volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@maccruiskeen to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with it.

Keep in mind that the culture these guys are coming from is shallow and thinks it knows better what everybody should be doing, and when it can it sees a moral Duty to impose that better option on others.

So it's not a weird idea of support. It's actually a very common idea, too common in my opinion, thinking they can help people by telling them what they should be doing.

This is just one example of it. There are so many, but maybe it's something to keep in mind when trying to understand what this administration is doing.

@fj

@irelephant

Yeah, and that's not hatred. In context of support provided by US policy over the course of administrations that even has more to say about the US than about Europe.

This administration has been describing previous US policy as giving too much, so this is a continuation of complaining about the direction of US policy over administrations, and a pivot based on themes of the campaign that got them elected.

Not about Europe, about the US.

@fj

@maccruiskeen ha, I'm not sure you can see where he stands in regard to Europe

Because I read that exchange in the complete opposite way, talking about the outlines of strategic partnership and how the different groups interact, which has absolutely absolutely nothing to do with hating or not hating Europe.

At worst it's neutrality when setting the terms for partnership. But I think it's more about supporting Europe to follow a path that he thinks would be better for everybody, Europe included, promoting European success as he sees it.

So no, not hatred at all. Support if anything.

Maybe it takes more understanding of the context in which these statements are made, though. It's just like how many misinterpreted Trump's stance on NATO during his first term.

@fj

@fj sharing your hate?

Did you read the release? There wasn't hate of Europeans. There was only discussion of the terms of partnership and normal concerns of political framing.

@realcaseyrollins email is fundamentally not built to be secure, so no, even if there was patched on encryption it would have been at best an order of magnitude less secure.

@walterolson.bsky.social right, this is just another example of Trump being personally disconnected from the rest of his branch, as he's more interested in listening to and repeating the ramblings of conservative talk show hosts than listening to his officials.

It's a constant feature of this administration.

Trump constantly repeats the likes of Sean Hannity even while his branch acts somewhat independently from him.

@Nonilex these presidential powers aren't novel to people who have been paying attention to the US system for decades.

There's really nothing new here. Just reporters finally reporting stuff that has been happening the whole time... and unfortunately getting things wrong occasionally as they're not themselves familiar with the topic.

@josh it's almost as if the stories about Roberts being totally in Trump's camp weren't true in the first place.

Seriously, that story has always been nonsense, as Roberts has decided against Trump plenty of the years. But that didn't support the conspiracy theories, so never mind it.

@drrimmer not so much a landmark case when it just confirmed the obvious, that these kids had no standing or solid complaint to bring to the courts.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the petition, illustrating that the case was too silly to even consider.

@JoeChip I think it's more of a live by the sword die by the sword sort of situation.

Weiss built their business around engagement with the federal government, so they have to pivot when the federal government changes to remain engaged with it.

There could be a lesson there for the institutional Democratic Party and their values. It's not so much humiliation as it is successfully continuing to have the cart hitched to the horse, although they might want to reconsider the horse they want to hitch to.

@dave there's so much misleading or flat out wrong with this piece. It has a lot of misstatement of history and the role that universities and other academic institutions have played in human history.

Just to touch on one thing, universities generally don't deliver final, marketable products. That's not their role to play, neither historically nor practically. They are good at fundamental research, but not at the consumer facing execution side.

The problem is, holding them up as these great consumerist providers can play precisely against the goal of promoting their government support. It's better just to be honest about what they do and do not provide.

@samlitzinger I think a lot of people mistake Trump's comments like these as him being mad or angry when often enough he's enjoying the attention while basically playing a game with his supporters.

This may be one of those cases where he wasn't mad, but he's delighted that you're giving him this attention.

@carolpeters It's really not, not in any substantial way. There's a whole lot of good content and even anti-nazi content on the platform, so if anything I'd say it's anti-nazi.

@drrjv

@BrianJopek I mean, a lot of people like to listen to him, so that rule would be kind of productive.

I don't care for the guy myself, but let the people get what they want.

@GW@newsie.social there's just no substitute for doing the hard work to engage with other voters where they are to promote better policies so they elect better people.

The problem is, more disruptive forms of pressure can actually play into their hands. We see that all the time.

@RememberUsAlways senators are elected by regions that don't have the option of being manipulated between elections. To say that there is gerrymandering in the Senate is to use a definition of gerrymandering so expansive that it loses all meaning.

If all elections are gerrymandered, then there's really no meaning to the word anymore. It no longer represents manipulation for the sake of power, it becomes just, you know, voting.

So no, for any practical definition of the word, there is no gerrymandering in the Senate.

So the theory that this is caused by gerrymandering is scientifically rejected by the outcome from the body that has no gerrymandering.

It makes for a dramatic story, but it just doesn't match reality. And it makes it easier to point fingers at Boogeyman instead of facing the reality that the unwashed masses around us have to be convinced over to your personal preferences if you want to make progress.

It does no good to cling to those conspiracy theories, Even if they support a simpler world.

@RememberUsAlways again, there is no gerrymandering in senatorial elections, and yet the Senate is generally in agreement with the House on the big topics.

No, truth is that the general population is behind this stuff. So we get what we want, as intended.

@europesays nah, it's math.

Sometimes with a little finance thrown in, but mainly, those plans don't work because they don't get the math right.

@RememberUsAlways there's no crisis, though. The system was set up with solutions to exactly these sorts of disputes.

It's not even unusual for presidents to defy court orders. It's just that it normally doesn't get so much public attention, so you only see it happening if you take time to read the dockets directly.

So, the courts will do exactly what they're supposed to do: issue opinions on cases brought before them. That's it. Job done.

The rest just comes down to the people we elect to Congress. If we elected people who judge it to be acceptable, that's the end of the story. No crisis, just the democratic process at work.