volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@edwardchampion@universeodon.com did you have anyone report you though?

I imagine they don't screen every single video uploaded.

@arrrg and to vent for a second, you know the worst part to me, is that I come across an amazing number of people who actually support the echo chamber.

An amazing number of people flat out accept being surrounded by only bias confirming responses and they like it that way.

Well that's how people are.

@bmacDonald94 the problem is that the latte in your hand debunks that story pretty directly.

It's hard to prove the earth is round. Much easier to prove that you have derived some value from capitalism. When it's just a couple of inches from your body.

@arrrg I blame echo chambers

When you're used to the echo chamber, anyone not repeating the same verse must clearly be of the other side.

@bitcrush_io It could be done but a lot of people are really invested in the reverse chronological algorithm.

One issue is that the platform is such a fire hose that there might be thousands of posts between the last one you saw and the most recent.

So it gets complicated to try to do things more complicated than straight reverse chronological.

Not that it's a bad idea, I'm fully supportive of it, but it's more complicated than what a lot of people seem to want.

@stevesilberman imagine being so out of it that you think that's what's actually going on here.

@ArtSmart Oh it's not hard at all since the requirements are pretty clearly spelled out!

I mean would you believe that I am president? I mean I haven't won any election, but maybe I go ahead and repeat the oath of office. Do you believe I'm president now?

Obviously not, because I don't meet the requirements for being president. By definition I am not the president. And it's not hard to convince people that I am not the President of the United States.

Same thing with what you're bringing up.

By definition a person that doesn't meet the requirements for being president is not president.

The oath of office and occupancy of the White House do not make a person president. And anyone who doesn't meet the requirements to be president is pretty easily arguably not president.

Just like me.

@ArtSmart so again I reference that the person would have as little qualification for the presidency as I have.

So would I have one hand on the Bible and the other raised before I find out I'm not actually present? What if I really really say I am? No. I'm still not president.

It's worth emphasizing that we don't rely on people to voluntarily accept that they aren't president. Even if I really really think that I am president, I'm still not. And even if somebody puts their hand on a Bible and really really thinks that they are president, when they're not, they're still not.

Take Trump. Even if he really really thinks he won that last election, he didn't. We don't rely on him agreeing that he lost, rather the system knows that he lost, whether he knows it or not in his tiny brain, we don't rely on him knowing that to be true.

It simply is true.

Somebody like me who has not qualified to be president is not president, regardless of anything involving Bibles or whatever else you want to bring up.

So let the Republicans vote for anyone they want to. If they want to vote for somebody who's not qualified to be president then those votes are wasted because that person cannot be president.

Even if that person wins the election.

@timo21 so that is a factual disagreement that we are not going to be able to get past.

That is absolutely not in the version of the ruling that I read, so I don't know what version you are reading, but there's really no way for us to move forward from there.

The sky is a different color in your world.

@Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963

@ArtSmart It just doesn't matter because the person can't be president.

Even if whatever laws are in place at the time don't prevent the final EC count, the person would be exactly as president as I am.

Like, I can't be president just by declaring it to be true. And same thing with that person, they can't be president because they don't qualify.

And so the laws dealing with vacancy of the office come into play.

It's actually not a hard question. We have laws about what to do in that circumstance.

So if I and that person both show up to the gates of the White House and try to walk inside, same thing, that's not going to work.

@RM_Transit The problem is they run up against basic physics, you can't change things like the resistivity of metal just by throwing more money at the cables.

@realTuckFrumper Well that's a lie

@elfunrokr except that Comer did invite Biden for public testimony.

@stopthatgirl7 seems like the creator of Godwin's law should know better than making such a comparison.

@ArtSmart If Republicans want to vote for a guy who cannot legally take office, let them!

In fact, there's the position that between Trump and Biden, both are so unpopular that the first party to dump their main candidate would probably win.

I'm happy to let Republicans vote for Trump all they want and then say no when he actually shows up to take office. That sounds like a pretty good way of getting rid of the guy to me.

If Republicans are so damn stupid as to vote for a guy who can't take office, great, let them have their temper tantrum.

But don't save them from themselves. If they want to vote for somebody ineligible, well those votes are wasted, and I can't think of a better reason to promote wasted votes.

@ArtSmart no not at all because the requirement that a president be 35 years old says absolutely nothing about the voting process.

So long as I can vote for my dog the election process has not been interfered with.

I mean my dog can't actually take office, but if I want to vote for my dog, I can, so the election process is not interfered with.

That's the critical distinction between the process of voting and the process of taking office.

One is a democratic process while the other is a legal process.

@ArtSmart I agree!

And that's why I go all the way up to point out that these rules amount to undemocratic election interference EVEN IF YOU OR I THINK THAT'S FOR THE BEST.

So the point is to own it. The point is to proudly say that we are standing against the rights of voters to speak their minds, the democratic process, the neutral conduct of an election, putting fingers on the scale because we think that voters are too damn stupid to vote for the candidates that we think are acceptable.

So yep! Absolutely! States have laws that run counter to the abilities of voters to express themselves honestly and accurately.

If you think that is wise, great! It's a little authoritarian for me, but I appreciate the reasoning behind it.

The key is to own it as those rules are implemented.

It's about admitting that that is what the states are doing.

@timo21 but if you read the ruling from SCOTUS, that's not what happened.

That is a factually wrong recounting of events.

@Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963