volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ScienceDesk is now?

Lung has been!

@arstechnica

@enlightenedferalboy Yes?

@bbiiirdbPhD

Firstly, that's a very poor definition for fascist. It literally weakens the descriptor.

But more importantly, what executive order criminalizes folks who are antigenicide?

@maxishere keep in mind that a whole lot of people came to this platform as a rebellious act against established websites and to express protest against particular public figures.

So yep, there is a whole lot of people on here chomping at the bit to be negative particularly with regard to us politics.

The best advice is to filter out the relevant hashtags so they're just not shown to you, so hopefully you'll see more of the positive stuff you might be looking for.

@europesays The key is that if he can't do those things then he can't be held accountable for them.

Yes, the president can manage his branch, but that also means he can be impeached for managing it badly.

@JizzelEtBass You're begging the question..

Virginia argued in court that the voters were NOT systematically removed because the process was based on individual determinations that were left up to the judgment of individual precincts.

So whether or not that counts as systematic or not is the crux of the dispute.

VA says this option was even pre-cleared by the federal government, as I recall from the filings.

There's a bit more to it, but that's what it comes down to, this not being systematic and therefore not running a foul of the NVRA.

But at least we've moved past the claim that the NVRA does not permit changes during that period before the election. Now the issue is that precedent prevents courts from ordering changes that would disrupt elections.

@stanleyHootzz @cmconseils

@ProgressivePower Robert Reich Departed from his credibility years ago when he became just another political pundit, making all kinds of claims that were nutty, and making predictions that didn't come true merely because he was trying to take down political rivals.

We need to be clear that this guy is not someone to listen to anymore.

And that's a shame because he used to be an expert in his field.

@bloomberg I mean it is... kind of by definition.

@bloomberg-bloomberg

@Thumper1964 The problem is, political disagreements very often do have life or death implications.

If you don't recognize that you are talking about political differences, than you are ceding the field to your opponents, often with lethal consequences.

We may wish otherwise, but that's simply the reality of politics.

This is an amazing story, a group started buying up domain names that had expired but that #hacking tools were still dialing into.

https://youtu.be/ST1frnx-5Nw?si=RN3N3zYRv0XRrLPC

@krypt3ia Yeah exactly.

And we saw that with a lot of other recent high profile cases, people who almost definitely did it got off the hook because the prosecution messed up. The key is to hold accountable the prosecutors and the governments that hired them, not to yell about the folks who got off the hook.

Yes, our system does put significant standards on prosecution. But they're not impossible standards, we just need to stop hiring prosecutors who screw it up!

@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