▲ 338 ▼ The AI of Power (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 months ago by Salamence@mander.xyz to c/memes@lemmy.ml 126 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (7 children) He's not talking about seizing anything permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] dev_null@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children) He wants to take over 50% of the companies without paying them. If that's not seizing then I don't know what is. Edit: If the downvoters want to tell me where I'm wrong, I'd be glad to be corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago* (5 children) Edit: If the downvoters want to tell me where I’m wrong, I’d be glad to be corrected. Fifth amendment to the constitution states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" meaning this proposition is straight up unconstitutional unless they amend it to pay. And i assume Bernie do know constitution of his own country so i have no clue how he proposed it like this unless it is to stir a shitstorm about "seizing" and then amend it as "compromise". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) So you do agree it's seizing, which is all I said. I didn't say anything about it being a realistic proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago Agree, but my point was that Bernie do know it's unrealistic and illegal, so he must expect it either be shot down outright in which case it's just a theatre or be negotiated to be legal ("just compensation") in which case it's a bailout for tech giants in the height of bubble. I don't know which is correct, but in either case Bernie comes out of it as unprincipled in best case and bootlicker in the worst. permalink fedilink source parent [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) Are we still pretending the constitution matters? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) In this case it might actually matter because it straight up defend billionaires property here. Remember how in "Democracy for the Few" Parenti agrumented that US system do appear to be completely paralysed in case of proposals working for the people, but works like well oiled machine when it comes for the ruling class interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago* But in that case, the Constitution is irrelevant. It would be impossible even if there wasn't a 5th amendment. All that matters is who is in charge of the heights of political power, the law is a fiction they use to legitimize their authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children) He wants to take over 50% of the companies without paying them. If that's not seizing then I don't know what is. Edit: If the downvoters want to tell me where I'm wrong, I'd be glad to be corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago* (5 children) Edit: If the downvoters want to tell me where I’m wrong, I’d be glad to be corrected. Fifth amendment to the constitution states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" meaning this proposition is straight up unconstitutional unless they amend it to pay. And i assume Bernie do know constitution of his own country so i have no clue how he proposed it like this unless it is to stir a shitstorm about "seizing" and then amend it as "compromise". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) So you do agree it's seizing, which is all I said. I didn't say anything about it being a realistic proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago Agree, but my point was that Bernie do know it's unrealistic and illegal, so he must expect it either be shot down outright in which case it's just a theatre or be negotiated to be legal ("just compensation") in which case it's a bailout for tech giants in the height of bubble. I don't know which is correct, but in either case Bernie comes out of it as unprincipled in best case and bootlicker in the worst. permalink fedilink source parent [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) Are we still pretending the constitution matters? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) In this case it might actually matter because it straight up defend billionaires property here. Remember how in "Democracy for the Few" Parenti agrumented that US system do appear to be completely paralysed in case of proposals working for the people, but works like well oiled machine when it comes for the ruling class interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago* But in that case, the Constitution is irrelevant. It would be impossible even if there wasn't a 5th amendment. All that matters is who is in charge of the heights of political power, the law is a fiction they use to legitimize their authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago* (5 children) Edit: If the downvoters want to tell me where I’m wrong, I’d be glad to be corrected. Fifth amendment to the constitution states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" meaning this proposition is straight up unconstitutional unless they amend it to pay. And i assume Bernie do know constitution of his own country so i have no clue how he proposed it like this unless it is to stir a shitstorm about "seizing" and then amend it as "compromise". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) So you do agree it's seizing, which is all I said. I didn't say anything about it being a realistic proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago Agree, but my point was that Bernie do know it's unrealistic and illegal, so he must expect it either be shot down outright in which case it's just a theatre or be negotiated to be legal ("just compensation") in which case it's a bailout for tech giants in the height of bubble. I don't know which is correct, but in either case Bernie comes out of it as unprincipled in best case and bootlicker in the worst. permalink fedilink source parent [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) Are we still pretending the constitution matters? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) In this case it might actually matter because it straight up defend billionaires property here. Remember how in "Democracy for the Few" Parenti agrumented that US system do appear to be completely paralysed in case of proposals working for the people, but works like well oiled machine when it comes for the ruling class interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago* But in that case, the Constitution is irrelevant. It would be impossible even if there wasn't a 5th amendment. All that matters is who is in charge of the heights of political power, the law is a fiction they use to legitimize their authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) So you do agree it's seizing, which is all I said. I didn't say anything about it being a realistic proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago Agree, but my point was that Bernie do know it's unrealistic and illegal, so he must expect it either be shot down outright in which case it's just a theatre or be negotiated to be legal ("just compensation") in which case it's a bailout for tech giants in the height of bubble. I don't know which is correct, but in either case Bernie comes out of it as unprincipled in best case and bootlicker in the worst. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago Agree, but my point was that Bernie do know it's unrealistic and illegal, so he must expect it either be shot down outright in which case it's just a theatre or be negotiated to be legal ("just compensation") in which case it's a bailout for tech giants in the height of bubble. I don't know which is correct, but in either case Bernie comes out of it as unprincipled in best case and bootlicker in the worst. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) Are we still pretending the constitution matters? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) In this case it might actually matter because it straight up defend billionaires property here. Remember how in "Democracy for the Few" Parenti agrumented that US system do appear to be completely paralysed in case of proposals working for the people, but works like well oiled machine when it comes for the ruling class interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago* But in that case, the Constitution is irrelevant. It would be impossible even if there wasn't a 5th amendment. All that matters is who is in charge of the heights of political power, the law is a fiction they use to legitimize their authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) In this case it might actually matter because it straight up defend billionaires property here. Remember how in "Democracy for the Few" Parenti agrumented that US system do appear to be completely paralysed in case of proposals working for the people, but works like well oiled machine when it comes for the ruling class interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago* But in that case, the Constitution is irrelevant. It would be impossible even if there wasn't a 5th amendment. All that matters is who is in charge of the heights of political power, the law is a fiction they use to legitimize their authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 months ago* But in that case, the Constitution is irrelevant. It would be impossible even if there wasn't a 5th amendment. All that matters is who is in charge of the heights of political power, the law is a fiction they use to legitimize their authority. permalink fedilink source parent
