[untitled]
107 comments
Not even a mention how this is deeply unconstitutional in the article. The media is failing us.
With how these articles are immediately flagged, HN is failing us too.
This is not tech news, not everyone here wants hn to be filled up by political news. There are many other sites to do so.
> This is not tech news
Neither is how to use the em-dash, which was front page on HN the other day.
That being said, this is tech news, albeit indirect. When the rule of law is tossed into the woodchipper, it kind of affects everything, including tech.
I understand that it may be too divisive, but maybe whoever runs HN can moderate these threads so they maintain some substance and don't devolve into screaming matches.
Neither is how to use the em-dash, which was front page on HN the other day.
That being said, this is tech news, albeit indirect. When the rule of law is tossed into the woodchipper, it kind of affects everything, including tech.
I understand that it may be too divisive, but maybe whoever runs HN can moderate these threads so they maintain some substance and don't devolve into screaming matches.
the better argument is there is little to no opportunity for interesting, curious, engaging conversations around topics like this. the people most likely to engage and be the loudest are people who aren't interested in being open to new facts and changing their opinion or having nuanced views. this leads to boring, hostile, us-vs-them political takes that don't have any substance.
moderation on HN is largely left to the users, and stuff like this getting flagged is an indication of what the community wants at large. there is still an absolute ton of political stuff that doesnt get flagged
moderation on HN is largely left to the users, and stuff like this getting flagged is an indication of what the community wants at large. there is still an absolute ton of political stuff that doesnt get flagged
> there is little to no opportunity for interesting, curious, engaging conversations around topics like this. the people most likely to engage and be the loudest are people who aren't interested in being open to new facts and changing their opinion or having nuanced views
Fair enough. But part of the reason I like HN is there is a lot of thoughtful discussion about non-tech things. FWIW, I'm probably more conservative than most--e.g., I think undocumented immigration is a genuine problem in the US and "defund the police" is just nonsense.
But I don't see respect for due process these days and that is an enormous problem.
I'll stop there. Thank you for the reply.
Fair enough. But part of the reason I like HN is there is a lot of thoughtful discussion about non-tech things. FWIW, I'm probably more conservative than most--e.g., I think undocumented immigration is a genuine problem in the US and "defund the police" is just nonsense.
But I don't see respect for due process these days and that is an enormous problem.
I'll stop there. Thank you for the reply.
i agree there is lots of non-tech stuff and i'm absolutely very happy there is non-tech stuff. anything that involves creation, intellectual pursuits or curiosities, or new/unconventional thoughts and data and approaches to most anything in life is great for me. the hacker ethic is ultimately about sharing information, and the use of technology in that pursuit, and not letting your perspectives being influenced by status quo and unqualified authorities.
the problem with political discourse, in terms of the comments we see, is that it's overwhelming not about sharing interesting information, but rather just expressing opinions - opinions that are mostly formed by the content we expose ourselves, which is content that is overwhelmingly influenced by billionaires and the established ruling elites. if your worldview very closely aligns to any corporate news outlet, whether it be CNN or Fox News, then you're probably mostly a result of what those owners want you to belief.
the problem with political discourse, in terms of the comments we see, is that it's overwhelming not about sharing interesting information, but rather just expressing opinions - opinions that are mostly formed by the content we expose ourselves, which is content that is overwhelmingly influenced by billionaires and the established ruling elites. if your worldview very closely aligns to any corporate news outlet, whether it be CNN or Fox News, then you're probably mostly a result of what those owners want you to belief.
Freedom of speech and authoritarianism were always topics of interest for this community. I always thought it was an honest interest, but apparently it wasn't.
Hacker culture has been deeply political since the beginning. Hacker culture also didn't consider humor beneath it. But Hacker News isn't hacker culture.
Any accessible online space with real hacker culture? Mastodon?
Mastodon is definitely better.
Probably in a attempt to not look partisan.
Defending and supporting the Constitution is the U.S. isn't partisan. 5 USC 3331
Defenders aren't required to resort to any sort of force. Merely a commitment to truth, and tirelessly repeating it is useful.
All persons have a right to due process.
Defenders aren't required to resort to any sort of force. Merely a commitment to truth, and tirelessly repeating it is useful.
All persons have a right to due process.
You know that, I know that. But in a polarised two-party system critism or even “added context” can quickly be seen as partisan.
Refuse the premise. Every single time. Point to the text. The ability to point to the text is a foundational reason why it was made a written constitution, the world’s first.
The idea a political party owns the Constitution, gets to define what it means contrary to the text, is as untruthful as 2+2≠4
It’s that basic.
Make them reject the Constitution outright. Some people associated with the regime have done exactly that. If it’s not wrong, why hide it? They admit their opposition to the Constitution.
If suspected criminal non-citizens are persons, the law says persons get due process. If the simplest reading of text can be set aside by mere opinion, on what basis can’t it be set aside for anybody at anytime based on an updated opinion, equally contrary to the law?
No one is safe at all.
The idea a political party owns the Constitution, gets to define what it means contrary to the text, is as untruthful as 2+2≠4
It’s that basic.
Make them reject the Constitution outright. Some people associated with the regime have done exactly that. If it’s not wrong, why hide it? They admit their opposition to the Constitution.
If suspected criminal non-citizens are persons, the law says persons get due process. If the simplest reading of text can be set aside by mere opinion, on what basis can’t it be set aside for anybody at anytime based on an updated opinion, equally contrary to the law?
No one is safe at all.
What I read: going near a Tesla dealership increases your odds of ending up in an El Salvadoran prison.
How does putting people in these extrajudicial prisons meet requirements of habeas corpus?
It doesn’t, but they’ve already disappeared a number of Venezuelans because they had tattoos, so if the officers are willing, they can make it happen.
It's several hundred people and not only from Venezuela.
Yeah, let's also send there Tesla short sellers... Sounds impossible right ?
Well, Musk emphasised, they need to go after the people who are 'behind' the protests. He already shared multiple tweets with 'leads' (for now it's only Soros and the likes).
Well, Musk emphasised, they need to go after the people who are 'behind' the protests. He already shared multiple tweets with 'leads' (for now it's only Soros and the likes).
My favorite inversion of the narrative is "all cars matter"
Absolutely nothing. Trump instigated people to storm the Capitol, took classified documents home if I remember well and there were zero consequences.
I'd argue South Korea or Peru are more democratic countries because they've actually had presidents thrown in prison.
I'd argue South Korea or Peru are more democratic countries because they've actually had presidents thrown in prison.
Your argument would be wrong. Democracy doesn’t mean prosecutors run the country. It means that voters decide.
Pardon the rapists, murderers and jail the Tesla vandals! Sigh
> When asked about his comments at the White House on Friday afternoon, Trump called the vandalism suspects "terrorists" and appeared to argue what was happening with Tesla vehicles was worse than what happened during the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol.
> "You didn't have that on Jan. 6, I can tell you. You didn't have anything like that on Jan. 6, which is sort of amazing," Trump said.
All the police officers (one of whom died the next day) beaten and assaulted with weapons by the Jan 6 rioters, how few Teslas were they worth?
> "You didn't have that on Jan. 6, I can tell you. You didn't have anything like that on Jan. 6, which is sort of amazing," Trump said.
All the police officers (one of whom died the next day) beaten and assaulted with weapons by the Jan 6 rioters, how few Teslas were they worth?
No, they couldn't, thanks to the Constitution. They have the rights of due process and habeas corpus.
I guess you have not been following the news.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immig...
Constitution does not matter in this administration. They control the ICE and just do whatever they want. It's not like a judge can physically stop ICE from arresting and deporting people.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immig...
Constitution does not matter in this administration. They control the ICE and just do whatever they want. It's not like a judge can physically stop ICE from arresting and deporting people.
You are assuming the administration will respect legal decisions. This is sadly no longer a given...
If you are deported without any due process (as has already occurred), what will you do about it from a Salvadorian prison?
[deleted]
They could. It might not be legal, but this Administration doesn't care much about that, and good luck enforcing a writ of habeas corpus issued by a US court on a prison in El Salvador.
Enjoy all cars equally
He should be impeached for this, obviously.
For what crime? So far he's just expressed an opinion.
He already has been, twice, but you need two thirds of the senate to convict, so good luck with that.
Unless you keep doing it (and getting people in congress signing on letting Trump pass) you let norms erode, and accept lawless state. Democrats are complicit by not impeaching Trump for every crime he’s committing.
Failed impeachment (or conviction) is much better than no impeachment at all.
Failed impeachment (or conviction) is much better than no impeachment at all.
The democrats do not have sufficient power to start an impeachment of trump. If they did, they would.
> He should be impeached for this, obviously.
They tried that, it didn't work, and no one cares anymore.
