game of hot potato where no one wants to be the one who is deemed responsible for keeping Trump off the ballot. Reading the 14th Amendment, it’s clear as day that he is no longer eligible to become president, seeing how he led an insurrection and all.
But everyone who is in a position of authority to do something about it (save for the 5 justices on the Colorado Supreme Court) is too scared to step up. Instead, they keep passing the potato along, hoping that someone else will do something about it.
I hate to say it, but I’m sure the Supreme Court is going to pass the potato as well. They’ll say “the enforcement mechanism of the 14th Amendment isn’t clear, so it’s up to Congress to determine if someone is in violation and must be kept off the ballot.” That final pass of the potato back to Congress will be what kills the whole issue.
We need republicans to loose the house and senate in november. Get control. that I’m aware of, the Victor Berger was the only guy, until recently who was barred by the 14th outside of being a civil war leader. He was a German-American senator that opposed entering WW1, even after the 1917 espionage act. He ran for office, won, then was convicted just before getting off to office.
they created a special committee and had a full vote in the senate. Granted, Berger was a senator, and not POTUS, so it might require both houses.
If we can take the house back and maintain control of the senate… there’s a chance.
Interesting. I’d never heard of Victor Berger before. So he won a seat for Congress, but the House refused to seat him, citing the 14th Amendment. That doesn’t really work for the presidency, since there’s no one to “seat” the president. I guess John Roberts could refuse to swear a president in, citing the 14th Amendment, but it’s not a requirement that the Chief Justice administer the presidential oath .
Probably best to just keep him off the ballot to avoid this mess, but like I said, I’m sure they’ll keep kicking the can down the road.
They’ll say “the enforcement mechanism of the 14th Amendment isn’t clear, so it’s up to Congress to determine if someone is in violation and must be kept off the ballot.”
Which would be such a stupid take, because if someone were deemed ineligible, Congress can override that per the last sentence of section 3
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Why would Congress be designated the one to make that decision if it’s also the one to override it? Especially when 2/3 is a pretty big threshold to make?
I’m not saying you’re wrong in predicting the possibility, it would just be a terrible ruling if you’re right.
I agree that it would be a terrible ruling. But unfortunately, I’m 99% sure that was the argument made by one of the dissenting judges in the Colorado case. I’m working right now or I’d link it.
msn.com
Hot