> the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge.

I don't think this is accurate as a fact of recent history. As I recall, said interests wanted a repeat of Bush v Clinton. While they may have fallen in line since, I think this picture you are painting misses a lot of nuance. The current president was considered a joke up until the votes started coming in. So I think you are painting with an overly broad brush.

Secondly, at a certain point this starts to read like little more than cynicism. What is a suggestion you have, that isn't merely one in the negative? I genuinely sympathize with your perspective, but I'm curious what the subsequent step is then meant to be.

Thirdly, preventing egregious wrongs is pretty important. I don't believe rule of law is permanently out of reach. If your basis for this is the broad brush you painted earlier well then I don't think that actually computes. And I don't think preventing egregious wrongs should be minimized, even if structural issues are a barrier to "righting wrongs" as I believe you correctly put it. Solving those structural issues is a longer discussion, and one predicated on the requirement that there is no longer a "lunatic in charge".

That in of itself, is important. Let's also remember they could have brought the cases earlier. Your comment doesn't really address that, unless you are essentially claiming someone paid off Garland to dither away for 3 years. I gather that is not your claim? Therefore I think you're being overly cynical. As I said, in many ways it's not that complicated.

The point I was trying to make is Democrats can elect and nominate better candidates. But let's also not forget, single issue Republicans are not the only problem.

Institutional or single issue Democrats are also the problem. The biggest problem with Democrats is the DNC. The same people who lied to you about Biden's fitness for a second term are by and large still there. They still want your money. The DNC uses the Trump fear to escape accountability for its failures at every turn. The losers who have lost to this man for about a decade now are still there.

So I think we are in agreement, but I would add the reason more young people and independents need to vote is to replace the power structure on both sides of the aisle, not merely the one in power today. This is not "both sides", rather two things can be true. An institutional Democrat can be better than what we have today, but I think history has shown in the long run it is not good enough. What comes after this from the right in the near future may be far worse. Do not underestimate the ability for a future nominee to make the current president look like a saint... recall when people thought Bush II was a low point. It can happen again. If we keep electing mediocre Democrats, I believe it will.

Thank you for clarifying your comment, I appreciate you coming back to do that.

Your comment reads like you are arguing with yourself. I never suggested anything to the contrary of much of what you write, so frankly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I suggest you re-read my comment in full as I think we are predominantly in agreement.

Why don't you work on lobbying your grandparents and their vote because I seriously doubt you are equipped for whatever armed conflict you are imagining. Have some dignity. If Americans are so called upon to defend the constitution then so be it, there is no need to prematurely soil your pants about it.

Don't elect a geriatric compromise candidate. The current administration's excesses create a massive opportunity for a pendulum swing. It's really not that hard. Hold yourself, your neighbors, your family and your friends accountable for who they vote for. And as tempting as it is, don't give into cynicism. It will take work but change for the better is always possible, and really in America, is far less out of reach than it would often seem.

Movements that ignore the need for a charismatic leader fail, often spectacularly. It's why for example occupy wallstreet was such a laughable failure. Who was its leader? Is the human megaphone a species of "massive collaboration and communication"? Can you name me one leader from that movement who was nationally recognized as such?

Strong leaders are always required. Such people reduce the cost of messaging and communication which would otherwise be insurmountable to cohere a movement and actually make change. You don't elect a mob. Find leaders you trust and spread your conviction without apology. Roosevelt was not Roosevelt until after his works were done. We don't need some amorphous "massive collaboration and communication" we need to elect leaders who will fight for what we believe. So many of your friends, family and neighbors are willing to elect sell-out leaders. You could start there, that is if you actually want to fix the problem rather than invent new ones.

Of course you could have an agent on your side do this, so I take you to mean a LLM that submits a PR and is not instructed to make such a reflection will not intrinsically make it as a human would, that is as a necessary side effect of submitting in the first place (though one might be surprised).

It would be curious to have an API that perhaps attempts to validate some attestation about how the submitting LLM's contribution was derived, ie force that reflection at submission time with some reasonable guarantees of veracity even if it had yet to be considered. Perhaps some future API can enforce such a contract among the various LLMs.

As you point out this of course predates the age of LLM, in many ways it's basic human tribal behavior.

This does have its own set of costs and limitations however. Judgement is hard to measure. Humans create sorting bonds that may optimize for prestige or personal ties over strict qualifications or ability. The tribe is useful, but it can also be ugly. Perhaps in a not too distant future, in some domains or projects these sorts of instincts will be rendered obsolete by projects willing to accept any contribution that satisfies enough constraints, thereby trading human judgement for the desired mix of velocity and safety. Perhaps as the agents themselves improve this tension becomes less an act of external constraint but an internal guide. And what would this be, if not a simulation of judgement itself?

