@left_adjoint I would just emphasize that the main thing people can do about the federal government is be careful about who they elect as representatives.
So often people are so obsessed with the presidency that they don't even know that they are reelecting representatives that are promoting the exact situations that they regret so dearly.
You're right, drinking down despair is not useful. Educating yourself on what your representatives are doing might just be, though, because you might find out you're re-empowering people that are failing you.
@TCatInReality I imagine at least some labor officials are familiar with the story of killing the golden goose...
@JackTheCat Well that's not true.
That's not how the federal government works, and if Whitehouse really believes this, if he's not just lying to the public, then he really should not be senator.
@Bad_Banner What?
Trump and his supporters have embraced policies of supporting legal immigration.
On the other hand, Democrats ran a candidate so terrible that she was beaten by a felon who is roundly regarded as an untrustworthy lying scumbag.
So yeah, people who voted for Trump can certainly be proud of immigration in their family history. I would encourage them to talk about that because it builds up norms that support immigrants, which seems very healthy.
And Democrats need to get their acts together.
@realTuckFrumper Well I think that's pretty much how he got elected, echoing the feelings of a whole lot of Americans that are pissed off by things like this.
@karlauerbach The Supreme Court said that presidents can be prosecuted when they break the law.
I don't expect that to be overturned anytime soon, and I think that's a good thing.
@emptywheel.bsky.social I don't think it's a fight over whether to think the law binds Trump as much as a fight to have people understand basic civics, the basic structure of the US government. There's a lot of people who do not understand how any of this works, and so they're left confused about these topics.
For example, misunderstanding about the different roles of the different branches and how they keep each other in check leads a lot of people to believe some really silly things.
YES the law binds Trump. And it's critical that we stop reelecting representatives who would be deferential to the executive branch.
But if people don't know how the government works they won't be able to hold our representatives accountable for enabling Trump.
@RunRichRun this is the kind of article that seems completely unaware that different governments are structured differently, and the differences between this government and that government are absolutely critical to understanding how the situations are different.
A little political science education would be useful here.
The US government is structured very specifically to make sure presidents don't have the authority to do what this article points to in the parliamentary system.
This is just a really ill-informed article coming to a ridiculous conclusion, and a basic understanding of civics would debunk the picture it tries to paint.
@mattround If more people asked that question and then listened to the answer then maybe we wouldn't have so many people running around with their hair on fire making ridiculous claims about Trump II being a slide into fascism.
They would know that that is not at all what's happening here.
@caitp Presidents can pardon people at any moment throughout their entire presidency.
It's just that they might delay pardons until the very last moment to avoid accountability.
@karlauerbach Right, and the court also actively promoted prosecution of misbehavior that is not within the core function of the presidency.
Since presidents are not authorized to violate civil rights by sending people to Guantanamo for, like, no reason, that would not be within the core function of the presidency.
So the Supreme Court ruling would encourage prosecution of a president who does such a thing.
@karlauerbach you do realize what you're saying is crazy, right? You're just repeating these really nutty conspiracy theories that don't match the real world?
No, Trump can't ship Hunter Biden off to Guantanamo without fear of punishment. The Supreme Court specifically called for the prosecution of crimes, the prosecution of actions that are not authorized by law.
I don't know who you're listening to, but they are seriously misleading you about what's going on in the world.
@dianathy The defense was allowed to present evidence, and it did.
The defense also had a say in the jury selection, by the way.
The evidence against Trump, including a lot of his own statements! was just so overwhelming, you don't have to stretch to figure out how he was convicted.
Occam's razor go for the simple explanation here. The jury found him guilty because he simply was.
He shouldn't have done the crime if he didn't want to be found guilty of doing the crime. And he definitely shouldn't have left that much evidence of the crime on the table.
Trump wasn't even a smart criminal. He basically incriminated himself with the mountain of evidence he left behind.
@joenepraat this is simply not true
For one, the corporations are owned by stockholders, including a whole lot of very much not rich people.
And on the other side, BlueSky has even less of an ownership model than Fediverse, which itself focuses on instances which are absolutely owned by people who are not you and me.
So what you're echoing here is just misinformation.
@didgebaba but that's in line with what I'm saying, agencies have not sought consensus advice from the group, and the group itself barely exists in the first place.
So it's a hollow suit at this point. Maybe in the future there will be some substance, but for now it's just symbolic.
@jjg which order, specifically?
@Yehuda Presidents don't have that authority.
It will be just one of his many broken promises.
@tbluvoter see this reflects what I've been saying ever since the first Trump term: government has become a circus, so they elected a clown.
This is the effect, not the cause.
It's part of the ceremony, for better or worse.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)