volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@rightardia The important thing is to keep in mind that even Trump's diehard supporters emphasize that he's not actually looking to follow through on that promise.

@Cosmic but what's the connection between the two?

Yes, a person can do two different things. It doesn't mean those two things are the same.

Mitt Romney also probably ate meat. Does that mean capitalists are carnivores? No.

@Cosmic how is capitalism a managerialist ideology?

I'd say is the opposite, at its core recognizing people following their Independent incentives to invest capital toward their goals.

@cdarwin It's a silly idea.

Congress can remove justices anytime they want if they are too old to serve and won't step down. There's no reason to have a limit like this, it effectively excuses our congresspeople from doing their jobs.

@Sarmyth One thing that occurs to me, it sounds like you don't understand the justice system.

The point of the justice system is not to avenge whatever cause you personally get behind. Just because the justice system doesn't kill the person you want killed doesn't mean it's not working. It just means that your bloodthirst is maybe not something that the rest of us get behind.

And thank goodness. After all, it could be coming for you.

@realcaseyrollins

@HyperboreanWave of course it's murder. It fits the definition of murder.

Now whether or not you are a pro murder is a different issue, but if you are in support of murder, own it. If you think we should be murdering people, then stand behind your stance there.

If you're not willing to say proudly that you are in favor of murder then maybe you should rethink being in favor of murder.

@HyperboreanWave You're not exactly keeping The high ground there when defending murder.

It's one thing for the edgelord to say society should let people die. But you managed to sink below even that level when defending active killing.

@realTuckFrumper sounds like Top Dem doesn't know how the federal government operates, which has generally seemed to be a problem for the Democrats.

We have got to stop reelecting incompetent people.

@not_that_guy05 Believe it or not, businesses do plan ahead...

@realcaseyrollins

@DrCAleaseSmith Well it's because she lost so absolutely that recounts would have clearly been futile. And it was backed up by data ahead of time showing that she would lose. So it would have just been negative for her to go through that whole process just to be told again that she had lost.

I think I heard that she went to Hawaii for a while after the loss, and then she put out a really cringy video admitting defeat and encouraging others to keep fighting or something. It wasn't really clear what the message was.

But then, that's the main quality of her whole campaign, she never really had a solid message the whole time.

@Sarmyth except, that's not how health insurance works.

@ilega_dh

First of all, no, it's not factually true that the guy made millions by denying healthcare to people. That's not how the world works, and the people spreading that lie are really doing a disservice to society.

Secondly, yeah I think you're pretty much proving the point. You've seen that much unity? You haven't seen all the disunity, all the people pointing out what a dangerous and antisocial reaction it is? Well, sounds like you're in an echo chamber. Exactly as was pointed out.

It's really disturbing that people like you are so bloodthirsty, even more disturbing that you are so uninformed that you're willing to support murder in response to an obviously false allegation.

Sure would be nice if you would step out of your echo chamber long enough to realize that you're being sold some really dangerous propaganda here.

@realcaseyrollins

@hans I mean, Cory Doctorow very likely has different purposes in mind than we do.

Unfit for his purpose, maybe, but that doesn't say anything about ours.

@9tr6gyp3 kind of obvious that a case of domestic terrorism might have a higher priority some misconduct backlog.

@realcaseyrollins

@spujb Well it does provide something extra, it lays out specifics as to why the content is being flagged.

@byteseu I mean, social security is coming for social security.

By law social security has to change. That's how the law is written. Benefits will be restrained because as the law is the math doesn't work out and so as per law social security will change.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Elon and Vivek. It's just the law in the book as it is coupled with matt.

@sue how?

@eriner I think I'm being very clear, I'm not sure what your confusion is. I don't know how to put it any more simply.

You're supporting letting murderers off the hook, okay, I'm just wondering how you would feel if the murderers were coming after you.

Still okay with that?

If you are, great! I'm just asking if you're okay with that.

If people are deciding to murder you, literally not figuratively or anything like that, knowing that they would be let off the hook through jury nullification, that's all right in your book? Or would you have a problem with that?

I guess the simple question is, would you be equally okay with excusing murder if you were the target?

@truthbait

@eriner I think I'm being very clear, I'm not sure what your confusion is. I don't know how to put it any more simply.

You're supporting letting murderers off the hook, okay, I'm just wondering how you would feel if the murderers were coming after you.

Still okay with that?

If you are, great! I'm just asking if you're okay with that.

If people are deciding to murder you, literally not figuratively or anything like that, knowing that they would be let off the hook through jury nullification, that's all right in your book? Or would you have a problem with that?

I guess the simple question is, would you be equally okay with excusing murder if you were the target?

@truthbait

@HootinNHollerin Nice ad hominem there.

@realcaseyrollins