Given that the President is a convicted felon who maintains that what he did was fine, and that he has pardoned thousands of unrepentant criminals, and that the vast majority of his party enthusiastically endorsed all this, I would say "pro-crime" is an understatement.
I'd say you're making a different framework. In the dual state framework, your privileged state (caste) is just as aspect of the prerogative state. The dual state framework doesn't declare "which way" the illegality goes. I'd say that trying to define that directionality is already trying to impart normative state concepts (of illegality) onto the prerogative state.
Was Alex Pretti a victim of your prerogative state, and his executioners were merely government agents executing a state imperative? Or was he a victim of gang violence and his executioners were part of the privileged state? In the dual state framework, the answer is wu.
But don't let me discourage you from expanding upon your framework! It may be more effective at explaining some things. It just needs to be more substantial than trying to do a simple tweak in an HN comment.
You know, I wasn't raised poor but I was mentally ill from the very beginning, and somehow I always identified/sympathized with the poor more than anyone else; perhaps I aspired or expected to be poor, and poor is what I became.
When you're poor, you can't help but be immersed in rebellion and discontent. Every song on the radio, every free TV show, every buddy at the dive bar is talking trash about your leadership and the powers that be. There was never any way for me to avoid the voices that hated everything I stood for, from the beginning, and basically being immersed in rebellion led me to intense self-hatred and a losing/denial of my own identity, as if I ever had it.
And that's really problematic for the poor of today, who can get really immersed in global geopolitics, and exposed to all sorts of social media glurge, and being poor, they cannot really find escape from the "free to consume" media at every turn, and so the poor tend to be couch-potatoes who are fed by the television sets and YouTube and Facebook feeds, and eventually most of us drown in lies, and fake news, and bitter rebellion against every authority.
People with the time/money/energy to travel to DC for such things are not poor. They may claim poverty but the fact they made the trip, more often than not, evidences substantial disposable time/income.
This admin is pro-money. Anything and everything can be bought. Pardons, contracts, legal outcomes, you name it. Bribe trump and he'll do whatever you ask.
Trump Inc is a white-collar crime family which is why he pardons every white-collar crime they can find
BTW you know those classified records he took to Mar-a-lago that almost put him in prison?
They were all the records about his family businesses, it's documented, they were unique investigation records and he was trying to end all investigations
Let's not pretend: we haven't had an anti-crime president in a while.
I was once brainwashed and my thinking was, "If only 'my' side could take control, this country would be utopia." 15+ years later, here are some truths I've realized:
- It sounds conspiratorial to say, "they want us to absolutely hate each other because that's the only way the party keeps going for the corrupt politicians", but when you think about it, it's 100% true. We may disagree on abortion, but do we disagree on preserving our great nature, lakes, rivers, and the purity of our environment? No. We all agree that is something good. Yet, federal, state, and local governments sell out our communal beauty for filthy lucre.
- We all agree that instead of unnecessary wars, that money could instead be put towards infrastructure, development, healthcare, education, creating more opportunity for the next generation. Instead, the status quo never changes regardless of which party is in office.
- We all agree that our food should not poison us. Yet government makes it basically illegal to raise livestock and grow produce and sell it to your neighbors. Big pesticide agriculture for the win. The peasants must eat glyphosate.
- We all agree that our country and its benefits must be primarily for its citizens. Yet politicians insist on handouts to grow their voter base while our people are homeless, replete with mental health problems, and struggling.
- We are all anti-abuse-of-authority, yet our politicians foment extreme ideological views like "Support all law enforcement" or "Defund the police" instead of simply reforming law enforcement in ways that make sense like getting rid of qualified immunity, making it illegal for an officer to serve in another county or state when terminated for misconduct.
I could go on, but our problem in America is systemic. We could completely transform this country if we just put our disagreements on pause for 5-years and solely focused on those that we agree on.
This urge to defend the indefensible and “both sides” the most corrupt administration in American history is exactly the problem. Go take a look in the mirror.
Worth noting that the commenter you're replying to is only LARPing as a centrist. The comment history of his other (now-banned) accounts are directly at odds with some of the "truths" he claims to have realized.
That’s very often the case with these guys. No one can seriously look at the modern political landscape in the United States and seriously claim that both parties are effectively the same, or even that they both bear equal responsibility for the terrible state of government.
The Republicans have been in the business of scrapping the US for parts since the 90’s, it’s just accelerating. At worst, the Democrats have been ineffective opposition and overly captured by corporate interests.
