volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@IgnatiusJReilly we could go through the whole list, but from Biden's deficits through his botching of his response to Ukraine through his DOJ failing to prosecute Trump, I mean I could go on and on just off the top of my head.

The guy is a fuck up.

@Rasp

The unavoidable problem is that healthcare requires people to work, input from workers, and so anyone stating that healthcare should be free runs into the issue of requiring people to work without compensation.

It runs into the issue of you're going to fix me for free. You're going to work for me for free.

You see how problematic that is?

@realcaseyrollins

@BootedUp I get what you're saying, but in this case the bad TV performance happens to correlate with bad performance in office.

It's not just that the guy stuttered a bunch. In part he was stuttering because he couldn't backup his performance in office. It's just really hard to come up with the words to explain failure.

It would be one thing if he was kind of quiet but everybody could see that he did a good job in his role, but he just couldn't really explain good things that he did because they don't really exist very solidly.

His performance sucked, but also it sucked that his record was so bad that he needed a performance.

@urlyman

@urlyman It's not the institutions of power, though. These political parties are made up of members of the general public.

And at any point the general public membership could demand change.

There's a sense of learned incapacity with the Democratic party right now. So far their membership seems to think that they can't choose a different person simply because of tradition. But they can. And I wish they would. But it's up to the general public, the membership of the parties to choose who they want to put forward.

@si_irini because the people happen to be humans.

And that's just human nature.

@statsguy frankly IMO Biden v Trump is a toss-up between two horribly screwed up candidates, and at any point either party could nominate pretty much anyone else and just win the election.

It's just kind of amazing that neither party to this day has decided they want to win. Both parties have decided that they want to roll the dice and see what happens.

Well both parties have time to change their minds and decide to play for the win. The first one to do so gets the prize.

What a weird state of affairs.

@alan but I don't believe those things 🙂

I don't believe factions are bad things, I believe that they lead to poor results. It doesn't really mean they're bad, but focusing on them is not effective.

I also don't believe that anything is about picking wise and noble people here. Rather, it's about picking people that do the job well, even if they happen to be complete morons that are also corrupt but somehow manage to serve the public.

So I would judge the public official based on his performance. What faction is he with? Don't care! Look at his voting record. Is he noble and honest? Don't care! Look at his voting record.

My preference is to look at performance in office of individuals, and as I watch the performance of parliamentary systems around the world I'm always struck by this issue.

@marynelson8 frankly, it sounds like you were making the mistake of trying to make sense of Trump's words.

@KilKerrin If it helps, keep in mind that so many Trump supporters don't care one bit about him being an effective president, they just want him to put on a show.

So when you say the system is broken, well, it's giving people what they want, it just happens to not be effective government.

So it's kind of like, is the system really broken if it's giving the people what they want when what they want is really stupid?

@marynelson8 Well what did you think?

If it raised your blood pressure, is that because you disagreed with the shows? What did they say versus what did you think?

@TammyGentzel My understanding is no.

My understanding is that libel law in the US requires that the person committing libel is aware that they are saying false things, and a newspaper truthfully pointing out that somebody is lying would be completely free from that.

@jackhutton expand the Court and they'll just take even longer to negotiate and settle on an opinion.

But no, the key is for us to do a better job of putting the Court in context and remembering that the whole role of the Court in the US system is for them to take their time issuing opinions that are coherent and durable.

If you need speed, look to the other two branches which are set up to be responses to the needs of the moment.

The Court's decisions won't change American society. Without action from others they're mere argument.

@old_hippie it doesn't really change anything, though: prosecutors would be making their case either way, including proving the bribery charge, whether the defendants claim pure innocence or gratuity in the alternative.

Either way, prosecutors have to bring their proof.

@Nigel_Purchase Sounds like one of those cases where the headline is very misleading but tries to hedge in the word "basically" so the author can say, "Well, we didn't say it REALLY did that."

No, the SCOTUS didn't legalize bribery, and in fact its opinion hinged largely on the argument that BECAUSE bribery is illegal and a big deal, that can explain why Congress set the legislation this way.

The Court's opinion emphasizes that bribery is illegal, contrary to what so many headlines are saying.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf

@bigheadtales No, they didn't cut down that law, and this is critical to understand.

Wrong branch of government.

*Congress* cut down the law decades ago, and if it needs to be put back up the Congress can act again to reverse its lawmaking.

You're not framing what the law actually says. Here's a link to it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/666

So, since the law that Congress passed doesn't apply to the situation before the Court, the Court didn't strike down that which wasn't in the law at all.

@GottaLaff

@bigheadtales of course I did read the dissent, but the dissent isn't what the Court said.

What the Court said is in the majority opinion that the Court accepted, not in the dissent that didn't carry the day.

Jackson's dissent got a bunch wrong, which is why it didn't become the position of the Court. But either way, it was rejected as the position of the Court, and if we want to know what the Court said, that's the wrong place to look.

@GottaLaff

@jemmesedi right, because it was a very different set of circumstances as they were reviewing a lower court action that was clearly out of bounds.

It's way easier to tackle such a misbehaving lower court than to grapple with these questions of procedure.

@bigheadtales again, not what the Court said as the opinion went through the system set up specifically because bribery is NOT ok.

The law has been on the books for decades. If Congress believes they got the law wrong before and it needs to include stricter federal oversight, it's up to the democratic process to sort that out, not the courts.

@GottaLaff

@ubiquiti_fanatic

Again, if you want to oppose them, or even participate in the democratic process from an informed perspective, then yes, it seems you DO need someone to point out how the gaps in your understanding of the world.