volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@shuttersparks it all depends on what the goal is.

If Democrats prioritize winning the election then they would have nominated somebody with more of a chance of winning, not leaving it up to a dead heat.

So I don't know what master stroke you think they're going for, clearly there are things more important to them than winning the presidency, so what do you think they're up to if not that?

@shuttersparks The thing is, Democrats chose to nominate an awful candidate with a whole bunch of baggage. Had the Democrats nominated someone better they would run away with this contest, including a lot of Republican votes. If they had had a serious primary process maybe we would have had that.

So many people hate Trump. So many people are looking for a better alternative. It's so unfortunate that the Democratic party nominated Harris because she's pretty much the only alternative to Biden that wouldn't get the anti-trump vote by default.

But that's the world we're living in.

We need to call the Democratic party out for making that mistake.

@guacamayan well that's exactly what I'm saying, once again NYT publishes something with headlines that don't even really match the substance of the article.

Yeah, Supreme Court justices discuss things among themselves and then they come to their conclusions.

There's no big news there. But, the paper frames it as if Roberts is conducting some sort of coup, like he's directing the whole thing, which is just not factually correct when you get to the substance.

That's my entire point here. This is misleading. Even if the substance of the NYT content does clarify things, which I'm not sure it does, that's not the takeaway that people are echoing around social media right now.

What I want to rant about is the state of journalism. So often I hear panel discussions where journalists go back and forth not being able to figure out why people lose faith in them. Well, this. This is why people lose faith in journalists. And it's a damn shame.

@guacamayan I'm specifically saying that Roberts doesn't have the unilateral power that the article claims.

I am specifically criticizing the article for misleading the audience about how the Supreme Court works. The Chief Justice does not get to just order the rulings he wants, though that is the impression the article gives.

And this is why so many of us have lost faith in journalism these days, because these sensational, clickbait headlines just don't match reality.

@guacamayan no the New York Times article was not truly historic, it was sensationalism that misleads the public about how their government works.

No, Roberts does not have such unilateral control of the Court as the headlines and the article leads people to believe. It's really irresponsible of New York Times, but then that's just how that outlet has been going in recent years.

We really need to call them out for how antisocial they are.

@EtherNRhum because Donnie's not doing much at all. He's a loser. He really doesn't have nearly the stroke that people try to put on him, and so end up causing the exact level of influence that they are complaining about.

Donnie doesn't set the bar. When he goes out of line Republicans and conservatives rake him over the coals. He takes his marching orders from conservatives that come up with all this stuff far ahead of when he starts vomiting it out into a microphone.

Trump doesn't set the bar. That's the whole point. If you watch how that environment operates you'll see that the causality doesn't go that direction.

No, it's not good, but we can't fix it if we don't identify the problem that needs to be fixed.

@lindawoodrow but what they found is that that's quite a valuable trade for land, and just as importantly, questionable title to land.

It was a risky promise. The discount Factor is pretty big there.

@lindawoodrow that story has been roundly debunked by historians as a weird oversimplification, a myth, that people keep promoting for some reason even though it doesn't really make sense.

@Tooden given the situation it's pretty much impossible that it would have been staged.

That's not the kind of shot you can stage.

@Captain_Jack_Sparrow
@OgieOgilthorpe

@theindex but the claims weren't baseless, they were based on witness accounts.

Maybe the witnesses were lying. But to say the claims were baseless means that anyone who heard about the witness accounts is just going to dismiss the story as gaslighting.

The press must engage with the people where they are, not feed them lines that they know to be false.

@tmstreet The reporting about Vance have been lies, so I guess in a way it's bad journalism threatening his life, or his job I guess.

No, Vance didn't invent this stuff. And they've even lied about what he said. These stories about Haitians were circulating in mainstream conservative outlets long before Vance said the first thing about them.

Part of the problem is that we can't address the rhetoric if we're stuck with these false stories about what the rhetoric is in the first place.

But that's just life in these days. News reports can't address these claims because the news itself doesn't match what we see with our own eyes.

@Free_Press if you follow the links, you can see that the headline is wrong. He didn't create the story as the headline suggests.

And anyone who had been keeping up with conservative media would have known that the story existed before Vance said anything about it.

So this is just another bit of false reporting.

@thisismissem what rhetoric specifically?

Honestly I don't think it's notable just because the two candidates both stink, so a lot of people have just checked out of this election at this point. We're just done with it.

If it seems like it doesn't really matter who gets elected then the two candidates just end up being no different from any other people on the street.

@SonofaGeorge well it's more that the list of sensationalized headlines getting clicks while misleading the public is getting longer and longer.

Journalism is dead.

@GottaLaff

@libramoon except that the biases of the Chief Justice are held in check by the fact that he doesn't get to just do whatever he wants. He is at the mercy of all of the other justices.

And that's the point, these sensational headlines give an impression that run counter to how our government actually operates, and so these journalists need to knock that stuff off because the population ends up misinformed.

@MartyLemert I mean what specifically are you referring to?

@Nonilex

@libramoon these sensationalized stories are overlooking that Roberts still didn't have unilateral control over the court.

The other justices still had their ability to object and write their own opinions.

This is all just really misleading sensationalism and it needs to be called out for the journalistic malpractice that it is, misleading readers for the sake of clicks.

@cemedia lack of quid pro quo.

That's the answer.

@Wallyapplebee those conspiracy theories are just not useful.

The Times headline is flat out misleading, considering that Trump didn't get the results he was asking for, but the times is mainly trying to stir the pot among people who don't know how to court actually functions in the US system.

It doesn't matter what the Chief Justice thought because the other justices outvoted him and wrote their own opinions.

The times is just engaging in hello journalism here, and it's not good for society.

@usernamesAreTricky there's a really well-known prototypical logical fallacy that most serial killers drink milk therefore drinking milk must be a sign of a serial killer.

Same thing here.

Just because this rejected white paper does have some overlap with Trump policy doesn't mean Trump supports it despite his rejection.

I mean, we could also say that the Harris campaign supports it because both of them recognize the presidency.

No, sometimes when somebody agrees with you you should take yes for an answer instead of pushing forward with the conspiracy theory.

Do you like what heritage wrote? Think it's a good idea? No? Well Trump and mainstream conservatives say it's not a good idea, so they're on your side here dude. Why promote it?