You could also do it in stages, ie have a delegated agent promote people to some purgatory where there is at least some hope of human intervention to attain the same rights and privileges as pre-existing contributors, that is if said agent deems your attempt worthy enough. Or maybe to fight spam an earnest contributor will have to fork over some digital currency, to essentially pay the cost of requesting admission.

All of these scenarios are rather familiar in terms of the history of human social arrangements.

That is just to say, there is no destruction of the social contract here. Only another incremental evolution.

At a certain point why blame people for trying to keep up? Why are scammers so successful? It seems to me we have a systemic failure at a societal level. Until we are honest about that it will only get worse. Until then maybe some rouge LLM botching some critical system will be the wake up call we need.

I am not sure what to make of critiques that seem to rest on notions of a small population of scammers preying upon the doe-eyed public. I think the situation is a bit closer to Carlin: garbage in, garbage out. A critique that holds up quite excellently in this AI age.

Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held accountable, and then cry like babies when someone makes videos and mocks them. He could have just sued them directly to recoup his financial losses from them destroying his house over a bs warrant but cops have qualified immunity. The justice system gives him no recourse. They sued him for videos meanwhile his countersuit was thrown out on this basis.

If you support the cops on this I see no reason why one should not conclude you "wholly endorse" the ongoing "law enforcement" assault on free Americans. What principles do you take the nation to be founded on? You realize red coats coming into people's homes under the color of the law is what instigated the war that bought this country its liberty 250 years ago? I fail to see how this is much different, armed goons with guns and badges invading private property that cannot be held accountable. No election he can take part in will reasonably solve this so he can sue in a timely manner, as the unelected justice system has unilaterally decided you cannot sue cops over this. This is anti-American. Go read the bill of rights and tell me it is consistent with the spirit of those hard fought liberties to support the cops on this. I hope if you actually endorse burdens of proof you will at least support local, state and federal representatives who will codify into law a "repeal" of qualified immunity so that cops who fail to meet that burden can be held personally accountable.

Note a case on that count would still need to prevail on the merits. That is how justice is supposed to work. Instead a carve out for law enforcement has been created where you can't even take them to court. Your case is going to get thrown out. The justice system should not be creating this special class of people, with great power and depriving them of the responsibilities common between neighbors in a free society. What they have done is really not unlike the British sending armed men into American cities to violate rights and then insisting they cannot be held accountable in colonial courts as a matter of principle. This is criminal. People should be able to sue police officers. If that makes the cost of waving guns in people's faces more expensive then so be it.

At some level I don't blame him. It is also a bit strange how in that act alone he showed more accountability than most of the politicians that were questioning him, never mind most executives. I suppose Josh Hawley wants to be liable for personal lawsuits for his acts of Congress too... people cringe at his "robotic" demeanor but I can't remember the last time someone turned and faced people and apologized like this. Most people asked to do the same (even in front of the same body) never do.

https://youtu.be/yUAfRod2xgI

I have some follow-ups.

> Yes! We already do this. Everyone in the EU can freely migrate to another EU country in the Schengen zone.

How about any other ways? When they are in the country? How about vs other non EU immigrants? Should people from MENA be treated differently than people from Israel? From the United States?

You say open borders are not human rights... but you said European antisemites should be allowed to come into Sweden. If you care about open borders and antisemitism so much, would you support a Swedish brexit? You seem to indicate you voted for a party that changed migration laws. Would you also support a party that banned European antisemites? Why is schengen inviolate but not your prior rules on migration or crime?

> The policy now is prevention also.

Meaning what? And on what basis?

> Yes, Israel and its population have shown to be our steadfast partners.

How is Israel a partner to Sweden? So a partner to Sweden is what makes a country Western? Earlier you seemed to suggest it was based on geography but also "behaviors". What behaviors would those be?

Lastly, I understand you think the Nazi analogies are gotchas. You'll have to forgive me. After all, while you take great care in your prior reply to be sensible, your other replies did not convey the same tone. Focusing exclusively on one minority group makes one look very suspicious. It's not like the thought of Nazis comes from nowhere.

You should know it was only last year your "Moderate" minister for migration Johan Forssell was involved in a scandal where his teenage son was pictured giving a Nazi salute, having attended neo Nazi gatherings. This is the same man that blames cultural degradation and parents for the actions of other teenagers, who wants to lower protections for young people and their parents accused of crimes or misconduct... do you not see an irony here?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/11/sweden...

Do you think he should have resigned? Do you not see any nexus between focusing on crime through a racial or ethnic lens and fascism? Do you take the responsibility of any criminal justice system to prove guilt and treat defendants of equal status equally before the law regardless of race, ethnicity, country of origin, .etc seriously?

Are you as surprised as he was, given his rhetoric, that the security services of your country had to inform him his own son was involved in such a group?

