The laziness of the average person continues to amaze me. You’ve chosen to ask and wait for the answer to a question which could have been answered by reading the article you’ve commented on. “Why” is the reason journalists pen these articles.

Rich people don’t care about their privacy as much as they have their own IT department to do the work for them (source: I’ve been their IT department).

Their devices are just as secure as you would imagine any high profile CEO. Their home networks can cost up to $100k and are super secure with constant monitoring. They all have “normal” devices but they’ll usually have a VPN tunnel.

But, stuff like their Facebook logins, etc they’re still pretty bad with passwords, from my experience. I’d say less than percent of the people I’ve worked with have asked serious questions about their cyber security.

For what would they hold the administration in contempt and what does this do to block, stop, or reverse illegal actions?

It seems like you’re lacking a basic understanding of how law and government work and it doesn’t seem like you know what contempt means. And, to make up for that, you throw out witless insults in an attempt to derail the conversation.

You, “the internet”, are far too emotional to consider the reality of these situations. Just because something makes you angry or someone does something you think should be illegal does not mean someone is not permitted to do that action.

There are absolutely actions that Trump has done that are illegal and many of those actions have been decided on while other cases are in court now. “The Democrats”, I presume we’re addressing Congress, are not explicitly the group responsible for holding the administration accountable for everything he does. Congress only has authority over a handful of things (mostly, but not limited to, money) with few options to do anything about them.

The point I am trying to make is; (1) what actions does OP suggest are illegal, (2) a court has to determined that action to be illegal, (3) Congress is not responsible for suing the president nor responsible for determining what is legal nor responsibly for jailing an executive officer, (4) this Republican Congress is not going to pass legislation (the main power they have) to block, stop, or reverse actions taken by this administration. And, finally, what the Trump administration is doing, legal or not, is largely what the United States voters voted for. So, the best way to stop these quote unquote illegal actions is to vote for Democrats in two years.

Gotcha. So you either you don’t know or you do know this is not true.

Congress has no power to jail officials. They can hold an official in contempt and potentially have the US Attorney’s office put them in jail. That’s not happening with Trump. That’s not happening with anyone in Trump’s administration.

They can… sue in court (like Dems did to block Trump’s border wall funding)

Yes. That’s exactly my entire point. And this only works if the courts determine the act to not be legal. This is why, as I said, there are over 250 cases against the administration right now.

There’s a lot going on right now which the public dislikes but that doesn’t necessarily make an act illegal. If nothing else, Trump knows how to work the courts. He also disregards the courts and we’re still waiting to see if there’s any repercussions to that.

Trump is not Obama. Obama fucked up by caving to McConnell. Trump would not do the same. There is no comparison of this administration and any other. History is irrelevant at this point.

Yes. Tell me how congress jails officials.

Dems could’ve jailed officials for contempt

How does that work?

Really? Tell me how a political party can police another party. The only actions congress, in particular, have is impeachment. Impeachment is effectively suing the defendant with no inherit repercussions.

Give me one example of an illegal action taken by this administration and what the Democrats could legally do to “block, stop, or reverse” it.

This bill is about denouncing the antisemitic attack in Boulder with a single line at the literal bottom reading,

expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.

I won’t stop you from holding politicians accountable for every line of every bill they vote for but you’re distorting reality to fit your narrative. There is nothing wrong with supporting this bill and I question why anyone would reject it.

Are you lost?

It’s not the responsibility of a political party to police the actions of an administration. If someone does something you believe to be illegal, you sue them. According to a LLM search, the administration has over 250 cases against them right now. The courts are the ones responsible for judging the actions of the administration and holding it accountable.

Trump was elected to do the things he’s doing. There’s no surprises here. Congress is stacked against the Democrats. There really isn’t anything they can legally do until they regain either the Senate or the House.

The concern should be the legal actions he’s taking; the ones the supreme court ultimately determine are fine. The few that pass that bar are going to be major hurdles to restoring normalcy.

What the Democrats should be doing is forming a unified party that listens to the concerns of the people and finding someone to voice this movement.

It really comes down to the people. We always have the choice of who to elect. We seem to be voting for people who are against our own personal interests because our electoral system is a farce. Politicians are lying so often and so blatantly now that, regardless of your affiliation, the truth is often clouded by bias and emotion, if not intentionally buried. About half of Americans now believe our elections are rigged even though the evidence indicates they’re highly secure.

I mean, if you’re here asking what can be done to fix this shit we’re in right now, the answer is to reform our elections, make them tax payer funded, embrace STAR or Ranked Choice Voting, and pass the bill that prevents elected leaders from holding stocks. Or, I don’t know how you do this but getting people to know the difference between factual unbiased news and fake news and preventing biased opinions from distorting their realities.

When it’s trash day on my block (city life) and the collectors leave a trash can in an open parking spot and I move that can to the sidewalk, you’re claiming that I’m doing this because it makes me feel good to be helpful to someone I’ll never encounter, and that this isn’t “true altruism”.

