volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@WhiteCatTamer

Not in the tank for Biden but employed by Biden.

At the end of the day, executive branch agencies operate on behalf of the president, so if the FBI has information that would be damaging to Trump, then it doesn't really make sense that Biden would have them withhold it.

@JamesGleick

@cdarwin I mean, that sounds like a pretty damn good reason to vote against someone like Harris.

The president must be held accountable for the actions of their Branch of government. That is especially important when it comes to a department that has such enormous power to rain down on the people.

If all of these cops are looking forward to freedom to use their power under Harris, than for God's sake let's heed that warning.

@JamesGleick that conspiracy theory just doesn't really hold water.

Why in the world would Biden's FBI or the press care about Trump's feelings? They would be jumping over themselves to release such information that would be deflating to his campaign.

@jsonstein honestly, I think given a lot of experiences that members of the public have had, that rhetoric might have more traction than some people expect.

It brings to mind a lot of things ranging from bad HR experiences through stories of micromanagement from powerful places.

This might be a case where some Republicans are tuning into voters mindsets in surprising ways.

@mhjohnson

He was in a position where it would be impolite for him to have said those things. Speaking of eulogies, it would be like standing at a funeral and describing some really dishonorable death of the person being eulogized. It's just not the right place for it.

He pretty much said the best that he could say under the circumstances.

But the best way to think about the speech was, it was his pathetic attempt to beg us to think positively of him as he shuffles off. He failed, and he knows he failed. Now he desperately wants to not be remembered as a failure.

The speech was simply the very best he could do to write his own version of his presidency, and yeah, it wasn't very good, but he is such a failure that there wasn't any better.

@Bobblegagger It's really a shame that the bar has dropped that low these days

@MichalBryxi I think it's important to keep in mind that the US system absolutely allows more than two political parties. It has more than two political parties today.

It's just that voters tend to choose to organize themselves into two parties for very practical reasons. It empowers their voting and avoids wasted votes.

We may be able to improve the voting system, and recognizing this is a huge step to identifying improvements that can be made.

@MoiraEve@mastodon.world this goes back to the old issue that outfits like nyt and so many Trump critics overlooked that potential Trump voters took the guy seriously but not literally.

For example, when Trump says things are more expensive and everyday people are struggling, the potential supporters don't really care what the exact number is. They just care that things are more expensive and people are struggling.

So it can be actually counterproductive to promote reports like this. Potential Trump voters might actually see the report as more reason to vote for the guy as this presentation can come across as quibbling to excuse the problems they see.

It's one of those know your enemies sorts of moments. To counter Trump we have to understand the environment that makes him even an option.

@knittingknots2 I'd say that reads his reaction backwards:

It's not that it bothers him the most, but rather that he thinks he can use the accusation against Democrats the most effectively by turning it into a symbol of hypocrisy.

He's latching onto it not out of annoyance but happily and strategically.

@ThatCrazyDude well in the past it meant a philosophical approach focused on liberty instead of control, allowing people to just be rather than trying to engineer and direct society.

However, the meaning of the word has evolved over time to the point where it's kind of lost all meaning. I advise people not to use it anymore because it just no longer has a well-defined meaning.

@CenDemTech sounds like a misunderstanding of the free market.

I'd highlight that the description still talks about willingness to pay, so the core value of providing goods and services at prices that consumers find acceptable is still right there.

@gwagner in this ACAB era I'm not sure she should be emphasizing that she's one of them.

@realcaseyrollins Well it's really complicated because there are so many factors going into it.

Just to name one thing, people are living longer now than they lived 100 years ago, and the longer you live the more opportunity you have to develop cancer.

Or here's a different thought: what if we discover that cancer is caused by some lifestyle change that people won't be willing to give up anyway? What if it's discovered that cancer is caused by electricity? Even if we figure that out, we won't be able to get rid of cancer because people would not be willing to make that trade.

I could go on and on, but in the end it's not certain that we would even be able to figure out such a cause, plus even if we manage to figure out such a cause, it's not certain that we would be able to figure out a solution.

It all highlights how uncertain it is that it would be possible to solve cancer at all.

@dougiec3 You're falling for so much misreporting about the rulings this term. In ruling after ruling the Supreme Court restrained power, it didn't bestow absolute power. It did the exact opposite.

From ruling that presidents can't have such prosecutorial discretion through ruling that presidents really do need to respect the limitations in law passed by Congress, the story of what this court has done this term is the opposite of what so many on social media keep repeating.

That's a real shame if we want informed voters.

@realcaseyrollins

I would approach it in the other direction: It's not whether it is unsolvable but whether it is solvable.

Like I said above, there is serious downside risk to attempting the project and that needs to be taken into account. If it can't be shown that it is actually solvable, realistically solvable, then that downside risk needs to be factored in.

To build on what I said above, the proposal that we put a man on the moon was based on physics that we understood. We could prove that it was possible technically. We knew that it was definitely solvable.

It's not the same for cancer, though. We don't know that it is solvable.

@jupiter_rowland I get it.

One reason I wanted to speak out here is specifically to counter those people lecturing.

I know they have good intentions, but they might be doing more harm than good because they don't see the bigger picture.

@realcaseyrollins The problem with the cancer moonshot is that there's a good chance it's just not possible.

The space race was an engineering problem that was pretty well-understood. Sure there would be new developments needed along the way, but the physics of launching into space had been pretty settled.

It's not the same for cancer, though. There is still so much unknown about how it actually works in bodies, and a good chance that it will be impossible to eliminate.

In the end there is a real possibility that should the cancer moonshot be engaged and then fail it will lead to generations of people being discouraged. It can honestly do harm, not simply be neutral.

Those downsides need to be taken into account.

@jupiter_rowland well, what I'm saying is it's one of those cases of a false choice.

The choice is NOT a binary of descriptions vs no descriptions. The no images at all choice looms really large.

Nobody profits if there are no pictures.

So the good intention to help some ends up with the outcome of helping nobody.

It's an unintended consequence.