The democrats believe in killing babies. The democrats reject the science and deny that there are only two genders. The democrats support genocide. The democrats constantly, time after time, refuse to punish the evil doer and allow them to go free, resulting in crime-ridden cities where many times, innocent children and other bystanders, end up getting killed at random because your democrats refuse to be hard on crime in the name of being anti-racism. Nice try though!
You know what's crazy? People will call others pathetic as a way of trying to speak those things into existence, on to someone. But the crazy part is that you can say what you wish, it doesn't make it true. One thing is for sure: you want it to be true because of the hate you have inside towards those that you disagree with; but the fact remains: it is only an expression of your inner most wishes on someone.
If we're being honest, I feel sorry for you. I am no prophet, but if I were a wagering man, I'd put my money of your heart being full of hate, you living a life where you're constantly triggered against those that hold opposing views, and your life lacking purpose and joy....and emotional self-regulation.
I'm going to look for that on Polymarket just in case I can put some money on that.
I don't lie about my own politics. Saying that makes you feel better about yourself. I've followed politics closely and have evolved greatly in my thinking, but the average hive mind cannot comprehend nuance, resulting in people like you that believe "if only my party had power, all would be well". When your side wants to you stand for Ukraine, you do it. When they want you to talk about gender, you do it. When they want you to talk about an affordability crises, you do it. But it never comes from you. These talking points never surface in a grassroots manner because people fail to think independently and objectively.
The fact that you are not able to have real nuance in your beliefs is a huge indicator that your beliefs live in the realm of ideas and concepts and not reality.
You are a liar, it has been demonstrated. If you feel such a shame about your beliefs because you really do understand deep down that they’re wrong and that you are sinning, you should repent.
To continue to behave like you have been outs you as cowardly little worm.
It's a cope, and it follows the dynamic reactionary talk radio has been using for decades - get people riled up about the system in general, cool them off just enough to go vote Republican, and then leverage their having made that choice to rationalize why it was somehow justified. Rinse and repeat.
(I'm coming from a centrist libertarian position here, not a partisan one)
Nah, you're just as partisan as anyone else. I would be libertarian if the world was all sunshine and rainbows, but after years of seeing how the world actually works, views tend to change. Before, I would have unconditionally voted against any form of welfare. Now, I've seen that government does what it wants when it comes to pouring money into wars, the defense industrial complex, subsidies for their cronies. So now, if I had to vote on subsidizing education or healthcare, f it -- I'm doing it. Because I'm done tightening my belt so that government and big business can squeeze out every last penny for themselves.
What we've had in this country for the longest is a two-party dictatorship. No options. No real structural change, regardless of who is in office. I don't think both sides are equally bad.
Well, what can I say: you make some valid points. This topic is very extensive and I wouldn't have the time to address every aspect, but I like the term you use, "bureaucratic authoritarianism". I think that's an accurate portrayal of what's at work.
Anyways, thank you for taking time to respond. Regardless of the nuance we could talk endlessly about, your perspective was edifying.
Bud, it's "narcissist". And all one has to be to love what one sees in the mirror is grateful and confident in who one is. I completely understand how that would be foreign to you.
> Bud, it's "narcissist". And all one has to be to love what one sees in the mirror is grateful and confident in who one is. I completely understand how that would be foreign to you.
God, it must hurt being that stupid. Like seriously, how do you even put your shoes on without strangling yourself? Do they even trust you with scissors?
> Like seriously, how do you even put your shoes on without strangling yourself?
Because I'm not you: a grown man who is 45+ years old and never matured; never learned to emotionally self regulate; and has a constant chip on his shoulder, to the point that you use the very limited profile space to tell the world that you don't care about whatever crypto coin they're into. Do you not see yourself? Do you not see the perpetual bitterness and rage that emanates from your person? That is who you are, Solid Fuel. That is what you are.
Insults is all you have to cope with the cold hard reality of what I am confronting you with: a mirror.
I mean, _kinda_? This kind of reflexive both-sides-ism works to obfuscate the _huge_ difference in scale, _and_ the occasional, small-but-real attempts of mostly democrats to do something about it.
Now, if the democrats had more big donors than republicans, maybe they wouldn't? But that's a counterfactual that we can't know. But we do know that Bush 1 vetoed a soft money limit passed mostly by democrats, and that Clinton pushed for one, but didn't get it done.
