Ousted US copyright chief argues Trump did not have power to remove her The former head of the US Copyright Office has pushed back against arguments from President Donald Trump's team that her dismissal was lawful. Shira Perlmutter was ousted after the US Copyright Office released a report challenging the limits of the "fair use" defense used by AI companies to justify training their models on …
“Fairly elected,” I would dispute that.
National political parties have a monopoly on the power of naming their nominees, which is fair and just. The problem for the citizenry/opportunity for the fascists is that “most” of the citizenry stumble around in consumer mode, of a free market. Consumers have no responsibility to produce anything, or dirty their hands in such activities; they only need money and they can choose to buy whatever works. Same with politics: voters have no responsibility to write laws or craft policy, we’ll just vote for whoever is best for the job.
But to get on that ballot, the best candidate has to be nominated by the national party, and that gang constitutes the top 2% most busy-body indignant radical extremists you’ve ever had the worst misfortune to be thrust amongst. Politics truly is a hell-hole. Or, you could run as independent, and you’ve got about ~0% chance of succeeding.
None of this is a problem! The true problem lies with the ballot itself: nobody has the power to “vote down” any candidate, no matter how corrupt or unqualified or discredited or blatantly incompetent. The ballot is strictly limited to one vote, of support only, for one of the listed candidates.
But free market consumers never join political parties and exercise practically zero control over who gets nominated, and we wind up with these elections where every candidate is unqualified and there’s nobody worth voting for, they are all radical extremists (or beholden to them) and it is a guaranteed fact one is gonna be elected, because elections never have “negative” votes.
So one idea, and sure it’s “my” idea (as if ideas have owners somehow), to change the ballot back to the “true” ballot, which is the Plebiscite.
Because yes, every single law goes through Roberts Rules of Order which puts them to a referendum in which every representative votes Yes or No on the law. It’s the fundamental principle of democracy, being able to vote Yes of No.
So what is this ground-shaking idea, it’s nothing really. It takes a normal ballot and puts a second column of boxes beside each name, and voters still only put one X in one box.
The other column is “vote against” the candidate, and people would only use this if they found themselves in that unlucky position of having nobody they can support.
Like let’s suppose you’re starving in North Korea and you’re given a ballot and only one guy is allowed to run for office, yet you’re dissatisfied with starving to death all the time. Wouldn’t it be useful to be able to X that “other” box, the one that kicks Kim out and lets somebody less corrupt have a chance at governance for once?
Or there’s some famous b-movie star who only “acts” like a real person, has no actual real-life experience doing anything, but just coasts along on their fame? Say, what if there was a mechanism by which “no such thing as bad publicity” all of a sudden isn’t true anymore? You know, like if you could target that famous good-for-nothing with a vote of rejection instead. Imagine if we had competent leaders for once.
Anyway it’s at r/PlebisciteBallot on Reddit, or there’s a 7-min elevator pitch. You don’t need to support the idea! Sneering ridicule is perfectly acceptable, too.
https://youtu.be/1WiPbLgMHSQ
Oh I'm sure it would, except that, the next day, you find a Death Squad kicking in your door and taking you (and maybe your entire family) for a one-way trip behind the chemical shed to get shot.
Democracy was a nice idea, but it was based on the quaint notion that the people in charge would respect the rules, ideals and goals of Democracy.
That is no longer the case, and The People have no way to legally and democratically solve the problem. I'm reminded of a cartoon (can't find it) where the Founding Fathers are drafting the Consitution and one asks something like "Shouldn't we put in an article about how the Presidential Candidate should be a person of irreproachable conduct ?" and Jefferson responds "Who would vote for anyone that wasn't ?". Well, enough people, apparently.
My own President Macron blatantly didn't care about debating during the 1st tour of elections in 2022. Why should he waste his time ? He knew ful well that he'd be facing That blond beskirted idiot Marine who is very comfortable being in the opposition, thank you very much.
Bring back the benevolent dictator. We won't be worse off, and things just might actually get done.
...Anyone? Bueller?
