volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@kingsley

That's not how the debt limit works, though.
The US Treasury has plenty of revenue incoming to cover debts as they come due. It is absolutely not in question that the US will pay off its debts and not default regardless of anything Congress might do.

No change to the debt ceiling impacts that.

@shakespearenut

And to be clear, this rule isn't something I have verified, I haven't heard about it from anybody else, but this was directly from one of the Republican representatives so it's worth considering.

He said that these votes amount to spectacle because until that 72-hour waiting period is up the votes won't change. He said the proper thing to do would be to immediately adjourn at the beginning of each session, not to have more votes until the agreement was finalized.

Buuuuuut since we don't know what's going on in people's heads, we don't know if maybe these votes are taking place as a negotiating strategy even though they aren't going to change.

@shakespearenut

One congressperson said that by Republican party internal rules, any compromise agreement has to be drafted and circulated for 72 hours before it can be adopted.

If he's right then should an agreement be reached today it will still take until, what, Monday to resolve the voting.

@ZhiZhu

I mean, opposition is the core political strategy of all politicians in a system structured on top of checks and balances.

Heck, in the present case the Democrats are unanimously voting to obstruct while there is a Republican or two answering "present" to allow the process to proceed.

@wjmaggos

I'd say it makes a big difference here in how the decisions are made.

Publishers need to keep in mind that their readers might not bother subscribing if they're on a platform that the users don't think is worth it. That's solid motivation for a publisher to choose a different platform.

On the other hand, if a publisher feels like they can lock readers in as you framed it, meh, the publisher doesn't have nearly the practice incentive to change.

The publisher can't lock in users. That's exactly why they might choose a better platform.

@sparseMatrix

Hmmm, I could see #wikipedia setting up an instance that would be focused on just discussing ongoing edits and conversation.

I'd subscribe to that instance!

@RememberUsAlways

Under the laws laying out the process, the joint session of Congress is to scrutinize and *count* votes, not really to *certify* them.

By their oath of office every congressperson has the obligation to go through that legal process.

Anyway, alright, so I asked what alternative you were proposing, you said they need to re-commit, but now it sounds like you're saying the re-commitment wasn't the alternative you were really seeking.

So again, what alternative are you proposing?

@blepharon

Ha, I'd respond that we shouldn't rely on governments to correct records.

@fevzi

I'm sure Republicans would be happy to work with Democrats to get the House open, but so far Democrats have made statement after statement saying they were eager to keep the drama going, voting alongside the Republican fringe choosing to keep the House closed.

That the Democrats have been voting unanimously only gives weight to their public statements.

Once there is actual legislation at stake that directly impacts constituents, hopefully there will be more pressure for them to work across the aisle, though.

@RememberUsAlways

Every member of the House and Senate is sworn in with just that commitment.

So I guess your wish is granted.

@wjmaggos

You're not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.

If a person doesn't want to use the service then they don't get your content. It's up to them.

@hulavikih @StevenBeschloss

That's not how the House process works, though. Parties don't nominate people. Individual representatives-elect nominate people, and any member is allowed to nominate anyone they want.

Anyway, and you're happy about keeping the House shut down until that happens?

It's fine if your answer is yes. We just need to be clear about making that choice.

@RememberUsAlways

I mean, they pretty much do...

@mnutty

I don't know where you get that libertarian financiers only want a large military and policing when that is the opposite of how libertarianism is generally understood.

It would be like saying vegetarian dinner hosts only want a ton of meat.

So what do you base your proposal on?

@mnutty @kgarrahan @StevenBeschloss

I think it's more realistic to think about it the other way around: by the rules of the House this whole process is in the hands of the representatives-elect, so it's not so much about McCarthy fearing but rather reps thinking he's best for the job and not giving up yet.

Remember that the House doesn't have things like declared candidacy. The process is based on nomination.

Think of this as bottom up, not top down.

@wjmaggos

Well that's wrong.

Your followers are humans who can make their own choices. You're not locking them into anything.

And there are different forms of advocacy. It's not like a religious practice where there's One True Way of going about it.

@gloria@mindly.social @caiocgo @Gargron

It's not essentially the same as a qt because it's a different presentation with different semantics.

Instead of "Hey, let me take this and build on it!" it's "Here's my content, and I guess if you want to you can go look at this other content."

It's very different both in meaning and presentation.

@sparseMatrix

What does that mean?

What features would that entail, what would the user experience look like, etc?

@neighbor

I'd like to look to the local timeline, but it's hard to find an instance that has that critical mass of people also interested in the same topics.

In theory it's a great idea. In practice it's tricky for the same reason that it's hard to launch a new social media platform: you need the people there to get the people there.