volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@huxley no, it's not quite right that the Supreme Court gets to decide what is an official act.

The US legal system is built on a process of consensus both among the branches but also up and down throughout the judicial branch. The Supreme Court is just one cog in this large process.

Technically, yes, the Supreme Court could hand down a piece of paper stating corruptly that something is an official act unilaterally, but if we're really going down that road then none of the rest matters anyway, and it's all null since the Court could issue an opinion saying anything at all.
@rameshgupta

@xs4me2 I did read the article. It came across as gaslighting.

I'm looking at the video with my own eyes, but the article is assuring me that the thing I'm seeing isn't what I'm seeing.

@stochastic today's Supreme Court wrote a ruling specifically saying that the president cannot prosecute people for things that are legal.

Ruling after ruling this term emphasized the limits on the president's power.

Yes, I know there are a lot of people lying about what the Supreme Court said this term, and you should not believe them. They are lying to you. Read the rulings and you'll see that a whole lot of people are spreading lies.

This Supreme Court wrote rulings specifically saying that Trump should be prosecuted.

Again, there are a lot of people lying to you these days. Go straight to the source and realize that you should not believe the people spreading that propaganda.

@xs4me2 checking out the video, it was clearly parody.

There's no question about it.

@Newk Trump also advertises voting. Is voting a scam?

There's an old fallacy about the proportion of serial killers who drink milk...

@MichalBryxi yep, so in my opinion we need to move to ranked choice voting. Sounds like you probably agree.

But the point is, The two major party system emerges as a way to mitigate problems with first past the post voting. It's a solution, not a problem. A better solution would be some sort of ranked choice voting, but until we get there, we will naturally have two parties because that's the next best outcome that voters will choose.

We can use displeasure with the outcomes of two-party results as a rallying cry for better voting system. But we can't attack it directly without losing that mitigating factor.

@rbreich first of all they increased revenue collections to the US Treasury, as predicted.

But secondly, what do you think a stock buyback is? It's a corporation giving up its money into the rest of the economy, which is what we want them to do in general anyway!

Stock buybacks are a good thing, as it represents a corporation taking money that it has that it can't use and giving it up for other people and other purposes to use as they need.

Including the US government.

@lety Well what specific quotes from her press releases are you referring to?

Lashing out at Trump doesn't make it clear. There's a whole lot of bullshit that lashes out at Trump.

@Snowshadow@mastodon.social what in the world are you talking about?

Just misconstruing what I have written, messaging me privately, and then complaining when I respond?

Dude, that's not the Russian Masters being involved. That's just normal discourse. I'm sorry if you don't like humans talking.

@lety but, what she 's put out in the last couple of days has been as bullshit as ever.

So again, I'm wondering what you're talking about.

@stochastic there's nobody that can give the president that power though.

Like, even if Congress wanted to, which it won't, but even if it did, Even Congress does not have the power to give the president the power to be that way.

It's just not possible under the US system.

And not only is it not possible, but it is emphatically not possible, it is intentionally not possible for that authority to exist.

It doesn't matter if people advocate for it, they might as well be advocating for perpetual motion, so all of these conspiracy theories are just sensationalism and nonsense.

@Snowshadow@mastodon.social with so many conservatives flat out rejecting project 2025 I don't know how your stance stands

@lety ... So bullshit

@lety what are you talking about?

Personally I criticize Harris quite a lot specifically for the bullshit that she has been spouting all these years.

She has a long history of it, so what are you seeing that represents a change?

One of the reasons I consider her such a flawed candidate.

@stochastic The big problem is, it's not up to presidents to make that decision.

The framing of Trump's quote misses that he doesn't get to make that decision. In reality he's just saying he expects to do such a good job that he doesn't need those people to vote in 4 years, his side will win either way. Or he's just vomiting more nonsense like he normally does.

It's just ignorant to make this a big deal. It's sensationalizing things, and just distracts from the issues.

Gosh Mother Jones is dumb these days.

I mean seriously this is the most sensationalistic nonsense imaginable. I really wish they would get their act together and be more realistic.

@dale No it's pretty much the opposite, I was trying to call you out for your misunderstanding of the role of government. Your point missed the role of government, and that's the whole thing I was trying to highlight.

It seems like you really need a broader view of the world to speak on these matters, so I would encourage you to keep up with current events more consistently if you really care about these things.

Because you just really miss what's going on with government.

@ecksearoh Democrats have not chosen a candidate. The convention has not yet happened.

Kamala is better than Biden against Trump, that's true, but she remains far too close in the polling for my taste. I don't want a candidate who is neck and neck, I want a candidate who will smash him and win in a landslide.

I don't want to risk it with Kamala's baggage, her past failures, and her generally off-putting demeanor.

I want Democrats to offer someone worth voting for so much that it will crush Republicans for a generation. And it's not that hard to find someone better than Harris. She barely makes it over the line if she does. And I don't think that's good enough.

@Snowshadow@mastodon.social I listen to conservatives every single day, and that's what I'm trying to tell you, it doesn't sound like you do.

To be clear, Trump does not represent the conservative perspective. He is an idiot who parrots back the little bit that he understands, and so often conservatives end up correcting him when he gets it wrong. And I'll emphasize that: Trump gets to conservative perspective wrong very often and ends up being corrected by conservatives. He's just that dumb.

But that's one reason not to listen to rallies because the rallies often enough end up being the speaker, Trump I assume, vomiting out stuff that isn't actually the conservative position.

That's the thing about Trump. He's not actually a good conservative. And the best way to counter Trump is to emphasize that he is not a good conservative, to emphasize to conservatives that he doesn't actually represent them.

Unfortunately so many people end up promoting Trump to conservatives by buying into this position.

@ecksearoh Well that's a thing that I would really emphasize, Democrats don't have to choose Harris. She is a problematic candidate, and they have a ton of other people they could run.

This is what I've been saying everywhere, please for goodness sake can one of the two parties give me a candidate worth voting for?

Harris is a compromised candidate. She might lose to Trump because she is kind of awful. But there's no reason to choose her. Democrats should nominate a candidate that would steamroll over Trump, and they absolutely can. They do get to choose the battlefield.