The closest I can think of would be Jean-Baptiste Jules Bernadotte, a French general whom the Swedes effectively elected as their king. He seems to have been considered an excellent leader.
However, he was still an "elected dictator". I guess you could argue that the current US president is such, or at least considers himself to be such. And the religious elements in the US, and its wealthier denizens, would probably call him benevolent. (Sucks to be the rest of us, of course.)
Nobody signs the ballot. Nobody sees the result of how any one person by name voted because it gets put in a box. Now if there was a login requirement to vote, then we don't have democracy anymore anyway and it's a moot point and this country would be RIP because you'd have Nazi Germany here.
Must admit that while I've heard of/read about a vast number of voting systems (plurality, approval, ranked-choice, Condorcet, range voting, Borda, etc.), I hadn't heard of this one. It could be generalized into 'thumbs up' and 'thumbs down' columns. Specify that you can check any number of boxes ("I approve of these candidates, disapprove of these"), and you have a generalization of the approval voting concept.
Yours has the advantage of being easy to explain and understand. Personally, I like RCV or range voting, and find both straightforward. Both (because they use more information) are more likely to produce results that reflect what people want... which is, in theory, the whole point of an election.
But some people find RCV or (worse yet) range voting opaque, and that's not a good thing for already-minimal voter trust.
I read some years back that a group of mathematicians interested in voting theory held an election on which system was "best" (recognizing that there's not really such a thing; they all have pluses and minuses). Then they counted the ballots using plurality, approval, RCV, etc. and got a small range of answers.
The one thing on which they agreed was that plurality voting was as bad as you can get. (Except for the politicians who get elected that way, many of whom wouldn't make it in any other voting system. Which is why I don't know of any case where politicians have ever opted to change the voting system; when it happens, it's by popular referendum.)
Do you remember if they had STV in the comparison?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#
I don't have first hand experience but my wife is from a country with this system and it looks pretty "just". Also it means people do not need to do "strategic" voting as much as they do in other systems.
Right, nevermind the fact the has he's violated the Constitution via DOGE, fired federal workers illegally because of DOGE, illegally accessed all of our personal financial, SSN, tax, and medical data, illegally deported Abrego Garcia then miraculously brought him back under false charges, illegally gamed the stock market in April by enacting then withdrawing severe tariffs that crashed the market so that his corrupt swamp could make bank...
I don't need to go on. Any one of those instances would have gotten a Democratic President impeached and convicted instantly.
Agree ... BUT must highlight one small flaw in your argument.
You imply with the final sentence that Trump is NOT being treated as a Democratic President would be treated in equal circumstances.
Trump is not following any track that could be described as 'Presidental' and is acting in all ways more as a Dictator.
Dictators generally DO NOT concern themselves with following the law or the intent of the law, end results are the driver.
As Trump is NOT a US President, by his actions to date, the expectation of him following what is considered presidental norms is pointless.
Trump will NOT be inpeached or convicted of breaking any law as he controls the Supreme Court and thereby all law in the US of A.
The Republicans WILL NOT stop him or vote against him as the risks/fallout is TOO high.
The only way out of this is a long wait until Trump plays out the full term of his 'Presidency' and hopefully he does not change the constitution to allow him to 'rule' a 'little' longer !!!
:)
tRump cannot change the Constitution. Changing the constitution is a long drawn-out process (by design) that, even if the Orange-utan were to start today, would outlive him.
He could (conceivably) suspend the Constitution. That would be so Banana-Republican that he would lose a good number of his MAGAt supporters. Might not stop him, but may give him pause...or not.
Don't forget that day 2 consisted of attempting to nullify part of the constitution. Not that it was in effect before the election either apparently, or he'd not have made it on any ballot. Also don't forget it's a country that has never acknowledged it's civil war. Congress only mentions "the troubles in the south". A country that does it's level best to not hold those responsible to accounts. Even after WW2 they allowed the nuremburg defense and hid it from the public so they could not be held accountable. I've never voted, because there is no democracy here.
There's credible evidence that votes for Harris were dumped from the ballot. Entire wards where nobody voted for her despite voting straight Dem on every other part of the ticket. Shit as she may be, that seems unlikely.
