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
Yes. Congress can impeach him if our democratic process comes to the conclusion that he's misbehaved in office.
Fortunately cooler heads will probably prevail.
It sounds like you're trying so, so hard to deflect from the simple matter of law that was before the court here.
The FDA broke the law.
Oh, but the drug later developed a track record--but the FDA broke the law.
Oh, but we really should let women access this drug--but the FDA broke the law.
Oh, but the politics--the FDA broke the law.
You seem to keep throwing up these other issues that are completely irrelevant as to the actual question the court was asked to answer here.
Did the FDA break the law? None of this other stuff changes the answer to that question.
Ha! As if proprietary protocols aren't a thing?
Yes, a protocol is a protocol even if you yourself haven't been assisted in joining the party yet.
Again, read the monthly report and you'll see that the Treasury doesn't operate year by year.
The Treasury collects money every day and spends money every day, so it's about the day's tax revenues vs the day's spending, and they update their balances every day.
So when the Treasury has a debt to pay today, it doesn't think about different years. It looks at what its balance is today and it spends what has come in.
It's exactly like your own bank account. When your electricity bill is due, you write a check out of your account that day, you don't go look into the account for some particular year, I'm guessing.
@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Specifically, what weapon were they using?
Did you read Dred Scott? That is not what they said.
You didn't notice the captions showing that those were monthly collections?
The Treasury collects money throughout the year. The link I sent you was really clear about that since it laid out the income monthly.
If you didn't realize that the Treasury collects revenues literally every day of the week, every week of the year, you might have noticed that in the link that I provided.
This case is happening in a court of law. There's no pretending, this is about law, and the question before the legal court is whether the FDA obeyed the law.
It's really weird that you are citing law in the course of saying this is pretending to be a legal case.
Honestly at this point I don't know what you are talking about. You seem to be striving to make some points that is just really outside of the record, outside of the facts of this case.
Page 4 answers your question with a nice graph illustrating sources of Treasury's revenues.
The tables below go into detail, but yeah, mostly tax revenues that are remitted to the Treasury throughout the year.
That gets it backwards, though: the 14th doesn't grant the president power to borrow money without authorization; rather it requires him to use the money *already in the Treasury* to service debts first.
The Treasury has plenty of money to service its debts without raising the debt ceiling, just based on existing receipts and federal holdings.
To even talk about defaulting on those debts is political brinkmanship.
Well that's not true, and here I'll link to a copy of the Treasury's Monthly Statement that I was skimming through, where you can see for yourself how it works.
The Treasury receives revenues throughout the year and also spends throughout the year. It takes in plenty enough to pay for past spending, so according to the US Treasury the debt ceiling doesn't need to be raised to pay for past spending.
It all goes back to what I said: the president wants more power to borrow. That's fair, but in requesting that power he'd need to meet Congress half way to get the authority.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0323.pdf
I honestly think the issue here may be that documentation hasn't been finished, that AT is a communication protocol, just one that's not fully documented yet.
It's plenty legit to criticize devs for getting behind on documentation, but that is a different criticism.
Well, no. The "new precedent" is that clearly wrong precedents should not be maintained merely because they're precedent.
It's really a progressive stance, one that allows the errors of the past to be recognized and corrected, not clung to and, well, conserved.
Yes, I do have such criticisms of Fediverse :)
I do think an awful lot of people are on here using a system that they don't understand, that they won't take care to understand, and as a result they are putting their privacy at risk.
But *shrug* nobody asked me whether it should be promoted.
He's requesting power to borrow more money, to have his Treasury issue additional securities on the credit of the United States.
Right now the Treasury is limited to borrowing a certain amount. Well, the president wants the power to borrow more, but he can't without authorization from Congress.
That's simply how the federal government is set up, the checks and balances, that generally limit presidential power to that which the Legislative Branch authorizes.
@Thompson@newsie.social
Nothing more. I wouldn't bother arguing. Just making sure you knew that's how it comes across.
But what when the topic would simply require more time than they have available to understand?
It's great to say it's our job to make them understand, but that assumes that they HAVE the resources to understand in the first place.
The person with only five minutes will not understand the ten minute lecture even if you say it's your job to cut it down from thirty minutes and make sure they get it.
No time is no time, and it shouldn't be seen as anyone's job to do the impossible.
@Thompson@newsie.social
You do realize this comes across as nutty conspiracy theory area, right?
The long, long list of references saying otherwise is pretty stark.
But regardless, trying to reverse outcomes based on changing interpretations like that comes across as gaslighting.
"That phrase does not mean the thing you think it clearly means. Trust me."
This is why we have a constitutional amendment process, though. Work to create a political consensus to change (or "clarify") constitutional rights, and have at it.
Reality is that every human has limited resources in terms of (at least) time and energy, and limited time and energy to devote to understanding different details of different parts of the world.
You talk about faults, but there is also the simple reality of human existence: I have a half hour free now, should I learn about technical details, or should I plan dinner?
It is perfectly reasonable for a lot of people to decline to learn these things because they have higher priorities. That's not the fault of technologists keeping them in the dark.
That's simply reality rearing its ugly head.
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
volkris's choices:
