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
"Pay for tax cuts" is always a bizarre phrase.
Like, it costs me money NOT to take some of your income?
That's quite the description!
But they're the Dems in Congress that are actually moving against the Supreme Court and calling for more interference in the other branch.
I don't hear Republicans making these demands of the judiciary.
The letter here details that.
If he thinks Thomas has violated laws, then let's have the trial and find out whether he's actually guilty or not.
Before then, this is just prosecution without defense, a lot of accusations from people with bad track records of false accusations.
Well, it's not really up to him, as the representatives we sent to Congress are unlikely to vote for extending that power to borrow.
Yay democracy.
The recent mifepristone issue is a matter of FDA compliance with general federal regulation of drug approvals, nothing about abortion in particular, and not even about anything involving politics.
The FDA stood in violation of general statute that wasn't focused on abortion. The executive branch didn't address the complaint. A legal mess ensued.
@barney@mas.to @mentallyalex@beige.party @Tengrain @GreenFire @JamesBazan @edwardchampion@universeodon.com @AnneTheWriter1
The downside risk to calling for a national standard is that the standard might be a bad one :)
It's the all the eggs in one basket issue.
But to this point, it's easier to find strong consensus on a state by state basis considering the diversity between regions and communities in the US.
It will be hard to build a good national consensus here. It's much easier to build that at the state level. And maybe, the state experiences can help shape a national consensus over time, but only if the states do start out with the job.
@barney@mas.to @Tengrain @TonyStark @edwardchampion@universeodon.com @GreenFire @JamesBazan @mentallyalex@beige.party
I mean, we should all be a bit concerned about the implications that Congress is threatening the independence of the judiciary with this pursuit.
I'm glad to see Crow's people standing up for that notion, even if it's because he has a personal interest in supporting that key to the federal design.
Should he sacrifice for his baby?
Well, that's really up to him.
But in the end it's worth owning that choice.
With the security focus of those chat apps this is a good time to remind people that fediverse is emphatically, to its core, insecure.
All content put into the system is effectively broadcast publicly no matter what audience setting you select.
To answer your question directly, I don't think there can be an equivalent just because the two use cases are so different, private communication versus public posting.
You're basically making excuses at that point, trying to spin away the point, which is that it hasn't taken off.
That the guy didn't acquire the resources to make his platform more successful starts with the recognition that the platform has not been so successful.
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
No, it's not an impossible choice.
The president must pay the debts using the funds in the Treasury.
That's not a hard choice, and the GOP didn't pass the legislation that created this situation. That was the last Congress.
@mohansus@newsie.social
We know where the money is, it's right in the Treasury where it's supposed to be.
The rest is political grandstanding.
But Congress is NOT trying to stop him. There is no bill on the table that would tell the president not to pay the debts, and such legislation would be legally unenforceable if it even existed.
Instead, this is just about the president seeking to expand his power to borrow against the nation's credit. Congress is skeptical of giving him that power, as it should be under our system of checks and balances.
Should the president refuse to pay the lawful debts, that would be grounds for impeachment in my view, so he really should stop threatening it.
So that would refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless EVs were subsidized?
Speaking of hostage taking...
Congress didn't make it illegal to research gun deaths. That is certainly researched even today.
But really, this is apples and oranges. Cars are far, far different from guns.
The problem is that those clear majorities of voters don't actually exist when it comes down to specifics.
For example, you may get a ton of people to agree that some abortion should be available, but once you start asking about particular methods, specific limitations on length into pregnancy, and other guidelines, disagreements show up, and the apparent consensus breaks down.
All that has happened around abortion reflects that political reality, that people have honest disagreements over abortion, and the only way to resolve the issue is to work to build actual agreement, which is unlikely to be possible.
@barney@mas.to @Tengrain @TonyStark @edwardchampion@universeodon.com @GreenFire @JamesBazan @mentallyalex@beige.party
The SCOTUS ruling supports the 10th Amendment...
@JamesBazan @AnneTheWriter1
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:
