volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@maxkennerly but the story that Boeing killed a bunch of people was debunked by the crash investigation once they accessed the flight data recorder.

It's just unfortunate that so many news outlets rushed to judgment and reported causes and culpability that turned out to be false in the end, instead of waiting for investigations to really sort it out.

It's just the state of journalism these days.

@kaydenpat Well right, because they said their action, whatever you want to call it, was patriotic.

It's not inconsistent or hypocrisy. It's simply a disagreement of fact between different groups and different opinions based on those facts as to what constitutes the patriotic path.

@lauren we will see, but even including things like regulatory considerations I'm getting the distinct feeling of "This time is different, just like I said last time, and the time before that, but really this time IS different."

It really doesn't look fundamentally different to me.

Same song different verse.

@briansullivan

@_9CL7T9k8cjnD_ the critical thing you're missing is that the government is ALREADY destabilized and faith in institutions has already cratered.

It's critical to realize that Trump is the effect, not the cause.

If those things were solid there would have been no way for him to gain a toehold.

His entire gimmick is saving people from the instability that they were already yelling about.

@Peg33

@briansullivan that was my reaction too.

This is how Google has always done things, annoyingly, so talking about it not ending well for the company comes across as crying wolf.

I'm sure the company will continue slogging along, just as ever.

@lauren

@Kozmo Yes, and that way the GOP would lose the election.

I don't see the problem with letting them die on their own swords.

@mk and I do say that whoever is telling you this stuff is lying to you, as you can debunk their stories with your own eyes, if you want to.

Or you can just keep believing the lies.

Your call, dude.

That is what I say.

@danwentzel the video literally describes why it's not bribery at all.

@TwShiloh well that's what I meant by potential Trump voters, the ones on the fence who would even consider voting for the guy.

We've already seen the prosecutions sway so many toward voting for him when they had been looking for other candidates.

This is all playing into Trump's strategy by confirming the nonsense he spews about being a victim.

@mk ...yes because we watched it happen on a weekly basis for years?

So yes, I do think that. Because we can see it with our own eyes.

@Itchy well keep in mind that this comes up mainly during court procedures.

If nobody challenges some agency action in court then it doesn't directly come up at all.

True, agencies should still operate with the thought in mind of, IF someone challenges such and such action in court, can we convince the court that this is reasonable?

But mainly, Chevron is a directive from the SCOTUS telling lower courts how they should operate.

@whatabout nah, it's out of exactly that safety concern that I leave that up to your mom.

@SNerd in court filings, sworn congressional testimony, and other government records we see that Biden DID intervene to stop Hunter from being prosecuted.

Remember, Hunter's whole plea thus far came after the judge in the case rejected DoJ's proposed settlement for offering excuse from prosecution.

@mk well then, good thing we're not leaving this up to the american government.

@TwShiloh the problem I'm highlighting is that such questions help convince potential Trump voters to vote for the guy.

I don't think you get anywhere legally with the question, but you do play into his campaign strategy of acting like the press is out to get him.

@Itchy well, it's not so much the Court tying the hands of the administration, but rather the democratic process tying those hands, if it hasn't granted such authority to the president.

To say Chevron is long-standing is to sort of gloss over the long-standing issues trying to make it work.

That's part of why the Court seems likely to reform the doctrine: it's had enough time to show its faults.