volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Bette No that's not how government works. There's nothing to steal. Either authority is recognized by others, or it's not.

It's not like there's a hat or something like that that gives you authority. It's not like you can steal something and suddenly you have authority. No, there is nothing to steal.

Musk does not have the authority because in the federal system no such authority exists. There's nothing for him to steal, it just doesn't exist.

@Bette No, Musk doesn't have the authority to make your life worse.

@rnf

There's a HUGE problem with that strategy: it's not just a tsunami against Trump, it's also a tsunami against courts whose judges don't appreciate it and who have broad authority to react as they see fit.

Even judges who might tend to rule against Trump might be swayed the other direction if they feel like they are being used inappropriately as this sort of strategy.

In short, a strategy like that feel good but actually end up being quite counterproductive, giving Trump a bunch of wins in courts as the judges dismiss challenges to deal with the sudden flood of filings.

@SueInRockville

@BootsChantilly never forget the substantial difference between being bad versus not good.

Harming versus not helping.

Maybe it's not worth it to them to use Starlink. That's understandable. Ukraine will have to make difficult decisions, same as ever.

@juergen

@futurebird honestly, it's small-minded people who can't think of the larger picture.

They see a price price that they would have to pay but they can't see the benefit behind that cost, they can't see the broader world in which this policy actually improves things in the long run.

Again, I just keep coming back to small-minded people who can't see anything beyond their own noses

The most absurd part is when this group overlaps with the ones supposedly cheering on free markets and business without realizing that there are connections.

@DeliaChristina except, no, it's not an authoritarian power grab. Our democratic institutions already granted that power. It's already there.

We can change that, we can use our democratic institutions to reform and cancel that grant of power.

I'd say the response of those societies may sound weak because they know that they're on the wrong side of it. The power was granted, for better or worse, probably for worse, so until there are reforms, this is just how the system works.

This is what we voted for.

We should probably stop re-electing the same people that put us in this position in the first place. But until we do, that's democracy for you.

@GottaLaff really we've been at the point where we (me and people I work with) don't know how this is going to be resolved, but it can't continue like this.

Year after year there have been more administrative roadblocks to us completing our work, and this is something we've heard from other federal workers throughout other departments throughout the executive branch.

If for some reason the executive branch can't manage itself properly, well, privatization would be better than the ineffectual, and downright toxic, situation we've been in.

If the branch is simply too large and sprawling to manage effectively, well, let's hope we can get some reform to actually manage things well so it doesn't come to that.

@Callalily

@manton but this post is itself misinformation that you're spreading.

No, what's described in the post is not how the government functions, it's not an option, in fact it's kind of a mess of a theory in the first place. But what narrative we can draw from it is just not on the table.

Democracy already died? What in the world? We have ongoing election processes even today. The democratic process is happening in front of our eyes every single day, but this article claims otherwise?

No this is misinformation. It is not helpful to spread this.

@breedlov It's funny because a whole lot of those ultra rich swamp dwellers will experience a disproportionate amount of harm from the stock market swings described in the headline there.

This story doesn't really support the claim.

@fordmercure I can't imagine that anyone with any familiarity with the guy would be surprised by this.

Even the most straight laced conservative folks talking about him recognize his drug use, and while they don't support it, they generally describe it using words like interesting

@GottaLaff

Just what I said. Federal employees have spent what feels like decades complaining about mismanagement and trying desperately to bring attention to it, but the press just wasn't really interested in covering it.

We were around watching people get fired that we actually needed on hand while people that we didn't need got hired, resources spent on things that didn't support project goals, and general mismanagement at all levels.

Finally people are noticing that federal employees are watching a train wreck of an organization, so maybe now we can finally fix some of the stuff that we've been desperate to fix for all these years.

This stuff isn't new to us. Yes, some of our colleagues turned blind eyes to it, and a whole lot of politicians weren't interested in it at all, but what we're finally seeing is public recognition of stuff that's been going on for a long time, that went unaddressed for all those frustrating years.

@Callalily

@bethroots

It's important to keep in mind that so many of us who work in government have been dealing with this exact sort of chaos for years, we've been complaining about mismanagement and people losing their jobs despite doing good work, and all of this.

So many of us have been trying to raise the alarm about it, but nobody paid attention.

This is not new for us working in government. We're just hoping that after all this maybe things will finally improve.

These are very long-standing issues that have been begging for attention and getting worse every year for what feels like decades.

@Callalily

@gatewaypundit_official

This argument is a mess, and it was rightly dismissed by the lower courts.

In general you can't hold such officials legally accountable for what they don't do. You can hold them politically accountable and refuse to reelect them, but they're not guilty of what they don't do.

It would take some pretty overwhelming evidence to show that the inaction was not at worst a mistake but part of an intentional choice as part of a larger scheme.

@Callalily or maybe his job will be even more protected and easier.

Federal employees have been dealing with more and more crud over the years, complaining more and more but not getting any relief.

We'll see what happens, but this might be for the best for so many employed by the federal government.

@GottaLaff

@Nonilex It's not directing agencies.

@muiren personal insults?

You misunderstand. I didn't intend any personal insult, I don't know who you are, how would I insult you personally?

I will point out that what your writing comes across as nutty. I don't assume you are actually nutty, I just think if you want to make an argument, you should know that your presentation is not convincing because it sounds really out there.

Again, nothing personal. It's a criticism of a communication strategy, not you yourself.

But no, your facts are also wrong, but that's a separate matter from the fact that you just put forward statements that sound like the crazy guy at the end of the bar that nobody's going to take seriously.

If you want to convince people over to your side and to make a compelling argument against the other side then the way you're framing things here isn't going to be successful.

And again that's even setting aside your facts being wrong.

@muiren at its heart a conspiracy suggests something with different actors working together, which is what you described. You can add on different connotations, and in this case the connotation that I was going for was highlighting just how nutty and hand wavy what you were saying was.

Again, the point is that if you want to counter the other side, you're not going to get anywhere if you just sound crazy. Or at least misled by propaganda, which is exactly how you come off, and that's why that message doesn't resonate.

I'm happy to stick with the denotation of conspiracy just being different actors working together, but if you really want to go into the different suggestions of the term, that's the important one there.

Whether or not you criticize Democrats has nothing to do with the fact that this particular stance of yours is pretty off the wall.

@muiren

> Instead they keep giving massive tax breaks, transferring massive wealth to the #kleptocratic #brOligarchs who put them in power because of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling by the corruption of #SCOTUS.

Republicans made inroads with the general public, and it wasn't because of some plot involving some massive wealth transfer and the people at the top, the Supreme Court, might as well throw in Illuminati and lizard people if you're going that direction.

No, Republicans just had the argument that was more appealing to more voters. If you want to fight against them, well then Democrats need to have a better argument to appeal to voters.

Blaming this kind of thing doesn't solve the problem. It just makes your side sound even less electable.