volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Godfrey642 Oh some are speaking out. The condemnation is just getting lost in the noise of everything else that's happening.

In the end, the US is full of a lot of idiotic voters that voted for a bunch of idiots and so, yay democracy, we are in a state that is very stupid.

@dever

You're probably right, buuuuut there is another possibility to consider:

Tax information is really sensitive stuff, so inputting that information on an OS that isn't maintained for security does open a security issue. Maybe even a liability.

I figure it might be a combination of the two. Developers being slightly concerned raised the issue, and marketers jumped on it as a way too sell more product.

@mhjohnson @francisscottkey

@fkamiah17 Well there's not much more they can do.

@fkamiah17 what's going on in the video?

@BathysphereHat do you have a source?

I wanted to see a clear picture of the tattoo in question but my quick search only showed a blurry one. Now there's a second one? I want to see clear pictures of both, but I'm guessing my search is going to turn up something equally blurry.

@CindyWeinstein Trump is not demanding taxpayer money.

He's looking for restitution from the US government for what he claims is damages the government inflicted on him improperly. And whether that's fair or not, it needs to be stressed, this isn't taxpayer money, this is government money allegedly owed because government inflicted harm.

This is important because it's part of holding government accountable, and even applies to crap that Trump is doing against other people.

@psoul But that's not how the federal government is set up, so it can't really work that way.

For example, should ICE detain people through programs that weren't properly funded, the detention would not be legal, and so would be extra-governmental. Unauthorized.

Yes, you might say that Trump doesn't care about legalities, and that would fit with his pattern, but when we're talking about extra-governmental detention it would be happening as if he wasn't president anyway, it would just be effectively private citizens abducting people.

It's a very different context.

@freeschool

Important to note that the Constitution itself addresses this.

@PattyHanson

@Stoneycase

Part of it is because a whole lot of professionals who work behind the scenes aren't interested in these political games, they want to do their jobs, and they don't want to sink to the level of trying to score political points.

Often it's those people who are making these decisions.

Biden may not have been personally interested in directing them to go political like that. He was focused on other issues.

But mainly I suspect the files don't really exist in the first place, at least as described. What we've already seen might be the long and short of it.

@old_hippie it does.

When you read Supreme Court rulings they are replete with references to our Constitution and the rule of law.

It would be pretty weird for them to spend so much time and energy referring to something they don't believe in.

This despite sensational headlines and political jabs trying to score points by misleading listeners...

@vmbrasseur

Did he go into where the reasoning of the court got the law wrong?

It seems like a political diatribe that doesn't really match with what the legal experts have concluded.

@grumpywitch

It's a foolish political stunt without real legal basis.

The design of the US government is emphatic that the two chambers of the legislature can set their own rules and even judge membership, so states don't have any grounds for imposing on the federal government like this.

Currently the House has decided to wait on the Senate to stop blocking the government funding legislation, which is strategically reasonable, so there's nothing lost in the representative not being sworn in. The House isn't conducting normal business anyway.

Johnson has said that the swearing-in will happen once the House returns to normal business, so there's really no rush.

If Senate Democrats stop obstructing the legislation things will get back to normal.

@hj sounds like you're making some assumptions there.

No, not everybody has the resources to invest in themselves like that. A lot of us can't.

@kaia @lain @thatbrickster

@BohemianPeasant

Keep in mind that there are nuances to different interpretations of the unitary executive approach.

Nelson's argument, even if originalist, might be in full agreement with some proposals of the unitary executive.

Just for example, consider the potential Federal Reserve limitation that the Court gestured toward, or arguments that say the president can fire anyone he wants but he can't redirect funding, or vice versa.

The originalist approach is actually pretty amenable to to those sorts of arguments of magnitude by looking at original categorizations.

@65dBnoise Oh the workforce definitely has people that are holding them back, employees who had to be overcome to have those successes. There is dead weight to shed.

The challenge is in figuring out who fits into that category.

Time will tell whether they do this effectively or not.

But for any organization with such a history and a size, there are definitely people who are not only unhelpful but who actually hold the organization back.

@realTuckFrumper

It's so telling that they even screwed that up.

@jalefkowit Well even more directly, it's to help the institutions get their version of events out to the public.

This really is the administration shooting itself in the foot when it comes to engaging with the public.

But then, I don't necessarily think that public engagement is a priority for them, especially when it comes to internal strife about who gets to talk with Trump insisting on being center stage.

@everton137

I'd imagine so, but that's a much larger question than just asking about what people were experiencing when planning to go over to the weekend's events.

@pait