It seems to me someone who wants to make broad associations based on neighboring conduct and loosen protections before the law in the name of Swedish values and public safety should at the very least have the decency to resign in such a circumstance. It is deeply ironic to me and I think perfectly captures how I personally feel about the right, from Europe to the United States to Israel...

So in summary, is your position if a MENA teen in Sweden does a Nazi salute, you want them and their family deported? But if the Minister of Migration's son does it, that's fine? You agree with your party it's not a big deal?

Remind me again where antisemitism comes from?

You asked if I want less garbage and trash in my country. I'll settle for less Nazis.

Let's even grant you the premise that these statistics are accurate. What do you want to do about it? Deprive people of their rights extrajudicially because of where they come from? Should we treat people from MENA differently before the law? What about a native Swede who is antisemitic? Should they lose some rights? Should we deport people based on place of origin? Is that what the West is based on to you, increasingly arbitrary or national/ethnic access to rights vs a universalist conception of human rights? Or would that be a "third world" degeneration?

What is the West? Are Jewish people synonymous with the West? Was that always the case? You talk about minority protections are Jewish people a majority in Sweden? If not, why do you advocate protections for some minorities and not others? Do you think Jewish people have suffered in the "first world" West? Where does antisemitism come from? Was the Weimar Republic the third world? How about the regime that followed? Should European antisemites be allowed into Sweden? Maybe everyone who enters Sweden should have to pass an ideological test to prove they are sufficiently non antisemitic and appropriately Western? Or maybe you let them in but they have to walk around in special outfits or with a special lapel or label on them so we can be vigilant regarding their whereabouts? Perhaps anyone who commits a crime in Sweden should be deported, as only an anti-western person would exhibit criminal behavior?

What do you want to do about it? Highlighting crime tells us nothing. Every society deals with crime. Most societies have minorities. What separates societies is how they deal with it. So tell us, warden of the West, what you seek to do.

I should know better than to wade into a debate with someone who argues like you. Your comment history does indeed speak for itself. But I will try to debate you in good faith. I look forward to your answers.

I think there might be a way to make it work, however you would have to be very aware and plan for a way to not reinvent the same losing dynamics. It might not be possible.

Gulf states have little to nothing in common with Palestinians. Citizens of most gulf states are born into relative wealth merely by the fact their countries are rich in petrodollars. They build lavish cities and have standards of living (for their citizens) that increasingly put the West to shame. They are "diversifying" from oil by building massive AI datacenters and essentially catering to Westerners who want to live unencumbered by Western pretensions of civic duty, avoid taxes in their home countries, etc. They make deals with the Israelis and have for over a decade now, even if under the table. They buy American weapons, their elites have frequently been educated at the most exclusive British or American universities. They like expensive Italian cars. Money is money.

Meanwhile Palestinians are born poor, in a failed state with no autonomy. Some UAE crypto influencer is yolo gambling away more money than most Palestinian kids will see in their lifetimes. They live under an occupation and have basically no rights in that regard. They are poor. Just google image a picture of Gaza vs the UAE. It just doesn't even compare. Maybe on some level they are both Arabs. But the same rule applies. Money is money.

The gulf state governments gave up on trying to care about them many many decades ago. They realized it was cheaper (and more prosperous) to go along to get along with the United States and Israel. If they hadn't, their capitals might look like Tehran right now. Over the years it became easy to blame other people for the problem - Iran, even the Palestinians themselves. They have long since washed their hands of caring.

Don't conflate the Gulf States with Palestinians, or associate them with anyone on the losing side of anything when it comes to money and power. They are as corrupt and bought-in to this system of wealth/might makes right as anyone.

They may on paper, but of course a lot of money goes to dividing us up come election time. What you are suggesting is no shortcut - it would rather be almost like inventing an alternative political party.

Short of video evidence of blatant gun to the back of the head style homicide qualified immunity means most law enforcement officials are never held accountable for their miscarriages of justice. Criminal charges against officers are exceedingly rare. She should be able to sue this detective directly. Of course she can sue the government too, and should. But without any personal consequences for the people carrying out these acts, taxpayers will continue to bail out these practices without ever noticing. Your own government should not be a shield for a police officer who has violated you or your neighbors.

You omitted that part out of your quote to do what, imply I don't care about dead drone victims? Because I believe we shouldn't launch wars needlessly?

What point are you trying to make? Should we bomb Toyota dealerships because of all the automobile fatalities? If you disagree should I imply you don't care about dead car crash victims?

Luckily our legal system more often than not makes it literally illegal to operate under your standard. How many were victims of people like you before they had to codify that principle I wonder. Truly stunning. If only the same level of rigor were enforced for presidents of the United States taking the nation to war. Think of how many more countless lives could be saved.