volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@conejoclint It's a shame he waited 4 years to do it then.

@Beachbum there's a difference between voting for a fascist and voting for fascism.

People could vote for Trump BECAUSE constitutional guardrails would protect us all from any president who might try to do fascist stuff. It's not in spite of the Constitution but because of the Constitution.

So the Democrats ran candidates that were so terrible that even this dumpster fire was determined to be the better option. Fine. Thank goodness we have the constitutional order to allow us to muddle through with this jerk, and hopefully the Democrats can run a solid candidate next time.

Yay democracy.

@EricLawton I think that you're missing that they only profit by serving the people.

If we didn't buy their stuff, they wouldn't have income, much less profit.

You say no oversight by the people, but that's outright backwards. Not only do they have oversight, but they rely on the people empowering them. Without our active participation this wouldn't happen.

So this is what we collectively choose when we accept whatever they are selling, as we each work to make our lives better.

We give them their money because we value what they sell.

@davesdogmaggie Well have you asked them?

@arrrg Well that's why the US government tries to hire professionals who can actually do the work of government.

@jef Well a suicide pact for the US government, definitely.

The US Constitution is basically the formal embodiment of the US government. The constitution... it constitutes the government.

So yeah, it absolutely is a suicide pact. Anything that nullifies the Constitution nullifies the US government.

It's a definitional issue. By definition, yep.

@Cyclist this talks as if the presidency is a dictatorial position. It is not.

The president unbound from needing to seek reelection? No that's not really how it works. The president constantly has to seek approval from the Congress. He can't do anything without Congressional authorization in one form or another, without our representatives constantly empowering him.

In effect, in the US system, the president is continually having to seek re-election, just in the form of legislative approval and empowerment.

This article is a fever dream. It's not realistic at all, it doesn't reflect how the US government is structured.

@TheBird I think you overstate the privacy features built into ActivityPub.

I get that you tried to frame it as relative to AT but really, in its own right, AP has very little privacy security, and unfortunately a lot of people don't realize this and they post content thinking that it's far more private than it really is.

I actually think AT is better on this count.

@RabBrucesSpider1 because it's not a real Department. It's just a PR stunt, so once it's not fun anymore you can imagine the people involved getting bored and wandering off.

There's no real power so not much reason to stick around.

@GlennMarlowe we looked into that option. It was not a good one, so we went a different direction.

In fact, that road turned out to be so terrible that it was even worse than the train wreck that we settled on. Commented

@newsmast this post itself is social media playing to politics.

@rhys It's not really Trump shit though, it's their own shit.

If they did shit that would be addressed by a pardon, they probably shouldn't have done that shit.

And if they did do that shit, then they are powerful people that need to be held accountable for the shit they did.

@europesays If it felt like that to you then you didn't understand what was going on, and why people voted for Trump either time, or why they rejected Harris this time.

Kamala and Biden were such terrible candidates that they lost to lying rapist fascist felons. Democrats made a huge mistake running them.

So in the cartoon, Harris's sign needs to be saying something so much worse than cancer that people would choose cancer above her terrible offering. That's how this really went.

@pg1958 Well no.

Executive orders can't go to war against the rest of us. They can only implement authorities that the rest of us gave to the executive branch through our Representatives.

@NewsDesk @TheHill

@RIJim that kind of talk is just plain nutty.

Presidents don't have that authority, and Trump has a track record pointing in the opposite direction even if he did have that authority, which again, that's not how the government works.

There's no sense promoting that kind of misinformation on social media. It only distracts from the real work of countering misbehaving officials.

@NewsDesk @TheHill

@spujb silencing?

@israel

@mhjohnson bans on foreign ownership of things that don't involve speech are completely different because they don't intrude into First Amendment issues.

The government can regulate the provision of electricity. It is barred from regulating who can speak, though.

The law does not apply to social media in general. That is exactly the kind of factual issue that screwed up this case.

And the people's data? Number one there's no such thing. Number two, that's not relevant to the government deciding who can and cannot speak, what perspectives can and cannot be presented to the public.

But these are exactly the sorts of topics that the Supreme Court got factually wrong.

@Tharpa No we already saw that didn't work.

They exist in a vacuum of good information. The reason they fall for things is because legit sources aren't answering their questions.

The strategy for educating them, the only one that works, is to simply engage with them and answer their questions.

@siguza It's important to emphasize that the executive branch doesn't get to flip switches back and forth like that legally.

Everything else has to be worked out in the other branches.

@siguza It's important to emphasize that the executive branch doesn't get to flip switches back and forth like that legally.

Everything else has to be worked out in the other branches.