McCain-Feingold passed the Senate with 48 out of 50 D votes (96%), and 11 of 38 R votes (29%) (and one I (100%)), the House with 198 of 210 D (94%), and house, 41 out of 217 R (19%), 1 out of 2 I (50%). Then it was a mostly R appointed Supreme Court that gutted it. Then a _more_ R appointed court that has continued to whittle it down.
For all that the Democrats don't go far enough, there is a _huge_ difference between the parties on this.
Many average Russians and Americans share the features of indoctrinated learned helplessness. They live on their knees and are unwilling to face reality because their lifestyle and/or salary may depend on it.
That depends on whether the baby formula was destined for the domestic market to nourish good Chinese babies, or whether it was destined for export to the foreigners, right?
This is just more than a little fucked up... I think we've "limited" liability way too much in terms of corporations... it's the investors that are meant to be protected, executives and board members are not meant to be immune. And I do think in the worst cases, the death penalty should be on the table.
edit: to be clear, IMO, corporate power is an expression of govt power, which should be minimized.
Ironically, it's not just the ineffectuallity of the DOJ (intentional, in that case), it's the ineffectuality of the political competition, the Democratic Party:
The Dems inability to cash in on these things is so absurd that people just accept it: The Trump administration and GOP are letting a company get away with contaminating baby formula.
That should be repeated by the Dems from now until the end of time. Everyone should associate Trump and the GOP with it.
But as always, the Dems can make Trump and the GOP pay no price, no matter how awful events are (and this one is hardly the worst), and so why would they stop doing these things?
The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity, stymieing Democratic attempts at holding him accountable for crimes he was accused of in his first presidency. Holding him accountable this time would require some workaround for the Supreme Court.
That is legal accountability. I am talking about political accountability: When Trump or the GOP do something awful, the Democrats are unable to score points on it. In the reverse situation, the GOP is very good at it.
Yea things like this make more sense when you model the Democratic Party mostly as controlled opposition for the actual uniparty outside of a handful of instances
All Dems have to do is abandon their principles and priorities, and conservatives will like them. I don't think that will work.
> open borders
You tip yourself off as someone consuming political propaganda. Nobody of any prominence or influence in the Democratic Party advocates or has advocated for 'open borders'. The only place I hear that is from people who watch Fox News, etc.
61 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 70.5 ms ] thread- A privileged state - for the rich and powerful to get away with crimes
- A normative state - for ordinary people whom experience more prosecutions
- A prerogative state - for poor and enemies whom experience arbitrary injustice and persecution for infractions or made-up crimes
Was Alex Pretti a victim of your prerogative state, and his executioners were merely government agents executing a state imperative? Or was he a victim of gang violence and his executioners were part of the privileged state? In the dual state framework, the answer is wu.
But don't let me discourage you from expanding upon your framework! It may be more effective at explaining some things. It just needs to be more substantial than trying to do a simple tweak in an HN comment.
When you're poor, you can't help but be immersed in rebellion and discontent. Every song on the radio, every free TV show, every buddy at the dive bar is talking trash about your leadership and the powers that be. There was never any way for me to avoid the voices that hated everything I stood for, from the beginning, and basically being immersed in rebellion led me to intense self-hatred and a losing/denial of my own identity, as if I ever had it.
And that's really problematic for the poor of today, who can get really immersed in global geopolitics, and exposed to all sorts of social media glurge, and being poor, they cannot really find escape from the "free to consume" media at every turn, and so the poor tend to be couch-potatoes who are fed by the television sets and YouTube and Facebook feeds, and eventually most of us drown in lies, and fake news, and bitter rebellion against every authority.
Plenty of those pardoned for their acts on Jan 6.
Some presumably lived near and didn’t have jobs.
BTW you know those classified records he took to Mar-a-lago that almost put him in prison?
They were all the records about his family businesses, it's documented, they were unique investigation records and he was trying to end all investigations
I was once brainwashed and my thinking was, "If only 'my' side could take control, this country would be utopia." 15+ years later, here are some truths I've realized:
- It sounds conspiratorial to say, "they want us to absolutely hate each other because that's the only way the party keeps going for the corrupt politicians", but when you think about it, it's 100% true. We may disagree on abortion, but do we disagree on preserving our great nature, lakes, rivers, and the purity of our environment? No. We all agree that is something good. Yet, federal, state, and local governments sell out our communal beauty for filthy lucre.
- We all agree that instead of unnecessary wars, that money could instead be put towards infrastructure, development, healthcare, education, creating more opportunity for the next generation. Instead, the status quo never changes regardless of which party is in office.
