This man has quite possibly talked to more constituents during his campaign than any other campaign in US history. An executive order to ban gyms from making it difficult to cancel a membership sounds like exactly "what the people want". Almost stereotypically so
There are dozens of low-hanging fruit to appease the citizenry that have been explained away as nonviable by talking heads and PR departments for decades. I'm excited to see just how much corporate hand-wringing is exposed as the selfish money-grubbing anti-social behavior that it is.
I'm interested to see too, but I hope you won't let your excitement lead you to forgetting that we need to check later whether the measures accomplish their goals before declaring victory. The talking head position was never that it's impossible for a politician to declare they don't like junk fees.
The complaint from the people is "it's difficult to cancel a gym membership". A metric to judge the success of a policy tackling that could be the # of complaints to consumer protection associations, authorities, politicians, or bank chargebacks.
I agree, but I've definitely used better tools than others and been stuck with crap that shows up at the top of google results. And there's great tools like this[0] that I've found through HN but never show up on google
I think an aggregator for pre-vetted tools like these can go a long way. Just a repository of various tools with tags and the ability to search through them
So Congress voted to support it yet Trump decided not to distribute the funding Congress allocated. The US Constitution explicitly and clearly gives the "Power of the Purse" to the legislative branch not the executive
In any sane world this alone would lead to impeachment
The links provided by @Terr_ above show that this particular de-funding was indeed approved and ratified by the legislative branch, passed by the house and the senate, signed into law by the president, in July of 2025.
So, under the color of legal and proper authority, deed done, second shoe now drops.
It's ridiculous how much of our bills are completely written by interest groups like the coal industry. I'm surprised they even reviewed it enough to catch it
In 2010 Arizona passed an anti-immigrant bill written by the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic). We know it was written by CCA because they literally left the logo on the bill
There's not many things more "Stereotypically American" than legislation with a corporate logo on it.
In the interest of full transparency, it would be nice to stamp all laws with the logos of the companies that write them, so we at least know who our real legislators are for any given law.
Labelling laws are Unamerican and that's why inhibiting other countries from requiring clear food labelling is a clear part of the American trade negotiation platform.
In a former job I worked on a tech co's policy response to a major piece of California AI legislation a couple of years ago and was stunned to learn that nonprofits (at least, I'd be shocked if this didn't also include companies) basically sponsor bills and just find lawmakers to introduce and champion them.
Many Judicial opinions are done in the same manner. An attorney from the winning side prepares a draft opinion and a judge reviews/edits it and away it goes. The edits in the couple I've personally seen are incredibly light - more or less a rubber stamp with the judge's name on it.
I imagine this holds true (via chatting with insider friends) for many such "industries" including lawmaking, scientific/academic papers, industry RFCs, etc. More or less credential washing.
I'm not sure this is true. I've payed attention to a few high profile cases and I've not seen anything like that come up.
The closest I can think of is when jury instructions are issued. But in that, the two sides ultimately work with the court to hammer out the details of how those instructions should look. And often, they are based on a more or less standard template with minor revisions.
I was watching the Abrego Garcia case. It was done routinely by Garcia's lawyer. They would write an order for the judge to sign then ask them to sign it.
Generally speaking, an attorney can make a request for a ruling by the judge and the other side can oppose it. However, beyond just citing relevant case law there wouldn't be anything that could be copied verbatim by a judge.
There should be relevant court filings that show what you are saying happen. Do you have them?
>ut when I try to find the judge's order exactly copying the proposed order I'm not seeing it
You'll have to sift through them because it happens some of the time not all of the time. The example I gave was how they did it, if you wanted a 1:1 example in that case of the judge just signing off verbatim below ought to fit:
The judge still decided this was the winning side. I don’t really see a problem with this, especially as seeing it is at the end of a deliberative process. By that time, the winning attorney may have a good idea of where the judge stands, what the ruling would be and is also incentivized to stay on their good side.
The judge is supposed to be independent of influence, and fair to both sides. A decision for one side is rarely that 'one party gets everything they want'; it just leans in their direction, especially on the fundamental issues. The ruling also may yield an outcome more aligned with one party, but for different reasons.
> the winning attorney may have a good idea of where the judge stands, what the ruling would be and is also incentivized to stay on their good side.
You haven't seen many litigators at work. Their job is to "zealously" represent their client, getting as much as possible. The speculation about the rest is just hope, not due process.
nonprofits like the <random thing research association> that just happens to be funded by that very industry.
It's literally a laundering scheme. The industry can't wine and dine and send bills over to the politicians directly so they create some "clean" middle men to make it all look legit at first glance.
“Due to the Legislative Assembly being a biennial legislature, with the House and Senate sitting for only 80 days in odd-numbered years, a Legislative Council oversees legislative affairs in the interim periods, doing longer-term studies of issues, and drafting legislation for consideration of both houses during the next session” [1].
None of this makes sense. Venezuela has faced crippling sanctions from the US since 2017 that have not allowed it to sell to any western nation. Only China, Russia, and Cuba are potential customers for it. I highly doubt this will have any immediate effect on oil prices. It is also crude oil which only a handful of countries are capable of processing (the US probably being the best equipped)
US corporations will be brought in to exploit oil the same way they did in Iraq where they actually had to amend the constitution to allow for foreign corporations in.
The only reason China is the biggest buyer is because of crippling US sanctions since 2017 that have made it impossible for Venezuela to trade with any western nation
> This article analyzes the consequences of the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the U.S. government since August of 2017. The authors find that most of the impact of these sanctions has not been on the government but on the civilian population. The sanctions reduced the public’s caloric intake, increased disease and mortality (for both adults and infants), and displaced millions of Venezuelans who fled the country as a result of the worsening economic depression and hyperinflation. They made it nearly impossible to stabilize Venezuela’s economic crisis. These impacts disproportionately harmed the poorest and most vulnerable Venezuelans.
reply