So, should we be discussing why we don’t do things that make us feel bad? “True altruism” can’t exist because we don’t go around helping people commit murders or because we’re not voting for a politician we dislike? I don’t think that’s the intent of the word.

I mean, there’s ‘doing things because they make you “feel good”’ and there’s altruism. These are not the same nor are they mutually exclusive.

I think perhaps the word you’re trying to shoehorn into altruism is heroism - when you do something for the benefit of others knowing it’s detrimental to yourself. Or, if you really want to dig into doing things that make you feel bad, I’m not really sure what word that would be. Idiocracy?

I live in a building where these contactless and cashless washing / drying units are provided for residents to clean their clothes.

Thanks. Hadn’t thought that far ahead.

Above these

…the company had crafted a pitch deck for advertisers bragging that it could exploit “moments of psychological vulnerability” in its users by targeting terms like “worthless,” “insecure,” “stressed,” “defeated,” “anxious,” “stupid,” “useless,” and “like a failure.”

As much as there’s an opportunity for selling a product, there’s an opportunity for extending support. Maybe there’s a sliver of a silver lining in that this surveillance could be used for good. It’s disheartening though that of course this will never happen.

I mean, if you wanted to be the good guy, you’d develop AI chat bots that could reach out to people seemingly in distress.

Doesn’t matter if anything is legal or not (see: deporting aliens). This administration is doing whatever it wants to stop what it doesn’t like then allowing it to play out in court. Like a super villain, this is Trump’s “super power”.

I think that’s up for debate. There are people who don’t want government involved in their daily lives. These - livable wage and such - are nice things to have but aren’t the core responsibility of any and all governments. I don’t think “manages society” is the right phrasing either. And FWIW, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not in the US constitution so there is no legal requirement for the US government to provide this. The DoI also said all men are created equal then they went on to say black men are worth less than white men.

I think a responsible representative government would weigh the realities of contemporary society and make adjustments to adjust for injustices and inequalities. They may also take larger things into consideration such as why a business determines to operate in one country or another and offer subsidies that promote job creation (rather than inflationary tariffs). I mean, there’s a lot and I don’t want to get into everything here.

My point is, what’s the role of not just the US government, not just a federal or national government, but any and all government - other than “to govern”? I would argue it’s preventative harm reduction.

When the first version of government was created, was it to make the daily lives of people better or was it to provide protection for those who couldn’t protect themselves? Not rhetorical. We all need to agree that point 1 is XYZ. Then we can get one with discussing things like livable wage, social security, health care, education, etc. Actually, on paper, I think the concept of the US is fantastic. A core government that covers broad universal functions while each regional division can focus on its own. The issue from here is that state boundaries are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant today.

My other point, to bring it back to this story, is the the role of government should not be to pretend groups of people do not exist, hide them in the shadows, and ignore the atrocities others are inflicting upon them - our be the one committing those atrocities. So, if we start there with a solid idealogical foundation, we can more easily observe said atrocities and hold elected officials accountable. Universally, outside of party affiliation.

Then, once a foundation is agreed upon without any argument, we can move on to things that have nuance and are worthy of debating details and directions.

I just don’t think we’ve reached step one yet. Perhaps because a lot of people are very, and rightfully, concerned about steps two through a million.

I think we’ve lost sight of what the role of government is or should be. Though, to be fair, I’m not sure it’s been agreed upon.

Isn’t the role of government to provide protection / prevent harm? To create a space for fair opportunity and to level the playing field and adjust for injustices?

I mean, just because you don’t like someone or something or something makes you uncomfortable or doesn’t align with your beliefs doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t exist nor should the government be in charge of abolishing it. In fact, if you have such strong opinions about something, it’s very likely that this is something the government should be protecting from you.

I just don’t think this is a liberal or conservative claim. It should be a universal fact that’s applied to all. And, I think, any government or politician who fails to protect a single person should be removed from the job they’ve shown they’re not capable of performing.

I guess we’ve given up on holding our politicians accountable and transferred any power we had to the oligarchs and corporations.

Using an alarm to wake up. Actually, I got rid of all electronics in my bedroom aside from lights.

I had a coffee situation many years ago. I was having heart palpitations (skipping a beat) while sitting at rest and my doctor said the 20 ounces of coffee I drank was way too much. I have never believed him but I did cut back just in case. In recent years, I’ve observed that the more I get some regular amount of exercise in, those palpitations go away. I started going for walks and also noticed my at-rest heart rate drop noticeably. And, while few to begin with, anxiety attacks went away. I usually drink a 10 ounce cup of coffee in the morning - freshly ground, aeropress, black. A bit more on the weekends. Never past 10am.

The next issue I have regarding better sleep is breaking my habit of being enthralled with digital content. I read too much on my iPad at night. Been trying to read physical books and magazines more but the dopamine addiction is rough.

Additionally, I’ve been from trying to be more proactive and get shit done asap to leave more time for being bored. I believe boredom leaves time for creativity and leisure and better sleep. There’s just far too much to distract us from existing as calm and creative human beings today.