Can you please change the comment to this post. Otherwise I have to take it down.

Trump’s total disregard for the Impoundment Control Act, which basically requires the President to spend money that Congress has appropriated — and the acquiescence of Congressional Republicans to that executive overreach — is ample reason why Democrats have little reason to trust Republicans will do what they say.

You’re right on the technical points, but you’re completely missing the larger reality, which is corporate and media consolidation. There are a lot of business interests that include some subsidiaries that are subject to the FCC’s regulation, and other subsidiaries that are not. The point is, members of this administration are exerting extortionate pressures that don’t happen in a vacuum.

https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-it-2nd-amendment-1793113

I saw someone reported this post for changing the title of the article. Nevertheless, in this case, the post title that was used appears to be more objective, more informative, less of a clickbait title than the original, and the author of the post was upfront about this modification from the outset, so I’m going to let it stand.

NOTE: This article is from more than 7 months ago.

Edit: I’m on my phone, so forgive any formatting snafus, but I just recently responded to a question about why that Substack post was removed for, and I think it is applicable here.

I’m a mod on c/politics. I don't speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn't necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don't know enough about the author's intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I've been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.

And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.

The response I got from that post was (the other person quoting me):

I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect.

This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence. (End of the other person’s quote.)

To which I responded, and I would say is just as applicable here:

Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:

• The individual or group of individuals involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
• The technology involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
• The article completely skips over addressing how any of these changes wouldn’t be caught during count verification steps.

Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.

I hope she finds a healthier relationship.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to edit the title, but I think this article would have been clearer with a comma. I'm going to leave it up, but sticky this here with a clearer title: "[The] Senator [Who] Elon Musk Called a 'Traitor' Gets Rid of His Tesla: Don't Want a Car Built By an 'A**hole'."

Except, you’re implying that’s not what you’re doing. You want to believe that your vote can accomplish everything you want, as easily snapping your fingers, but that’s not how it works. No positive change in history has happened in a day, but you seem to want to vote as if positive change can happen immediately.

I still prefer to refer to him as “Leon.”

Leon Musk is weird.

The problem is that they effectively expanded everything the President does to be an official act, and foreclosed a reasonable inquiry into whether an action is actually official.