r/BreakingPoints

Thom Tillis recently said there is no time to implement the SAVE Act by the Midterms even if it passes.

Let's be clear about one thing regarding the SAVE Act: Trump wants the SAVE Act passed to create a pretense to DERAIL (challenge or postpone) THE 2026 MIDTERMS.

Therefore, he doesn't actually care anything about implementation timelines.

If the SAVE Act passed, the Trump White House, Mike Johnson, and the SCOTUS would use its passage as an excuse for Trump's DOJ to:

1. toss out votes from States that aren't able to implement it before the midterms or
2. have the SCOTUS issue an emergency Shadow Docket decree allowing Trump to POSTPONE THE MIDTERMS IF NECESSARY because the SAVE Act can't be implemented before the midterms.

Too many people are still trying to apply practical standards to Trump's irrational actions. People need to learn to consider how Trump, Stephen Miller, Todd Blanche, Mike Johnson, and Steve Bannon are thinking about these things. If the SAVE Act is passed, their next step will be using its passage as an excuse to derail the 2026 midterms, NOT to ensure the Act is "implemented" before November. They are more likely to simply claim that the inability to fully implement it by November justifies postponing the Midterm Elections, and any resulting outrage or protests would enable Trump to declare a State of Emergency.

Passing the SAVE Act at this point would unleash total chaos on this country. It wouldn't need to be implemented to have its intended result.

Most of the focus is on AI being bad or destroying jobs rather than how major companies are deploying AI. My concern isn't that AI is becoming more powerful. I mean, that is a concern, of course, but since most of the implications are speculative, you can't exactly take any stance or action on that problem other than countries coming together and setting rules and policies for how they distribute and use frontier models and capabilities, especially in warfare.

My largest concern is what corporations and governments will use AI for on their own citizens. The data center builds are not just about AI. They're about creating an infrastructure that allows for total brain capital capturing. In other words there are real plans in place for collecting as much data as possible on our individual brains and if they can accurately map all of that out, they can measure how much and the quality of cognitive output we're providing to the state, which means they can valuate our worth based on cognitive outputs. Furthermore, they can use environmental nudging and algorithmic management to modify and shape individual behavior, which means protesting or voicing any concerns becomes obsolete.

Big picture: The social contract between government, citizen, and business is being radically re-shaped for a world where regular people have little to no leveraging power, which destroys the power of voice. This is why we shouldn't destroy AI. Rather, we should figure out ways to ween ourselves off of the dependency we have on major tech companies so that we can gain leveraging power back, again.

The biggest mistake is taking the bribes like what Bernie Sanders and Ro Kana are suggesting. I have nothing against them or anything, but their proposal to have the federal government own stock in big tech companies is a disaster in the making. If that happens, forget about any manageable evolution towards a better future. You'll be fighting the federal government who will be working on behalf of major tech companies because to not do so, means their ability to fund themselves will go flat.

Much better ideas would be stuff like ontological rights baked into our legal system so that our data can never be sold or taken from us. Instead, it can be rented for a price and at any time and a person can simply walk away from the deal and take their data with them. Another great idea is putting hard limits on private ownership regarding large infrastructure that's vital for societies like the idea that anyone can buy and manage infrastructure, but if they fail to meet xyz conditions, they're taxed so heavily, they're forced to sell the infrastructure to someone else who will have to live up to those expectations.

Right now, however, no one is talking abut these things and instead, focusing on populist ideals that sound great. But this is a huge trap that we're walking into, which is why the AI community must look towards ideas like de-centralized open-source systems that can be locally hosted for deploying and using AI at scale. If we rely too much on a few major corporations, we'll have entered a techno-feudalistic system where powers greater than you will be able to do just about anything with impunity. We can't let that happen!

Anyone else notice all the verbal stumbles at the speech tonight? He slurred his words multiple times and had to correct himself. Most noticeable during his rant about the SAVE act which even drew a reaction from the crowd.

So this year, we are lead by a pedophile President who raped and massacre children with the bombing of iranian school girls.

A failing economy

Record homeless population

Obese population

Failing infrastructure with pot holes everywhere

A history of wars and violence

Like what exactly is there to be proud about? "free speech", a form of pressure valve so that the peasant can yell and scream but nothing really change?

On the other hand, I'm heading to a musical festival tonight. I'm looking forward more to that.

"

-Capitalism: Anybody can become rich

-Communism: Nobody can become rich

-Democratic Socialism: Anybody can become rich but nobody should be poor

"

These statements are blatantly false. There are still tons of homeless population in "democratic socialism" european countries. Nobody can become rich under communism? Look at how many billionaires coming out of China. As for solving poverty problems, China lifted 800 million people out of poverty in the past 3 decades. THere are currently zero homeless population in China. World class infrastructure and 80 percent of renewable energy growth in the past year came from China.

All of progressive dreams and inspiration didnt come from vassal states like Germany, it comes from China. The vassal western european states are lackey to Donald Trump. If trump tells them to jump, they will say "how high master". China is the ONLY competition to the US hegemony.

If mcconnell cant take votes due to health issues.

What votes can pass or be stopped in the senate that favors Democrats agenda?

Trump reads several papers front to back every morning. Is she outright bonkers? I have heard many close advisors attest that he doesn't like reading anything at length. Michael Wolff and many who were tasked with briefing him make custom short ADD type summaries. Where does she come up with this ?

My premium episode is only 10 min but the free one is almost 2 hours, anyone else?

Here's my top 5 ideal:

1. Pretty obvious, Mandami lol.
2. Ilhan Omar
3. Rhasida Tialib
4. Ro Khanna
5. Alexander Ocasio Cortez

Here's whom I'm most likely to support:

1. AOC(She has the most rizz and the highest profile so most likely to win among the progressive)
2. Tim Walz
3. Andy Beshear
4. Ro Khanna

Most likely, I'm going to back AOC 100. Is she my very top candidate? No. she's the last of the top 5, but she has the highest chance to win.

Edit: Ideal candidate means someone I want to be potus, not someone who COULD be potus. Mandami and omar cannot be potus because they arent natural born.

Maybe a debate? but I'd like to hear his pov on this ;) Anyone?

I get a twitch every time I hear this every day.

It should be “honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply DO not exist anywhere else.”

Hard to believe nobody has noticed this before.

Krystal has deviated her position over time to mimick more of the TRA position, which has upset me.

Now, even the liberal Supreme Court justices have made it clear that banning trans women in women's sports make sense.

TRA & their enablers like Emma Vigeland will probably double down on their absolutist takes. But I think this is a time for the left to evolve.

As a trans woman, I look forward to practical trans activism & not this absolutist "you must agree on these 20/80 issues or you are a bigot" approach.

Today's episode, Ryan and Emily chatted a bit about the birthright citizenship case which came down 6-3 on the statutory side, 5-4 on the constitutional basis.

They spend most of the time talking about conservative fury over the disloyalty of some of the justices, which I do think is an important part of the story. They then spend a little time talking about the policy merits, eg, how bad actually is "birth tourism?"

They spend no time talking about the actual judicial merits of the case, which I think is the main story. It is the absolute plain text reading of the 14th amendment that we have birthright citizenship. It's also the originalist reading: there is plenty of documented evidence that the people who passed it understood it to grant citizenship to any person born here, not just ex-slaves. That 4 justices saw fit to rule against that interpretation is an absolute crisis of legitimacy for the court. That conservatives are mad more of them didn't is a farce.

Love the show. On the right screen, can't stand watching the same kid on the steps tossing his sweater to his buddy every 8 seconds. Please for the love of god mix it up a bit.