volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@jstatepost The real scandal with JD Vance is that he's not particularly interested in Republican ideas, but the party is too out to lunch to notice.

He's an anti-trumper, and I'm going to be really interested to see how this plays out.

@skykiss

@dictatordave from the testimony it sounds like he didn't fly the drone in a secured location. Seems like the director went out of his way to make it clear that the drone was flown off to the side.

The rest of it, sounds like he just wasn't a very good marksman. He borrowed someone else's gun, right? Didn't even have that.

@Draven @greenzeta

@tristansnell I mean, not legally falsehoods. Just a reflection of whatever sources one chooses to believe.

@jennifer we all need to keep in mind, that's kind of his job.

His job is to push for things like regulation of encryption in support of his role in government.

Our job is to recognize that those are his incentives and to push back against him specifically because our incentives run opposite.

It's a continuous and never-ending negotiation. He comes to the table saying they would like to crack down on encrypted communication. We should counter with, hey that's funny how you were able to break into his phone, how about we crack down on that?

This back and forth is just the way it's supposed to work.

@BalooUriza The process of appointing a Supreme Court Justice does not involve a president appointing a person and then demanding legislation authorizing it.

That's just not how the US process works.

I read what you wrote, and it just sounds like you don't know how US Supreme Court justices are appointed. I don't know who may have told you something wrong, but that's not the procedure.

Presidents do not have the authority that you seem to think they do, and it's for very important reasons that they don't have such authority.

We intentionally limit the authority of presidents because we don't want any single person to have that amount of power.

@BalooUriza oh I read it.

It just sounds like you're not up to speed on the process for putting justices on the Supreme Court.

That's not how it works, and presidents don't have the authority to ignore the legal procedure surrounding it.

@WhiteCatTamer well right, and here a key part of professionalism is compliance with the organization, not heading out alone in some sort of personal rebellion.

These employees are bound by professional standards to do what's asked of them by their organization, headed by Biden.

@JamesGleick

@climatebrad if this is the correct order, then the footnote on page 4 specifically refutes the idea that this follows the Supreme Court ruling.

Rather, it's the 5th Circuit ruling that government officials can't operate outside of the system of checks and balances.

NLRB simply has to make sure there's oversight of their officials.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/albright-spacex-nlrb-order.pdf

@mhjohnson I mean, they're not coups, though.

That's just how the US government is set up to work based on voters' votes.

If we vote for this chaos, then we get this chaos.

No coup, just the people getting the awful that they voted for, and they should probably stop voting for such

@crumbs even more incentive to release such damaging information to make sure he doesn't win!

@JamesGleick

@Yoshi contrary to so many sensational reports, that's the opposite of what the SCOTUS said.

In their ruling SCOTUS went out of their way to say presidents must act within the law or that they're subject to prosecution should they violate their authority. They took the time to lay that out.

So no, SCOTUS explicitly said that presidents don't have total immunity. That so many have reported that backwards is unfortunate.

@rbreich

@BalooUriza presidents don't have authority to make such moves unilaterally.

@WhiteCatTamer

Not in the tank for Biden but employed by Biden.

At the end of the day, executive branch agencies operate on behalf of the president, so if the FBI has information that would be damaging to Trump, then it doesn't really make sense that Biden would have them withhold it.

@JamesGleick

@cdarwin I mean, that sounds like a pretty damn good reason to vote against someone like Harris.

The president must be held accountable for the actions of their Branch of government. That is especially important when it comes to a department that has such enormous power to rain down on the people.

If all of these cops are looking forward to freedom to use their power under Harris, than for God's sake let's heed that warning.

@JamesGleick that conspiracy theory just doesn't really hold water.

Why in the world would Biden's FBI or the press care about Trump's feelings? They would be jumping over themselves to release such information that would be deflating to his campaign.

@jsonstein honestly, I think given a lot of experiences that members of the public have had, that rhetoric might have more traction than some people expect.

It brings to mind a lot of things ranging from bad HR experiences through stories of micromanagement from powerful places.

This might be a case where some Republicans are tuning into voters mindsets in surprising ways.

@mhjohnson

He was in a position where it would be impolite for him to have said those things. Speaking of eulogies, it would be like standing at a funeral and describing some really dishonorable death of the person being eulogized. It's just not the right place for it.

He pretty much said the best that he could say under the circumstances.

But the best way to think about the speech was, it was his pathetic attempt to beg us to think positively of him as he shuffles off. He failed, and he knows he failed. Now he desperately wants to not be remembered as a failure.

The speech was simply the very best he could do to write his own version of his presidency, and yeah, it wasn't very good, but he is such a failure that there wasn't any better.

@Bobblegagger It's really a shame that the bar has dropped that low these days

@MichalBryxi I think it's important to keep in mind that the US system absolutely allows more than two political parties. It has more than two political parties today.

It's just that voters tend to choose to organize themselves into two parties for very practical reasons. It empowers their voting and avoids wasted votes.

We may be able to improve the voting system, and recognizing this is a huge step to identifying improvements that can be made.

@MoiraEve this goes back to the old issue that outfits like nyt and so many Trump critics overlooked that potential Trump voters took the guy seriously but not literally.

For example, when Trump says things are more expensive and everyday people are struggling, the potential supporters don't really care what the exact number is. They just care that things are more expensive and people are struggling.

So it can be actually counterproductive to promote reports like this. Potential Trump voters might actually see the report as more reason to vote for the guy as this presentation can come across as quibbling to excuse the problems they see.

It's one of those know your enemies sorts of moments. To counter Trump we have to understand the environment that makes him even an option.