You don't get someone like Trump without having a garbage opposition. If his critics really want to counter him, they need to take extreme measures, like:
1. Refactoring their platform into something that can attract super-majoritarian support, and win even in "red" states.
2. Running broadly popular candidates.
However, I predict they'll take the easy route: tend to their base and give swing voters a harder choice, and blame the voters if they don't win.
They tried that, it didn't work, and no one cares anymore.
You don't get someone like Trump without having a garbage opposition. If his critics really want to counter him, they need to take extreme measures, like:
1. Refactoring their platform into something that can attract super-majoritarian support, and win even in "red" states.
2. Running broadly popular candidates.
However, I predict they'll take the easy route: tend to their base and give swing voters a harder choice, and blame the voters if they don't win.
They did not impeach him for this, they should impeach him each and every time he commits an egregious crime against this country.
Also, it's fair to blame the voters if they make a bad choice. Voters have the most agency, it's their responsibility to choose wisely. The choice has been crystal clear for a long time now.
Also, it's fair to blame the voters if they make a bad choice. Voters have the most agency, it's their responsibility to choose wisely. The choice has been crystal clear for a long time now.
You're assuming there will be more elections. These need co-operation of Trump to get organized, and need him to respect the law. He fought tooth and nail against the result the last time he was president. And that was a more rational Trump than you see now.
Afaik, he either invents a national emergency reason to not hold elections, or does a gerrymandering++ to make sure he wins.
Afaik, he either invents a national emergency reason to not hold elections, or does a gerrymandering++ to make sure he wins.
> Refactoring their platform into something that can attract super-majoritarian support, and win even in "red" states.
That’s been the centerpiece of the D playbook for years—pull towards the center. Hell, in the last election Harris even got Dick fucking Cheney to stump for her. Dick Cheney, one of the most republican Republican vice presidents, on stage trying to get a Democrat elected president!
And it failed. It’s an utterly garbage strategy that fails every time. This advice needs to be thrown out and never suggested again.
That’s been the centerpiece of the D playbook for years—pull towards the center. Hell, in the last election Harris even got Dick fucking Cheney to stump for her. Dick Cheney, one of the most republican Republican vice presidents, on stage trying to get a Democrat elected president!
And it failed. It’s an utterly garbage strategy that fails every time. This advice needs to be thrown out and never suggested again.
You can't fight "deport protesting citizens who destroy my hundred-billionaire friend's product to an El Salvador prison for 20 years" with "get votes with a popular platform". Those aren't on the same level of abstraction in the stack of civilization, so to speak.
>1. Refactoring their platform into something that can attract super-majoritarian support, and win even in "red" states.
So what you're suggesting is that Democrats refactor their platform into a Republican platform in order to win over Republican voters?
That might work, but I don't know how effective it would be as a counter to Republicanism.
>2. Running broadly popular candidates.
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were broadly popular, or at least not significantly less popular than Donald Trump by some measures. Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump (popular, not electoral.) Even Kamala Harris only lost by a small margin.
So what you're suggesting is that Democrats refactor their platform into a Republican platform in order to win over Republican voters?
That might work, but I don't know how effective it would be as a counter to Republicanism.
>2. Running broadly popular candidates.
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were broadly popular, or at least not significantly less popular than Donald Trump by some measures. Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump (popular, not electoral.) Even Kamala Harris only lost by a small margin.
What will happen if Trump/Musk send an American citizen to an El Salvador prison for burning Musk's cars?
You'll see a deluge of news, articles and comments on Hacker News explaining why it's perfectly normal, legal and justified. And then any discussion here will be flagged into oblivion.
Probably very little although I can imagine that reporting or talking about it might also involve being "deported"
This is what happens when a country is ruled by an oligarchy.
mindslight(2)
The actual headline (from the local ABC station) was "Trump suggests Tesla vandals should face 20 years in jail, be sent to El Salvador."
And even that's a little sensationalistic. (Trump says a lot of things. And this is an off-hand comment he made on Truth Social...) But even there he only went as far as to say the vandals had "a very good chance" of going to jail for "up to" 20 years, and that "perhaps" they'd go to El Salvador.
Also, we all know judges issues sentences, right? I mean, a president can say what he hopes will happen... But ABC7.com shouldn't be this credulous.
And even that's a little sensationalistic. (Trump says a lot of things. And this is an off-hand comment he made on Truth Social...) But even there he only went as far as to say the vandals had "a very good chance" of going to jail for "up to" 20 years, and that "perhaps" they'd go to El Salvador.
Also, we all know judges issues sentences, right? I mean, a president can say what he hopes will happen... But ABC7.com shouldn't be this credulous.
