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
The problem with that argument is that the Constitution itself assigns to Congress authority over borrowing, which is probably a pretty good idea since you want to have national buy-in before obligating generations of citizens to paying back debts.
So not only is the debt ceiling constitutional, it's actually constitutionally mandated.
The president has to pay the debt. He really needs to stop threatening not to do so.
All of this drama and sensationalist political grandstanding is a distraction from the simple fact that the president has to order the Treasury to pay those debts.
Me, I don't think it should be approached as a 1st Amendment issue but more like a 5th Amendment violation.
If I want to run TikTok on my computer or my phone or whatever, it's my property, and it's a violation of my property for the feds to prevent me from using that property in the way I see fit.
I really think we have let 5th Amendment protections go way too dormant in this country.
This is exactly correct, and it's why so much of the dramatic talk around the debt ceiling is so sensationalized and misplaced.
The president must pay these debts. All of his threats of default are just playing it up for the cameras, political theater, that far too many of us are buying into.
It would be illegal and unconstitutional for the president not to pay these debts. It would be impeachable for him to refuse this constitutional requirement.
And yet day after day this administration is out there threatening to do exactly that to try to gain more power to borrow.
Well the Constitution assigns to Congress authority to borrow on the credit of the US because such borrowing has generational implications.
It's a really big deal to put the entire country in debt, so Congress has that authority to make sure the people are agreeing to it.
The debt ceiling is merely the term we use for the amount that Congress has agreed to borrow.
Not only is it constitutional, but it is constitutionally mandated.
The Treasury's accounting statements show that it will have enough money to pay the debts regardless of whether the president gets his request for more power to borrow, so he needs to get to it and knock off these threats.
What specific similarities do you see?
I really don't care about parties.
The point of the representative body that is the Senate is for constituents to have their interests represented, so if the constituents are happy then she's doing her job.
I mean I don't like her, but that's between her and her constituents in the US system of government.
To put it another way, if she is screwing over her party like you say, but her constituents like that, well then that's how that's supposed to work. Representation over party.
Ah the fascism of inconvenient facts...
Well what options do her constituents have? Can they recall her? If so why haven't they?
It could be that she is still in office because her constituents support her and want her there.
Ah democracy.
US Pol, Missouri, Abortion, Student Loans, Lost Revenue, SCOTUS
Well the legal posture / procedure is quite different in these two cases.
This one is a budgetary estimate provided for its own sake, while the student loan case involves states trying to establish standing for the sake of acquiring access to the courts to pursue a different challenge.
In other words, it's not because of the state revenue that the student loan program would be defeated. The revenue only comes up as states request permission to even show that the program is illegal.
"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.
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:
