volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@RememberUsAlways Right. But that doesn't change anything here.

We elect morons, and the reason we elect them is kind of secondary to the fact that we are, indeed, electing morons.

Personally I'm a lot more frustrated with the democratic representatives we reelected who are complicit with this administration. But that's the group we voted for, so this is what we get.

@RememberUsAlways No you're absolutely wrong about how that goes.

The courts were intentionally not given executive powers. They were intentionally not vested with any power to check the executive. These unelected judges are only able to issue opinions, and that's all by design. We don't want to give huge amounts of executive power to people that aren't accountable to election processes.

Instead the power is given to the legislative branch which can impeach and otherwise engage with the executive.

So no, by design the courts absolutely do not have any power to check the executive. Not only are they not the final check, but they're not empowered that way at all.

It's up to the people that we elect to Congress to act against the executive if they see fit.

It is so critical that Americans understand how the government is set up if they care about this kind of thing. And it is really a shame that so many don't understand how functions are distributed between the three branches.

@RememberUsAlways No not at all.

If we elected a wet paper towel that's what we get. Yay democracy.

The premise doesn't fall apart. We get what we vote for, so this is what we got.

It's how the system works. We should probably stop reelecting morons, but we do reelect morons, so I guess we like this.

@Nerde No that is absolutely not what happened, despite so much misinformation that went around social media.

The courts absolutely did not rule that the laws don't apply to the president. The courts say the exact opposite of that.

The more you promote that sort of misinformation, well that actually does undermine holding presidents to account.

But it's a lie. Whoever told you that is either wrong or actively lying to you, either way you should stop listening to them.

@RememberUsAlways wrong branch of government.

It's Congress, not the courts, that have the power to smack Trump down.

And really it undermines democracy to get that wrong.

@HarriettMB But the one has nothing to do with the other.

It's really foolish to categorize people that way and promote such prejudice.

@theguardian_us_news I mean the examples being used to make the case pretty much debunk it and point the other direction.

Authoritarianism? We're all complaining that the administration is giving up power!

@festal

Seems like this pretty much proves that blue sky is not in practice fully centralized.

@vortex

@Nerde No, the courts themselves did not rule that.

Contrary to a bunch of sensationalist news stories and political propaganda, no, they didn't rule that, and that's not how any of this works.

@00Aaron source?

@ben No, section 230 is complicated by double and triple negatives so that all of these political commentators don't seem to understand what it actually means, and its repeal is just as complicated

@breedlov

What in the world?

If your local library is so controlled from DC, then it doesn't sound very local.

This is a symptom of a problem.

@Nochem Well you are welcome to give up.

This is the path forward. This is the only path forward. If you think it's futile, okay. Go ahead and give up. Don't waste your time on any of this.

But if you would like to change things, this is the way to change things. This is the only way to change things.

Again, if you want to just roll over and take it then go enjoy your life as best you can. I am always a supporter of the idea that people should go read books under trees and ignore all of this stuff.

If you want to change things, this is your option. If you don't want to, or you don't think the option will work, then it gets you to the same outcome either way.

This is the way to change things. Take it or don't, But I would suggest that you don't waste your time and efforts away from more fulfilling personal enterprises.

Oh, let me go ahead and emphasize that you can make things worse.

@CdnCurmudgeon

@Nochem so again, that's exactly the kind of rhetoric that got Trump elected.

You can speak in these abstract high-minded verbiage all you want, but strategically, it plays into the hands of folks like Trump. Right-wingers literally quote statements like that to build support for their causes. I hear it literally every single day.

You need to rebuild strong international left-wing movements? Okay, great! How? And I would counter with the rhetoric that you are using right in that comment builds the right wing. So even as your rhetoric is supporting the right wing, promoting their causes, how are you going to the international left-wing movement?

Great, your rhetoric is being used by the right wing to elect more right-wingers. How are you offsetting that in building the left wing at the same time?

Because as far as I can tell you're only helping the right wing with that kind of talk, not actually making the left wing any stronger in trade.

@CdnCurmudgeon

@ReggieHere exactly!

So the way to stop them from coming to power is to engage with that minority of people. If it's a minority of people, it makes it even easier because there are fewer people that you have to convince.

It's a heavily gamed democracy? Great! That means the rules of the game stand, and gaming the rules can help change the course of power.

This is the point.

@YourShadowDani @cemedia

@Nochem But history shows that this stuff hasn't worked. It's literally why we have Trump in the US and right-leaning movements gaining steam around the world.

History shows us the folly of that approach.

We tried it. It didn't work. It made things worse. It got these people elected.

So let's stop doing the same thing that keeps electing these people.

Yes, history shows us that the strategy doesn't work. Let's listen to history and change course.

@CdnCurmudgeon

@YourShadowDani You're talking in the abstract, but I'm talking in the substance here.

We are still recognizing voting. The people coming to power are coming to power based on votes. They aren't seizing power, the people standing next to you in line at the grocery store are voluntarily choosing to use their votes to put these people in power.

So if you don't like their choices, engage with them, talk to them about why they should use their votes differently.

That is where we are right now. We don't need to jump into this post-voter concept because right now in the real world we are still respecting voting.

@cemedia

@CdnCurmudgeon Guess who doesn't care?

I don't mean that with personal judgment, I mean that to point out that, a whole lot of people who voted for Trump did so specifically to protest against international norms like this.

So that Trump might not technically be allowed into 38 countries would only support the perspectives of many of his voters. It confirms their thinking.

I don't know if this is a be careful what you wish for a moment, but it is what it is. To a lot of people, pointing this out only confirms their support for the guy.