volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Joe_Hill Believe it or not, sometimes judges get things wrong.

So we know that claims about Trump's involvement have been debunked by the record, looking at how what people have said he said didn't quite match with what he actually said, with the actual record from raw recordings.

Who knows what's going on with this judge. Others have resoundingly rejected the claims, so Wallace is not exactly a stellar arbiter of the truth here.

Anyway, all of this attention ends up supporting Trump's re-election bed, and I sure wish we would stop playing into his hands like this.

@DMTea The idea that Trump ever attempted a coup is just plain stupid and based on a complete lack of understanding of how the US government functions.

I mean the attack on the capital was on the wrong branch of government for god's sake.

But just setting that frustration aside, I really don't care who you guys are voting for, but I am going to point out that if you interrupt voting for Trump then you are interrupting democracy, interrupting the democratic process.

I don't care how ignorant you might be about how the US government works, I don't care how ignorant you might be about basic notions of civics, you do what you're going to do, but let's just be abundantly clear:

If you prevent people from voting for Trump then you are preventing voting and you are standing in the way of the democratic process.

Maybe that's for the best. Maybe democracy is stupid. Maybe we should not let people vote for who they want to vote for. That's fine. If that's what you want to believe that's fine.

But own it.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@mjmbca correct.

I see a ton of good conversation happening on that site, so the hyperbole seems not only outstated but just really pretty wrong.

Like claiming it never rains anymore in a rainforest (I'm just picking something off the top of my head) it's not only over statement but it's just really out there to say.

@mjmbca Yeah but even more directly, I can actually go on Twitter and see that there are plenty of people on there chatting about different topics.

If you haven't and you're interested you might want to go see for yourself.

But it's simply not true that such conversations aren't happening there. I can see for myself on a daily basis that they are. As can you.

@00Aaron Well it's not so much that developing countries have little trust in the world bank as a bank, it's that they want it to be a charity, and that makes all the difference.

As the World Bank is supposed to be a bank it's just not handing out cash left and right like so many would prefer.

But it speaks to mission creep. That's just not what the world bank is supposed to be.

@mjmbca I mean that's not true

@WakWak this is why it is so important that we should restore congressional sanction of this sort of activity.

The US should get involved if and only if Congress approves.

But that is unfortunately not what we have been asking of the federal government lately.

@DMTea I mean I'm not going to put for Trump and so that doesn't impact me.

But I do think it is concerning to strike a major candidate from the ballot.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@lauren Believe it or not, sometimes the Supreme Court does get it wrong.

They are after all only umpires.

And sometimes they admit that they are violating the law as they issue rulings that may or may not be respected.

But what we can say here is that states have legal authority to operate their own elections. Regardless of what the Supreme Court may or may not say about it, that is written in law, it is how the United States was set up to operate.

@artemesia it's not because I wanna

It's a question of whether we respect the population as they vote.

Of course we don't have to, but that's the decision for us to make.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@lauren but it doesn't though.

Elections are up to the states regardless of what the amendment says. The ability of any candidate to be on the ballot is 100% to the discretion of the state.

The Constitution does not say anything about who can be on a ballot.

To be clear, you can absolutely vote for somebody who is not qualified to be president. If you want to waste your vote like that, it's your vote to waste. You can vote for my dog if you want to.

It's up to the state as to who gets to be on their ballot for their own voting procedure.

The Constitution talks about who can be president. It's a completely different issue who can be on a state election ballot.

@DMTea worried? Nope!

I am not at all worried.

I mean, I'm not in favor of keeping voters from voting, but this is up to the individual state. If Colorado wants to restrict its voters from voting, well, that's up to them.

But at the least we need to all recognize what we are doing and own it.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@Joe_Hill I mean, that claim has been well debunked.

@lauren Why not?

Voting in the US system is a state function, not a federal function, so it wouldn't be surprising if the Supreme Court deferred to states for how states want to run their elections.

@rhizome Right, so again the point is to own the anti-democratic laws, stating proudly that whatever goal is on the table is important enough that it's worth being anti-democratic.

However in this case it's particularly noteworthy because it's about voting itself.

If it's so important to keep people from being able to vote the way they want to, great! The point is to own that, to say it proudly, and to emphasize how important it is to keep that option away from voters.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@rhizome I mean in cases like this they are.

If you are interfering with the ability of voters to vote for the person that they want to vote for, then even if that's the law, that's an undemocratic law, and maybe that's fine. But let's recognize it.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@artemesia actually yes I would complain about that!

I think people should be able to vote for whoever they want to, because that's how democracy works.

EVEN IF the person they are voting for is un-eligible to hold office, if that's how you want to spend your vote, go for it.

Hell, given this situation if Trump and Biden and Schwarzenegger were on the ballot I'd probably vote for Schwarzenegger! I'm with you there!

So let's just be clear that we are interfering with voter's abilities to vote for the candidate they would like to vote for. If that is for the best, great! So own it. It is undemocratic, but if we need to be undemocratic here, then let's be undemocratic.

The point is to own the choice that we are making.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@liquor_american if you're trying to talk to me, whoever said I don't like what the constitution prescribes?

Like I'm trying to emphasize, if you're down with being anti-democratic because this is so important that it requires anti-democratic responses, great! Go for it!

But own it.

I'm not judging. I'm not voting for Trump. I don't really care. But let's be clear that we are being anti-democratic with this sort of move.

@chrisgeidner

@bigheadtales Yeah, I kind of like knowing things.

I think it's a good thing.

@liquor_american what in the world are you talking about? It has nothing to do with my preferences.

Great! You say the constitution throws the voting process under the bus. Fine. Own it.

It has nothing to do with me or my preferences. It's really about, great if you think it's more important to keep the guy off the ballot, then I guess this is working for you, more important to do this then support the democratic process of voting for who people want to vote for.

I mean I don't live in Colorado. And I don't want to vote for Trump. So it really doesn't impact me.

But if you think this is a good thing, great! Own it!

@chrisgeidner