- We all agree that our food should not poison us. Yet government makes it basically illegal to raise livestock and grow produce and sell it to your neighbors. Big pesticide agriculture for the win. The peasants must eat glyphosate.
- We all agree that our country and its benefits must be primarily for its citizens. Yet politicians insist on handouts to grow their voter base while our people are homeless, replete with mental health problems, and struggling.
- We are all anti-abuse-of-authority, yet our politicians foment extreme ideological views like "Support all law enforcement" or "Defund the police" instead of simply reforming law enforcement in ways that make sense like getting rid of qualified immunity, making it illegal for an officer to serve in another county or state when terminated for misconduct.
I could go on, but our problem in America is systemic. We could completely transform this country if we just put our disagreements on pause for 5-years and solely focused on those that we agree on.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=complianceowl
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=owlcompliance
The Republicans have been in the business of scrapping the US for parts since the 90’s, it’s just accelerating. At worst, the Democrats have been ineffective opposition and overly captured by corporate interests.
If we're being honest, I feel sorry for you. I am no prophet, but if I were a wagering man, I'd put my money of your heart being full of hate, you living a life where you're constantly triggered against those that hold opposing views, and your life lacking purpose and joy....and emotional self-regulation.
I'm going to look for that on Polymarket just in case I can put some money on that.
The fact that you are not able to have real nuance in your beliefs is a huge indicator that your beliefs live in the realm of ideas and concepts and not reality.
To continue to behave like you have been outs you as cowardly little worm.
You are a liar; plain and simple. Not just a liar, but one who never learned emotional self-regulation.
I'm enjoying my second coffee right now. You're drowning in rage.
(I'm coming from a centrist libertarian position here, not a partisan one)
What we've had in this country for the longest is a two-party dictatorship. No options. No real structural change, regardless of who is in office. I don't think both sides are equally bad.
Anyways, thank you for taking time to respond. Regardless of the nuance we could talk endlessly about, your perspective was edifying.
I took a look in the mirror and loved what I saw.
I bet you did, Narcissus.
God, it must hurt being that stupid. Like seriously, how do you even put your shoes on without strangling yourself? Do they even trust you with scissors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology)
Because I'm not you: a grown man who is 45+ years old and never matured; never learned to emotionally self regulate; and has a constant chip on his shoulder, to the point that you use the very limited profile space to tell the world that you don't care about whatever crypto coin they're into. Do you not see yourself? Do you not see the perpetual bitterness and rage that emanates from your person? That is who you are, Solid Fuel. That is what you are.
Insults is all you have to cope with the cold hard reality of what I am confronting you with: a mirror.
Now, if the democrats had more big donors than republicans, maybe they wouldn't? But that's a counterfactual that we can't know. But we do know that Bush 1 vetoed a soft money limit passed mostly by democrats, and that Clinton pushed for one, but didn't get it done.
McCain-Feingold passed the Senate with 48 out of 50 D votes (96%), and 11 of 38 R votes (29%) (and one I (100%)), the House with 198 of 210 D (94%), and house, 41 out of 217 R (19%), 1 out of 2 I (50%). Then it was a mostly R appointed Supreme Court that gutted it. Then a _more_ R appointed court that has continued to whittle it down.
For all that the Democrats don't go far enough, there is a _huge_ difference between the parties on this.
In Communist China they would be shot
Ex-HK bookseller Lam Wing-kee, detained by China in 2015, dies in Taiwan at 70
https://www.npr.org/2026/07/03/g-s1-131904/ex-hk-bookseller-...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/...
edit: to be clear, IMO, corporate power is an expression of govt power, which should be minimized.
Naked corruption and public harm, without consequences.
Libertarians aren't generally in favor of limited liability. Read it again, slower.
The Dems inability to cash in on these things is so absurd that people just accept it: The Trump administration and GOP are letting a company get away with contaminating baby formula.
That should be repeated by the Dems from now until the end of time. Everyone should associate Trump and the GOP with it.
But as always, the Dems can make Trump and the GOP pay no price, no matter how awful events are (and this one is hardly the worst), and so why would they stop doing these things?
All the Dems have to do is kick the DEI/woke, open borders, etc. contingent out of their party and "cashing in" will commence.
> open borders
You tip yourself off as someone consuming political propaganda. Nobody of any prominence or influence in the Democratic Party advocates or has advocated for 'open borders'. The only place I hear that is from people who watch Fox News, etc.