volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@radix023 @nbs @eriner y'all are racing right past the simpler explanation, that when Trump keeps giving out nonsensical and contradictory statements about what he's doing, it's because he honestly just doesn't know what he's doing. At all.

You don't need to reach for some grand plan here.

Sometimes a person sounds like an uninformed idiot because they are simply an uninformed idiot.

@byteseu It's funny because Harris ran such a terrible campaign, and was personally such an unlikable person, that yeah, she told us so and we still decided we would rather have it than her as president.

It just speaks to what an error it was for the Democratic party to choose her without consulting the membership for a dose of reality of how bad a candidate she was.

@lydiaconwell No, those screenshots increase the value of this platform and so promote this platform.

Without those screenshots we would have to go to those other platforms to get that content, so why bother with this one?

@europesays The problem is that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to regulate how states run federal elections, for better or worse. And Congress passed laws long ago authorizing this sort of regulation.

Trump's orders cited chapter and verse of the law that gives it constitutional authority.

@ERBeckman how does that square with white Americans celebrating that polling and voting records show that his embrace of black people has been very effective?

It seems like this is flat out false on a surprisingly large number of levels.

@Gurre frothing at the mouth?

I don't think you understand the GOP.

They weren't frothing at the mouth: they were making fun of him. I think in not getting the joke it kind of means they were making fun of you too.

@CharlieMcHenry msnbc is really misframing the action before the court here. If you pull up the actual court records it tells a very different story, and MSNBC seems to be eager to get clicks out of their readers.

Sensationalized stories like these are bad for the culture because they mislead us about what our government is doing.

We really need to speak out against this kind of stuff. This is why people don't believe the press anymore.

@Nonilex That's not really how the US system works, though.

It's not so much a question of whether this court can trust the government's representations as much as it's about judging whether the lower court properly or improperly trusted them. This court rules based on the record before it, judging the lower court.

That's how the appeals process works in the US.

@rhys I'm against the tariffs but this gives a chance to point out that a lot of countries around the world have such large tariffs imposed and have for a while.

This might be an opportunity for people around the world to demand their governments reconsider their tariffs policies.

@0x00string yes?

@ruthz.bsky.social I've been assured that big money buys elections.

Can we finally put that myth to rest? We have example after example showing otherwise, can this finally be the example where we give up on that theory?

@0x00string no?

@johnsturgeon nope.

With regard to opposing Trump, I'm trying to say that if people don't know the rules of the game then they're not going to be able to field an effective opposition, which we've seen in spades over the last decade.

And in the larger picture I just wish people who were interested in how the US is getting along were better informed about how the federal government actually operates.

I'm actually more interested in the bigger picture than in Trump, but If you really want to talk about him then this has particular relevancy about the strategies to oppose him and deal with him.

@johnsturgeon or let me put it a different way.

Am I not President because the Constitution is holding me accountable? No. I'm not president because I don't meet the definition of President in the Constitution.

It has absolutely nothing to do with holding anyone accountable and that's the entire point.

@johnsturgeon

You are expressing exactly the misunderstanding that I'm trying to highlight there.

Constitution holding him accountable? No, that's exactly what I'm trying to point out, this is not about anything holding anyone accountable any more than the definition of water holding accountable people who say this bucket of rocks is full of water.

There's no holding accountable. It's not a functionary or mechanical statement. The presidency is defined by the Constitution. If you don't meet the definition of being president, then you are not president as per the Constitution.

There's no holding anybody accountable, no action, there's just a definition and then a question of whether or not you meet that definition.

At the moment Trump is president not because of any process but because he meets the constitutional definition of being president. It's not that the Constitution supports his presidency or anything like that, it's not a process, it's simply here's a definition, and this dude satisfies the details of that definition.

I know I'm repeating myself a couple times in this reply, but it's because you are highlighting exactly the thing I'm trying to clarify.

@virtuous_sloth also keep in mind that activities on the Senate floor tend to be pretty highly scripted. It's rare that anything happens that hasn't been already agreed to back in senators' offices.

Every once in awhile there will be uncertainty, but in general you even have senators from opposing parties getting together to write out the debates that they will deliver "against" each other. It's mostly for show as each Senator tries to score points in their own constituencies.

It's just natural, but we need to be aware that what we're watching is something of a pantomime.

@benroyce

@virtuous_sloth No, that is not the case.

In the Senate the rules are designed to seek consensus, to prevent any one senator to have that sort of control over the chamber.

People get this backwards a lot, and it's worth emphasizing that the politicians have interests in promoting that myth too. But basically, a senator can only direct the chamber with the consent of the chamber in general.

If a senator ever tries to do something that the chamber in general is not up for, the rest are able to vote and shut him down immediately.

But like I said, politicians love to be able to point fingers and pretend like they couldn't do anything about whatever's going on when otherwise they would have to take difficult votes.

That's how that myth gets promoted. But it's not true.

@benroyce

@theguardian_us_news

The Louisiana governor is not far right. He's pretty moderate from a state that's pretty diverse and therefore moderate, with candidates having to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters.

My impression is that the governor did a poor job of explaining the amendments, so people were confused by the language and so didn't support them.

Keep in mind, Louisiana has a long history of constitutional amendment because it has a government structure that's unique in the US given its unique history in the country.