volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@mnutty the justice department is part of the executive branch and so it is completely dependent on the president.

And it's a good thing that we don't let the federal investigators just run wild across the country!

I absolutely wouldn't say that the justice department is totally removed from the political pressure. I would say that political pressure 100% controls the justice department since the justice department is 100% under the auspices of who we elect.

As the justice department decides who to prosecute and who to let off the hook, these are political questions up to the people that we elect, and we need to hold the people we elect accountable for those decisions.

Thoughtful? Reasonable? Well it's up to us voters to vote for or against the people who set the policies, as at the end of the day the people we vote for get to set the rules.

I sure wish we would stop footing for idiots.

@CdaleCO Well that would be undemocratic, but we could go that way, it would take a constitutional amendment to solidify the option.

@mnutty

@mnutty but again you have that wrong.

You can be elected after being impeached.

A lot of people misunderstand how impeachment works and what the Constitution says about it, but in general, the Constitution respects the democratic process, and this is no exception, if the people want to they can elect even an impeached person.

Voters have that power.

@michael_martinez I don't see how you get the idea that I'm making excuses for Biden out of my saying flat out that he makes bad decisions and shouldn't be allowed to scapegoat.

@elduvelle sounds like the thing is all of those rules silence and censor people, and a person needs to start by accepting that if they're going to go on to figure out who to silence and censor.

Maybe the censorship is for the best, but a person needs to at least admit that that's what they're doing.

@michael_martinez Yes, that is largely the point, Biden said that he was honoring the agreement, but he wasn't because the agreement was already broken.

Biden claimed he was honoring the agreement but that was a lie that Biden told.

We need to call him out on that, he screwed up and tried to blame someone else for his own screw up.

And in addition to screwing up, he lied to the American people.

So the point is I agree with you that he makes bad decisions, but we need to emphasize that he needs to be held accountable for his decisions, including not letting him lie to get out of that by blaming an agreement that no longer existed.

@Lassielmr I just frankly don't see much point in purely symbolic actions.

If the original comment above laid out a way that there would be substantial, concrete improvement. Then I would want to hear about that, but if they are complaining that somebody didn't make the right symbolic gestures, well...

@alexlac51

@PixelChonk I think the problem is that so many Palestinians seem on board with anti-LGBT positions.

I think you said above that people are confused because they are focusing on that aspect of their cause.

So like me personally, I can't back them due to that, even if I was opposed to the Israeli actions, I also can't sign on to the anti-LGBT Palestinian cause either.

But I can say we need to do something to stop the suffering of one even if I'm not supporting some of the ones positions.

@mnutty you said they didn't prevent Trump from returning to office.

So he's in?

@juddlegum but without context a profit statement doesn't say much at all.

Profit, revenues minus costs, is a calculation after all, and we don't know without context what went into the calculation.

@PixelChonk so I think maybe rhetoric could be improved if people spoke more in terms of being against the military action than speaking in favor of a group of people with problematic positions.

I constantly hear phrasing like pro-palestine so it's not surprising that others get the impression that the Palestinian cause is being agreed to or promoted.

It's a confusing rhetoric being used.

@Aethelstan ha, I don't know if you disagree 🙂

If it's not about the person and the person's power, well we might be in agreement.

It's just, I wouldn't distract by talking about person if it's not about the person! 🙂

In the end, the reason why this is so important to me is because every person voting for their own representative needs to consider the actions of their own representative and not just focus on a Speaker or majority leader, as all too often, that ends up being a scapegoat before the representatives to hide behind and escape accountability.

Like right now I think we should be yelling holy hell at every democratic representative that voted along with the nut jobs to get this guy elected speaker in the first place. We should be voting a ton of them out of office, but we're not going to, in part because we're too busy focused on the Speaker based on stories of powers that the speaker doesn't actually have.

It's very frustrating to me, the way the people who are actively responsible, get to get a pass and get reelected to do it again based on this kind of rhetoric.

@NewsDesk

@sim Well put

@sim interesting, thanks.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

@Lassielmr but that still misses my question of how would it play out? What would happen?

It sounds like you're asking for a symbolic gesture, fine, but what would it do? Just be purely symbolic?

@alexlac51

@moira hm it's entirely possible that the bashing is happening just where I don't normally see it.

But yeah, especially on social media I see him being taken seriously with people promoting their interpretations of his words, so that's just the sample that I end up seeing. Also, outfits like BBC and NPR seem to also buy in to the interpretations of his words.

So yeah maybe late night shows are calling him out, and I hope they are.

@sim I thought the point of the shitposter.club instance was shit posts, so this post sounds awfully serious and I'm not sure how to take it.

Is that instance not actually all about shit posts?