[everdrive]

Well realistically both are bad. Right now our government is purely dysfunctional, so I'm not sure anyone knows how to fight anything. We have a eunuch Congress, and in response each party just tries to push executive power as far as possible, never once considering that someone they dislike could get elected in the future and use that expanded power in a negative way.

I'm sure that right at this moment at least some people are thinking "if only we had a different executive, then we could rein in this AI problem." That is wrong at best. You could rein it in for ~4 years until you lost the next election. With a completely feckless Congress, very little can get done.

[sailfast]

We do not have a eunuch congress - but we do have a Congress that believes their balls have been removed despite being there the whole time. This is a solvable problem, happily. It does, however, require some will and for folks to remember they actually have some power as elected representatives to the highest legislative body in the land.

[LightBug1]

Remember? ... Memories have a price. Nothing's changing any time soon while the elected represent money, and paid-for interests.

Of the dollar, by the dollar, for the dollar ...

[CodingJeebus]

The framing that congressional politicians have "forgotten" that they have power is a silly and dishonest trope. They absolutely know that they have power, but they also just watched multiple incumbents (Cornyn, Cassidy, Massie just to name a few) who didn't get Trump's endorsement lose their respective primaries, effectively ending their political careers.

Members of Congress, just like everyone else, act in their own self-interest. And unfortunately for pretty much everyone else, their best method of self-preservation is to do nothing, hence the "eunuch" Congress.

[steele]

The well-actually testicle TED talk misses the point. Representatives have power, and sometimes that power is for sale. And that position to represent was also for sale. As was the attention of the electorate.

Honestly, calling Congress castrated is fine because it is healthy venting about how ineffective they seem at their charter.

Even though it's really charming and compelling to believe, there is no one solvable problem simply requiring elbow grease, voting harder, proprioception of comically vulnerable reproductive organs, etc.

[sheikhnbake]

The only power congress theoretically has to impact the administration is that of the purse.

But the admin has repeatedly ignored such restrictions. This check on power also loses it's teeth when the oligarchs align themselves behind the executive branch.

[everdrive]

That's not true at all, they could:

- impeach

- pass new laws / revise old laws

- hold real hearings

- amend the constitution

Now practically will this congress do so? No, but in principle they wield more power than the executive.

[sheikhnbake]

In the context of the current admin:

- They have impeached already, multiple times.

- Congress has no means of enforcing any laws they pass aside from trying to withhold funding.

- Hearings are political circus at best with no real consequences. See: 0 US based Epstein abusers in any form of incarceration.

- ah yes, amending the constitution. a very realistic and responsive option

Since none of these are practical, then congress wields no practical power. In principle and technicalities are useless. Even if the dems were able to take a progressive super majority, unless they passed a law granting congress law enforcement powers w/ funding they're declawed.

[everdrive]

I don't disagree with you, and I think you might have misunderstood me. I think Congress could start clawing these back, but I agree, right now they have no effective power, which is why I called them a "eunuch congress."

[sheikhnbake]

Perhaps that's where we would disagree. I don't think congress has the means to claw anything back at this point or in the future. We're essentially well into a self-coup

[xnx]

They can also impeach

[sheikhnbake]

They have impeached already, multiple times.

[daheza]

During his last term yes, during this term no they haven't. They could at least be pushing for this, there's a few republicans on the out of Trumps circle, maybe they could make some movement. Instead they sit around and do nothing, letting the crimes take place with no attempt to even declare it as wrong.

[sheikhnbake]

Every day is an endless stream of media and commentary on the illegal things he's doing with no accountability. Even in the highly unlikely event of an impeachment conviction, I don't see how that changes anything from a practical standpoint. The DoJ isn't going to enforce the conviction, and military leadership has steadily been replaced with yes-people since the admin took office.

[insane_dreamer]

> We have a eunuch Congress,

no, we don't. we have a Congress where the majority party members are cowed into submission by the threat of vehement attacks by the President that are likely to torpedo their re-election if you defy him (Massie being the latest casualty)

that's very different than a powerless Congress; having said that, it's clear that the founders did not see the inherent weakness in their system and what could happen if a president decided to ignore the rules and "sue me"

but to be fair, the constitution was written before the civil war, at which time the powers and reach of the federal government was greatly reduced compared to the present

[aspenmartin]

What reigning in would you do if you had the power to do it for the US?

[everdrive]

I'm no expert, but I'd have a few prerogatives:

- Look into ways to restricting executive power, or more rightly revert it to its previous state as described by the constitution.

- Repeal the pardon power (or at least seriously amend it)

- Find a way to limit the use or impact of executive orders. I'm honestly not sure of the best way to do this, but executive orders have exploded basically at the same rate that congress has receded. At the moment they are really just "very weak laws" due to the fact that no one can pass a real law anymore.

- A friend of mind suggested that you prohibit naming the political party of a candidate on a ballot. This has a few legal problems (eg: the states individually control their election process) but the spirit of his comment is that the two party system is broken. The founding fathers imaged that the speaker of the house would jealously guard his power against the presidency. ie, they did not imagine that being the same party the speaker of the house would just do whatever the president wanted. So like the other suggestions, I'm not sure of the best solution here, but the party system is at odds with our current system of government, and seems to be doing an even worse job in these polarized times

Some things you cannot fix with laws or reforms. Congress has power right now. The president never enforced the TikTok law, never sought war powers for Iran, etc. A healthy Congress would do something about this. A new law or regulation here might not necessarily fix this problem. This is something of a cultural rot.

I realize these answers might not have been super satisfying. I'm not a political expert, and I'm sure smarter people than me have been working on these problems for a while.

[aspenmartin]

Oh sorry I just mean: with respect to AI

[everdrive]

Oh, I'm not sure the government can fix this sort of problem. I'd still like to prevent any data centers in my state, which is a bit more tangible.

A major challenge of the past ~30 years is that new technologies can totally transform society, and really no company cares whatsoever if that transformation is for the worse. If a company poisons my products with PFAS and I'm not even aware of it, there is little I can do but find out eventually and just avoid those products when possible. If social media and smart phones destroy societal cohesion, we seem to be powerless to stop it and most people don't even want to stop it.

If the worst / greatest predictions of LLMs come to pass, then I imagine we'll be in a similar state.

[dyauspitr]

You gotta stop saying each party like they’re both the same

[queenkjuul]

Right: one won't act out of malice, the other won't act out of incompetence