Haven’t done it in years, but that’s “impromptu weekend getaway with the boys” level of celebration for me.

You don’t think the industry cares about the impact of photos like this one from the article?

We’re in a post truth society. So I question how impactful it really is these days even with video evidence. This has been fought for decades and taught in at least 2 generations of school by now, but progress is still slow.

I think that’s what they mean above. They are past the phase where they bother trying to hide it. But I’d love to be proven wrong.

It was asking for his opinion on Jon Ossoff’s statements he made last week. Which should honestly be a softball question for a politician. But ofc we continue to see how fragile that ego is

stop replying to me to argue about things I didn’t say?

you’re not who I originally responded to and you came in later in the chain. I made one reply on a public forum and you’re already all “stop talking to me”?

Come on, man.

The DOJ is not an independent branch though. It’s part of the executive branch.

Structurally, no. In spirit it is. That’s why 75% of the DOJ left over 2025, because they do not want to deal with the eventual fallout of how Trump is managing this DOJ. It’s not a case they are confident they will get out of cleanly (with their license to practice law).

To me this is one of the biggest flaws of the constitution

Yes, the constitution was kept small on purpose and a lot was left to the honor system. Under the logic that a truly tyrannous leadership could tear it down no matter how many loopholes it tries to close. Was that the right call? I can’t really say.

These can be interpreted as contradictory statements.

Sure, if you never worked at a large structure. They are professionals who talk. They are not intimate nor buddy-buddy with each other.

And they’re the same branch. That’s the point.

The same way Congress has various agencies it delegates powers to, yes. You are very technically correct.

Like those agencies, the DOJ is a non-partisan part of the otherwise partisan executive branch whose job is to represent the US in its court cases. It is not the president’s personal law firm.

but I was speaking to the specific statement.

I’m speaking generally. Becsuse this specific situation is so sleazy and utterly corrupt that it’s barely even worth analysis. But for those who don’t know: no, this is not normal, business as usual.

. I would expect if a President had a legitimate concern that they would voice that concern to the AG to investigate

Yes. The branches communicate with each other, but ultimately work independently except for very specific sync points. Or if one branch needs to check and balance another.

That is very different from meeting up with an AG for a private meeting. Let alone the conflict of Interest of being the president’s personal lawyer. This isn’t normal.

promising not to ever do it would just get them in hot water later down the road.

Yes, I’m sure it will for Todd. Much later than I wish, but later down the road indeed.

I don’t think this is an argument. OP has a personal vendetta with a high pfofile figure and telling him to “calm down we need him” doesn’t remove that betrayal. He wasn’t even disagreeing with the reply. Just asserting what we all already know in that Jeffries does not have the people’s priorities in mind.

Him not being as bad as a literal nazi isn’t a high bar to meet.

For those who do not know history; it was once a huge scandal for Clinton to be seen talking with the AG. 16 years after he was president. Those so concerned about “her emails” would know this well.

And that’s not even going into “Nannygate” if you want a small rabbit hole to go down. A very tame controversy that would be cast off as a “nothing burger” today as I’m sure Trump’s cabinet have had controversies every other day at this point.

This is all to say that: no, this is not normal. It is not normal for the DoJ to be so closely affiliated with the executive branch. And watch the hypocrisy when the US magically rememberes this after Trump leaves.

More than you think. I believe the DOJ lost 70% of lawyers in 2025 alone:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/19/g-s1-66906/trump-civil-rights-justice-exodus

I heard later stories report 75%.

Now, anyone they hired into the circus to try and replace them surely lacked integrity as a prerequisite.

No chance they do it now. They’ll do it when Trump is likely already dead, if (and only if) a proper democrat and congress comes into power, and when the sentiment tides signifigantly shift. To the point where that MAGA neighbor suddenly pretends he never voted for Trump (he voted for him 3 times. maybe 4).

Then they will probably get 1-2 lawyers on the hook, take their license, and give them a consultant role elsewhere in government as an olive branch. Justice. I sure hope to be proven wrong, but something tells me we won’t learn from Reconstruction.

Odd because these files are well before Trump’s presidency, let alone when that immunity clause was ruled.

Probably intentional

I have much more in common with a working class boomer, than I do with a rich person who is my same age.

Probably. But what did that working class Boomer (who at best, is a few years from retirement) voting for? Probably closer in line to what the young rich person says.

We have more in common, but they still vote against their (and by extension, my) best interests. Unless it’s housing of course. Their best interests conflict with mine and align with the rich young guy.

So far, not a god damn thing.

It’s starting just now, like this year. Millenials had the numbers for at least 8 years, but not the turnout. Well, Cheeto man finally made them mad enough to get out there and vote and we’re seeing quite a few upsets even within the Dem establishment party itself.

Better late than never.

Because there’s literally nothing to gain and everything to lose. Not even “jobs” as the common narrative is for company tax breaks.

So yeah, it’s the pinnacle of how this isn’t a partisan war, but a class war. And the tech industry has done a shift job with PR trying to convince otherwise; the left are disillusioned and the right never trusted big tech coastal elites to begin with.

I think it’s funnier that they felt unsafe around a prop. Let the symbolism sink in.

It doesn’t mention anywhere that the guillotine was not functional.

I just looked at the social media post. It’s a tiny scale guillotine. It’d struggle to slice anything larger than a carrot. The blade probably isn’t even real, nor made to come down.

It’s not astroturfig. That’s the way a lot of local elections (and 1-2 statewide elections) work. It’s a system that has precedent, so it gets the most support.

But yes, there’s more than one way to shear a sheep. I’m open to any variety of choices not based on winner-take-all.

there isn’t a situation where voting for someone you want increases odds for someone you don’t.

RCV barely increases the odds for someone you don’t want. The whole idea is that it rewards moderate views so that “everyone’s 2nd choice” is better than a radical first choice. The Spoiler effect will almost always be there, but Nothing is worse than FPTP for that effect. Especially with Score based voting that can (and given experience with internet ratings, will) degenerate to “0 or max score”. Score based voting works best with high information electorate, and the US… hell, pretty much all global politics aren’t full of people laser focused on every little law.

I like Approval based voting, though. The issue lies more in excessive runoffs when we get the most popular candidates (or the worst case where none of the candidate are approved enough).

It’s not in the constitution, but the power of voting lies in the states. So we’d need state to slowly change their voting systems for this to happen properly.

The electoral college for nationals is a whole different ballpark. Also not in the constitution, but I think that still lies with states?