volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@dugglebutt I wonder if he thought it was a good movie.

I think I would have had trouble not telling him off for ruining Star Trek If I had seen him there.

@lisagetspolitik More importantly, if any president has the authority to go against the economy like that then we need to fix the laws.

And that's a matter for Congress.
.
We should be challenging our Representatives to address these issues, they're not really about the president or Trump at all.

@ManyRoads I keep laughing about posts like this because saying Trump might not last makes it easier to vote for him.

The people who don't like him, well don't worry, he won't be president for long.

It minimizes the danger of voting for him.

@sfwrtr

Occam's razor would have us consider that maybe, just maybe, it's not actually a conspiracy here, but that they didn't endorse either candidate because they are both garbage.

Maybe they didn't endorse either candidate simply because neither candidate is worth endorsing.

That's certainly my feeling.

@NZedAUS @KamalaHarrisWin

@YadyO The problem is that Harris is openly promising to break the law and implement policies that go against women.

You say you're baffled, but it sounds like you don't understand because you're not informed.

@HamonWry What are you referring to?

@breedlov Well right. He was the employer, and any employer expects employees to be loyal.

There's no breaking news here. There is sensationalist media outlets trying to make hay over it, which is why so many people have given up on sensationalized outlets like this.

@breedlov Well right. He was the employer, and any employer expects employees to be loyal.

There's no breaking news here. There is sensationalist media outlets trying to make hay over it, which is why so many people have given up on sensationalized outlets like this.

@banty

Right. Which is why I would never make such of an equivalence. And it's weird that people try to excuse Harris by distracting with such falsehoods.

Unfortunately it happens all too often.

Harris needs to be a judged on how weirdly close she is to Trump. Not that she's equivalent, just to try to avoid the false equivalencers in the crowd, but all too comparable.

And the Democratic Party needs to be held accountable for nominating such a candidate despite democratic opinion.

@_dm

@LeftistLawyer My reaction is, I don't actually know what you're really proposing here.

I don't know what substantial steps you are calling for.

@MikeDunnAuthor who is doing that?

@mral except we don't.

Just to be real concrete, the two leading candidates for president, Trump and Harris, both of them have been promising to violate the rules. Both of them talk about doing illegal things. And yet they are the two leading candidates.

So no, it's not only a question of if they don't follow our rules we fire them, we go farther, we hire people to not follow our rules.

And in the end, that's okay because the government was specifically designed with full knowledge that the individuals that we hire will be jerks who don't want to follow the rules.

That's the entire point of checks and balances, and Hamilton laid that out for us.

@realTuckFrumper

@JeremyMallin anyone trying to use sedition laws against their political enemies like this... should be tried for sedition.

I'm sorry you don't like them. But that's democracy.

@mral No, that's not how the federal government functions.

It was specifically set up to not have to rely on a few loyal folks. In fact it was set up with the assumption that people would not be particularly loyal, the checks and balances and the different branches of governments were set up so that personal incentives would have people reject others when they started trying to take more power than they had.

No, it's not about loyalty and it's critical to understand that if you want to understand current events.

The US government was designed specifically to keep disloyal people in check, and we saw that play out.

@realTuckFrumper

@miriamrobern Yeah, it's just part of the design of ActivityPub: every single thing that anyone posts here is broadcast publicly to the entire network, without really any restriction, just suggestions as to whom it should be displayed to.

I'm always very critical of this because a lot of people here don't realize that they are publicly broadcasting content that they believe is private or at least controlled or restricted.

That's just the way the system was engineered. It's not how I would have done it, but people just need to realize it when they are putting content into it.

@Mediagazer The problem is, they both do.

If WaPo columnists don't realize that both major candidates threaten freedom of the press, then at that point, they probably shouldn't be members of the press since they don't know what's going on.

@steter No, this is not about what Republicans have done, this is about what the Democratic Party powers have done in nominating a candidate that was so clearly weak from the beginning.

Don't blame the Republicans for that.

Don't blame the papers for recognizing that Harris is just a shit candidate.

This is on the Democratic Party.

They think they are entitled to our votes, but they're not. They think they are entitled to papers endorsements but they're not.

They screwed this one up, and hopefully 4 years from now they'll do a better job, but only if we send that message of accountability and recognize that they really screwed up by dominating Harris.

@dangillmor they're not capitulating to Trump.

Harris is clearly awful, she has sunk in appearance after appearance, she's just not a good candidate, and powerful Democrats screwed up in tapping her to run without consulting the rest of us.

They're not capitulating to Trump. They're just pointing out what is obvious to so many of us, that Harris is not fit for presidency.

Trump isn't either, to be clear, but that's why they're staying out of it, neither of these idiots are worth backing.

@msifry

@anubis2814 that makes for a nice conspiracy theory, but consider the Occam's razor here: maybe they don't support Harris because she's just not a good candidate?

She's not.

The Democratic Party really screwed up nominating somebody that was such a weak candidate. It was obvious from before the nomination that she was not a good person to run for president. She has lost over and over again.

So maybe these papers are refusing to support her not because of anything Trump said, but because she is honestly rubbish, and the party screwed up.