volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@benroyce exactly.

You're uninterested, you don't care what the truth is.

You're just believing what you've been told and not interested in reading about it to see that what you've been told is wrong.

You're just going with it.

Quite unread.

@mastodonmigration @briankrebs

@benroyce exactly.

You're uninterested, you don't care what the truth is.

You're just believing what you've been told and not interested in reading about it to see that what you've been told is wrong.

You're just going with it.

Quite unread.

@mastodonmigration @briankrebs

@smach The problem is that there is no candidate who isn't promising authoritarianism.

Both Harris and Trump promise to ignore Congress and implement their wants on the country, whether they actually can fulfill those promises or not.

I'm sorry the Democratic Party elites chose Harris. Almost any other candidate would run circles around Trump, but that's the direction they went.

By choosing not to endorse a candidate those editorial boards are highlighting just what a mess the two parties have made here. They will not bow to supporting either authoritarian candidate.

@benroyce One thing to keep in mind is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to stop such account. It is sitting as a court of appeals, and it would take not only a different branch of government but even a different government to stop the count.

So no, read the ruling, the Supreme Court did not stop the count, but furthermore, it could not have stopped the count even if it wanted to.

That's just not how the Supreme Court works in the US system of government.

Again, I don't know who's telling you these things, but they are lying to you.

Want to prove me wrong? Quote from the ruling where the Supreme Court stopped the count.

@mastodonmigration @briankrebs

@benroyce Read the SCOTUS ruling.

It says the opposite.

If I wasn't on my phone I would give you a link directly to it, but it's public, so you should have no problem finding the ruling.

And after you read the ruling I want you to realize how many folks have lied about what it said over the years, and don't believe them anymore.

@mastodonmigration @briankrebs

@theguardian_us_opinion I saw a post saying that the story has already been debunked based on government records showing that the timing didn't work right.

@moira that conspiracy theory has not been confirmed, though.

@benroyce That's not what happened in 2000, though. People forget what the actual case before the court was.

The Supreme Court did not call off the counting. That wasn't the question before them. Instead, the question was whether a lower court had legal authority to intervene the counting process, and the Supreme Court merely pointed out that the lower court was wrong.

The court had no role in the counting process. It only had a role in making sure the lower court acted according to law, which it didn't, so the Supreme Court reversed them.

The state was free to continue counting as per law.

And in the end multiple journalistic institutions concluded that had the count going on Bush would have won anyway.

@mastodonmigration @briankrebs

@duncantherowe Bluesky he is working well enough for me. Not sure why you would see it go to shit...

@samhenrigold What killing spree did Trump go on?

@ShadSterling or they would have just never made any products for the public at all, or maybe they wouldn't have recalled the products at all.

That's the thing, proposals like these are just not realistic, literally they're not realistic, because they rely on factually false stories, and going down that path often results in unintended consequences that are even worse than the problems they purport to solve.

Again, getting the problem right is the first step. And these stories don't get the problem right.

@Colman @dcjohnson

@stu fediverse instances don't grab all content from everywhere, so it might not be showing up because your instance isn't configured to grab that content.

@ShadSterling No in the real world these businessmen are not killing the public. That's the whole point.

It's not factually correct to say they are killing the public, and so policy made on the back of such sensationalized stories ends up being weak and often harms the public more than the ills the politicians purport to be addressing.

The first step in addressing any problem is accurately identifying the problem. It is factually inaccurate to talk about these businessmen killing the public when they're not.

@Colman @dcjohnson

@Strandjunker No, a large proportion of the population believes the exact opposite, believing that it went very well last time.

And unfortunately there's really no way to show them otherwise. So we're stuck with that.

@GofLeisure The problem is that so many have lost credibility over time that there is no reliable place to go for credible information.

The bar has been lowered that far, so people in general don't know what to believe.

With credible institutions giving up their credibility, the vacuum gets filled by questionable sources, because that's all we have left.

It was, sadly, an entirely foreseeable result of strategic steps. But here we are.

@enobacon Yes, people are for real, they really want substantial discussion instead of this knee-jerk partisan stuff.

If you want to win them over, then you need to put forward convincing arguments.

And also keep in mind that some people will notice arguments that fall on their faces right out the door with things like the post office being an independent agency separate from a president's policies.

@carbonated_estrogen withholding our votes is the only way to express to the Democratic Party that they need to nominate good candidates, that they can't just rely on us to vote for their person.

Whether Trump or Harris wins, either one is going to be too incompetent to really do much especially with this Congress, so either way we're going to muddle through for the next 4 years.

The question is, what comes next? If we just vote for Harris because we don't like Trump, that tells the party that they can keep putting up bad candidates. Instead, if we vote third party that tells them they have to actually earn our votes.

It's better in the long run.

And it helps get third parties ballot access for the next time around too.

@randahl The problem is that Harris herself isn't very trustworthy, so a lot of undecided voters won't take her word on this.

I really wish the Democratic Party had chosen a different candidate. It was obvious that Harris was going to be a very weak one.

@moira watching the video clips, no, the Republican guy did not express a pro-Hitler stance. Exactly the opposite, he criticized talk like that.

The guy went out of his way to say the exact opposite of what you're framing here.

@Colman But I'm saying director s should not be held criminally culpable for things like that. It's a good thing that they're not held criminally culpable. Because it would be holding them accountable for stuff they didn't do, which is fundamentally unjust and practically counterproductive, standing in the way of providing goods and services that we want.

Investment in productive activities is a good thing. We should not be discouraging such investment, and promoting inequality while we're at it, by putting these threats over people and indulging in that sort of sensationalist rhetoric.

Our society is better off that we don't follow that path to illiberalism.

@ShadSterling @dcjohnson