volkris @volkris@qoto.org
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 ;)
Joined Dec 2022
US Politics
@rhys I'm against the tariffs but this gives a chance to point out that a lot of countries around the world have such large tariffs imposed and have for a while.
This might be an opportunity for people around the world to demand their governments reconsider their tariffs policies.
@0x00string I'm honestly curious what you're talking about.
Yeah, I did other things that year. But what are you talking about?
@ruthz.bsky.social I've been assured that big money buys elections.
Can we finally put that myth to rest? We have example after example showing otherwise, can this finally be the example where we give up on that theory?
@johnsturgeon nope.
With regard to opposing Trump, I'm trying to say that if people don't know the rules of the game then they're not going to be able to field an effective opposition, which we've seen in spades over the last decade.
And in the larger picture I just wish people who were interested in how the US is getting along were better informed about how the federal government actually operates.
I'm actually more interested in the bigger picture than in Trump, but If you really want to talk about him then this has particular relevancy about the strategies to oppose him and deal with him.
@johnsturgeon or let me put it a different way.
Am I not President because the Constitution is holding me accountable? No. I'm not president because I don't meet the definition of President in the Constitution.
It has absolutely nothing to do with holding anyone accountable and that's the entire point.
You are expressing exactly the misunderstanding that I'm trying to highlight there.
Constitution holding him accountable? No, that's exactly what I'm trying to point out, this is not about anything holding anyone accountable any more than the definition of water holding accountable people who say this bucket of rocks is full of water.
There's no holding accountable. It's not a functionary or mechanical statement. The presidency is defined by the Constitution. If you don't meet the definition of being president, then you are not president as per the Constitution.
There's no holding anybody accountable, no action, there's just a definition and then a question of whether or not you meet that definition.
At the moment Trump is president not because of any process but because he meets the constitutional definition of being president. It's not that the Constitution supports his presidency or anything like that, it's not a process, it's simply here's a definition, and this dude satisfies the details of that definition.
I know I'm repeating myself a couple times in this reply, but it's because you are highlighting exactly the thing I'm trying to clarify.
@virtuous_sloth also keep in mind that activities on the Senate floor tend to be pretty highly scripted. It's rare that anything happens that hasn't been already agreed to back in senators' offices.
Every once in awhile there will be uncertainty, but in general you even have senators from opposing parties getting together to write out the debates that they will deliver "against" each other. It's mostly for show as each Senator tries to score points in their own constituencies.
It's just natural, but we need to be aware that what we're watching is something of a pantomime.
@virtuous_sloth No, that is not the case.
In the Senate the rules are designed to seek consensus, to prevent any one senator to have that sort of control over the chamber.
People get this backwards a lot, and it's worth emphasizing that the politicians have interests in promoting that myth too. But basically, a senator can only direct the chamber with the consent of the chamber in general.
If a senator ever tries to do something that the chamber in general is not up for, the rest are able to vote and shut him down immediately.
But like I said, politicians love to be able to point fingers and pretend like they couldn't do anything about whatever's going on when otherwise they would have to take difficult votes.
That's how that myth gets promoted. But it's not true.
The Louisiana governor is not far right. He's pretty moderate from a state that's pretty diverse and therefore moderate, with candidates having to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters.
My impression is that the governor did a poor job of explaining the amendments, so people were confused by the language and so didn't support them.
Keep in mind, Louisiana has a long history of constitutional amendment because it has a government structure that's unique in the US given its unique history in the country.
@rhys I think you might be overestimating that growing folk hero idea.
The idea only seems to appeal to a pretty out there community that was already effectively marginalized for extremist ideas.
I don't think there's that much room for growth outside of that choir.
People seem not to understand that the presidency is defined by the Constitution; it's not subject to compliance, voluntary or otherwise.
I'm not the president by definition. It doesn't matter if I agree; it doesn't matter if I refuse to accept that I'm not the president; by definition I'm not because I don't fulfill the constitutional definition of what the president is.
All this talk about Trump refusing to accept an election or, in the last couple of days, saying he would take a third term misses that it's not up to him. He can think he's the president all he wants, but the Constitution, not Trump's beliefs, define whether or not he is the president.
I wish more people understood this because it's an important part of understanding how the US government is designed.
And it's an important part of ignoring #Trump trolling.
@MicroWave and many supporters try to draw attention to the argument that some of these people being laid off themselves threatened public health, so we're better off without them.
FDA was caught giving information that ran counter to what even their own experts were telling them about the health topics they were meant to be regulating, so it's good to see some accountability for that, even if long delayed.
@ll1t kind of a cutting off the nose to spite the face move.
@europesays this is really funny because the Greenland thing is likely a joke on everyone else who takes it seriously, so saying that it's a joke on Trump that he doesn't get it is kind of a joke on the people who would propose such a joke.
It's a really funny situation.
@mausmalone right, I had a similar reaction.
It's like, you use a hammer. That doesn't mean the hammer goes away; it means you used it.
No, that's not what happened, not what they ruled.
SCOTUS didn't void at all void Art2§4. It emphasized that the article is absolutely in force, but it has to be applied properly.
They were emphasizing Federalist writings, not ignoring them. But the reporting misreports legal issues so often it's no wonder people get this stuff backwards.
Read the ruling directly. The Court emphasized the importance of federal oversight of federal law.
@dbcurren.bsky.social there's nothing surprising or underhanded about this, though.
The administration tried to do unusual things, lower courts issued unusual rulings on unusual things, so of course appeals are bound to be other than usual.
That's especially understandable when #Trump promotes his actions as emergency.
Folks shouldn't let the dramatic narrative distract from the underlying correctness or incorrectness of the legal arguments.
@Nonilex No it is good because it is sorting a mess out.
When you put independent in quotes it's because that was never really a thing. It was always a giant mess with all sorts of legal and practical ramifications that were really negative, but nobody wanted to actually address the problems.
This is good that we're finally addressing it.
There is no such thing as an independent part of the executive branch. That's a contradiction.
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 ;)
Joined Dec 2022
