volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Av8rdan The important lesson that I hope we can finally, finally learn is to stop giving presidents authority to do things that we wouldn't like them to do if an idiot gets in power.

I don't know why we didn't learn that before, maybe this time?

We probably won't.

@Durff ... Do you have an unconstitutional administration to cooperate with?

@BrianJopek meh, It's mainly an example of how most bills submitted to Congress are not serious, just political stunts, especially because it gets backbench Representatives in the news and talked about.

So you're talking about them, so guess it worked!

But if you want something substantial out of it, it just goes to show that the general public has lost so much faith in government that the bar has gone so low.

@indivisibleteam It's not a coup.

They are actually the ones in charge of the executive branch.

@indivisibleteam It's not a coup.

They are actually the ones in charge of the executive branch.

@realTuckFrumper these senators are pretty much pigs at a trough enjoying all the attention they're getting from these hyperbolic rants.

@manton @matt

I just want to chip in kudos for a solution that seems to put the user in charge of choosing what they particularly want to see, empowering them.

At first glance I was worried that this was going to be somebody proudly forcing their own personal opinions on others, which happens way too often around here, but doing it as a theme sounds like a fantastic idea.

@davidaugust wow, so now you're adding a strawman attack on top of the question begging.

Let me be clear, when I say the Congress can't exert such authority over the coequal branch, you beg the question by saying but they can do this thing that exerts authority over the coequal branch. No, the whole point is they can't do that stuff. Naming other things that fall into a category of the thing that is in question doesn't progress your argument.

And now, three branches that don't interact? Where in the world did I say they don't interact? Of course they do! The whole point is to provide ways for them to interact productively and constructively.

That's the design of the US government, the core feature of it.

So you're just really off base here, not presenting a compelling argument but then arguing against something that's the opposite of my stance.

Hope you'll stop.

But I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

@anniebergin

@billyjoebowers That's not what quiet quitting refers to

@davidaugust You're really begging the question here.

@anniebergin

@sindarina some of us actually want new information

@davidaugust

Separation of powers means that the Legislative Branch doesn't have full control over the co-equal Executive Branch, or else it wouldn't be co-equal.

This is core to the design of the US system, that the different branches have their own spheres and can't willy-nilly order each other around.

Shall we talk about the President saying what the Congress has to do? Of course that wouldn't be allowed. But it is for excellent reason that it doesn't go the other way.

After all, you can't impeach the president for actions of his branch if he's not responsible because Congress is the one ordering his employees to act in their positions.

It is critical to hold the president responsible for the actions of his Branch, and part of that is ensuring that he is responsible and unable to pass the buck to the legislative branch.

@anniebergin

@Snoro Well right.

That's why we have checks and balances among different branches so they police each other, so we don't trust any branch to police itself.

@b I pop into Twitter about once a day, and it has definitely not been converted into a de facto Nazi web forum.

There's a lot of anti-nazi stuff on there.

@davidaugust The problem is that the laws they are citing are themselves legally dubious.

These are executive branch employees, and it was always problematic to have the president's own employees in a position where they were supposed to police the president. That conflict of interest always existed, and laws supporting the conflict of interest don't really make sense.

So in the end, arguably they were not illegally fired.

@anniebergin

@kottke If you so misunderstand that group then you won't have a good stance from which to fight back against them.

You'll just look foolish yelling at strawmen, and you won't recruit others to your side when they see you don't know what you're talking about.

@DrakkenZero I'd like to think the check on bad actors should be left to the users who might judge differently who is and is not "bad"

And I would say it is on the Fediverse to bring value to users even when that means twisting and turning to work with other protocols.

@BeAware@social.beaware.live

@duke_cannon The latest info seems to go the other direction.

@m The problem is that a large swath of the US population has absolutely no idea how any of this stuff works, and they have bought into all of this fear-mongering about foreigners, so they are pushing for these policies.

It's an unfortunate thing that on one hand it's good for governments to be responsive to their people, on the other hand, that means having to deal with those people.