As ever, every accusation of the fascist is a confession. And Trump loves to talk about rigged elections.
I'm just waiting to see if the US electorate will support Trump for an (unconstitutional) third term.
If so then this will be the final confirmation that the US is fucked for all time. Not only because the constitution, and Americans supposedly fanatical devotion to it, will be exposed as a sham, but also because the majority who voted for this fascist nutjob will have demonstrated quite unambiguously that they are the root of the problem.
You can unelect a leader, but you can't unelect the voters.
The remaining 96% of the world's population now needs to make a serious and rapid effort to break any dependency they have on America, and work towards ending all trade and relations with it.
> the majority who voted for this fascist nutjob...
...worship money.
Economic pressure will hit them where it hurts, and the rest of the world is already making arrangements to help Mr Trump do just that, either directly or indirectly. Even without our help he’s making a pretty good job of it all on his own with his idiotic tariffs and isolationist policies.
Mine’s the one with “Macroeconomics for Idiots” in the pocket —>
"I'm just waiting to see if the US electorate will support Trump for an (unconstitutional) third term."
Pretty sure him and his thugs like Stephen Miller won't bother with quaint notions like terms or elections, I suspect that any and all opportunities to deploy the military like recently in California will be taken. Trump is both too arrogant and too stupid to hide his plans, if he throws an insult it's almost always something he's done or wants to do, hence his comments to Zelensky about no elections in Ukraine - martial law means all bets are off and the President can do pretty much what he wants.
Meanwhile Trump's most fanatical supporters will demand retribution, legal or otherwise, against anyone who stands against him, which is at least in part why the House and the Senate made a lot of noise this week but ultimately voted for a bill that should cost many of them their seat.
I very much doubt he'd win an election. (Unless the Dems nominate a woman or a black person again... unfortunately, I don't think either will fly in this country.) But I'm reminded of the following conversation a few decades ago :
Journalist : So who do you think will be the next President (of Russia)?
Russian : Yeltsin.
Journalist : Really? You think he can win the election?
Russian : Oh, I didn't say that.
I expect at some point shortly before November 2028, we'll have some sort of Reichstag fire, making it necessary to maintain continuity of leadership. Shouldn't be difficult to arrange.
Trump did say more than once on the campaign trail that 'If you vote for me then you won't have to vote again' (or words similar to that.)
I'm fairly sure that he'll declare a war (even if there is not one) and then Martial Law and then declare no more elections ever.
How his brain will be functioning in 2028 is way above my pay grade but it is doubtful that he will have enough left to operate.
his Big Beautiful Bill is underwater even with Republican Voters.... sorry former Voters.
Miami Council has already cancelled their elections for this year. They might not be held next year either.
The Solution
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Berthold Brecht
This post has been deleted by its author
I am sure that if individuals or a small group had been sharing a small fraction of the books shared by Meta via torrents, the people would be caught and have harsh penalties. However, nothing seems to be done to those running "AI" companies. Does this mean that sharing copyright books is now allowed in the US?
The government here in the US is set up specifically to avoid the possibility of someone or group monopolizing power. Its a bit messy, obviously imperfect but its a form of democracy that sorta/kinda works. At least it did until it doesn't. Trump is is really the bellweather, the strongest signal yet that there's been a significant shift in the nature of government that didn't just happen overnight, its the result of a carefully thought out ongoing process. Part of that process involves corrupting ostensibly non-political roles, caretaker type jobs that by custom and practice have always been regarded as non-political because they keep the system running. The Library of Congress isn't just the Copyright Office, its the country's institutional memory (it does the same job as the National Archives in Kew). If this is corrupted then its possible to 'adjust' institutional memory to favor political strains so the Librarian, like other institutions like the CBO and the Treasury are kept out of politics. Not any more, though -- they're now a tool for power (and the knives are out for the CBO and Treasury because they're not toeing the party line).
Quite a few of the comments here reflect a desire to emulate us. Be careful what you wish for.....
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