I don't think it's sensationalist to report that something might happen that the president says he wants to make happen, even if there's not a clear legal path for him to accomplish it in one step. The fact that US president "says a lot of things" doesn't make it reasonable to take what the US president says not seriously.
He nominates judges. He's also threatening judges that go against his whim. He's _also_ instructing law enforcement to do things without the involvement of judges, including sending them to El Salvadoran prisons.
You are a fool if you think this isn't a threat.
You are a fool if you think this isn't a threat.
> I don't think it's sensationalist to report that something might happen
I guess I'd put it this way. I think we can agree that it is sensationalistic to report something that won't happen.
I'm not a Trump booster - but I do think these two HN comments are giving him too much power.
Presidents have no power to remove judges. (And everybody knows it - especially judges.) Wishing that his friends in Congress would help him out by launching impeachment hearings won't make it happen -- mainly because it would need something like 7 Democratic votes in the Senate to actually succeed. (So "threatening" a judge... does nothing. You might as well stand in a field and say "Ooh, I wish you weren't a judge any more!")
It's also convoluted to say there's some credible threat in the fact that Trump nominates judges. (What are you saying -- that during the vetting process for future judges he'll ask each candidate, "What's your stance on sending future parking lot protesters to foreign prisons for 20-year sentences?")
It's mildly newsworthy that he's talking out loud about such an outrageous hypothetical. But it's clearly just posing as powerful and in control for his base. A president does not have this power - and I honestly don't think he even cares. He just wants to act like he does for a few moments on Truth Social.
The only really newsworthy thing here is the protests upset him enough that he had to specifically address it with some made-up hypothetical to make himself and his base feel like he's not losing popular support.
I guess I'd put it this way. I think we can agree that it is sensationalistic to report something that won't happen.
I'm not a Trump booster - but I do think these two HN comments are giving him too much power.
Presidents have no power to remove judges. (And everybody knows it - especially judges.) Wishing that his friends in Congress would help him out by launching impeachment hearings won't make it happen -- mainly because it would need something like 7 Democratic votes in the Senate to actually succeed. (So "threatening" a judge... does nothing. You might as well stand in a field and say "Ooh, I wish you weren't a judge any more!")
It's also convoluted to say there's some credible threat in the fact that Trump nominates judges. (What are you saying -- that during the vetting process for future judges he'll ask each candidate, "What's your stance on sending future parking lot protesters to foreign prisons for 20-year sentences?")
It's mildly newsworthy that he's talking out loud about such an outrageous hypothetical. But it's clearly just posing as powerful and in control for his base. A president does not have this power - and I honestly don't think he even cares. He just wants to act like he does for a few moments on Truth Social.
The only really newsworthy thing here is the protests upset him enough that he had to specifically address it with some made-up hypothetical to make himself and his base feel like he's not losing popular support.
A huge amount of what he has already done falls into the general category of “he can’t do that”. No-one really appears to be that excited about stopping him. It is not unreasonable to report on him threatening to do _yet another_ unconstitutional thing.
Though, actually, even if you are correct and there is a magic line in the sand of unconstitutionality that he somehow will not or cannot cross, that’s _still_ news, in that it must then be read as “president is issuing illegal threats” or “president is stark raving mad”. There is no way to read this as “not news” or as “not concerning”.
Though, actually, even if you are correct and there is a magic line in the sand of unconstitutionality that he somehow will not or cannot cross, that’s _still_ news, in that it must then be read as “president is issuing illegal threats” or “president is stark raving mad”. There is no way to read this as “not news” or as “not concerning”.
You're going to be telling yourself "he can't do that!" right up until he just does it, and then again for the next thing. Who is going to stop him from doing whatever he wants?
They are threatening judges, and have been. That's the playbook, and the last hurdle to complete power.
I've never set fire to a car so I'm not worried.
That may well be true, but a zealous law enforcement official may mistake you for someone that has and you won't have access to lawyers etc. to prove your innocence if you've already been sent to El Salvador.
This is the problem with thinking "that doesn't apply to me" when you see abuses of privilege and position - we need to think of others in our community, not just focus on ourselves.
This is the problem with thinking "that doesn't apply to me" when you see abuses of privilege and position - we need to think of others in our community, not just focus on ourselves.
If they can send you away without a trial then whether you did it out not suddenly loses a lot of importance.
I am worried for this country. Going to prison to El Salvador for 20 years for burning a car because one of the rulers of this country own this company is incredibly stupid