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
Well, are the denials valid?
Just because there are more denials doesn't mean there aren't just more people asking for things they shouldn't be asking for.
The important metrics aren't denial rate but rather those that focus on what health insurance actually *does*. Heck, they'd do better looking at approvals per capita than denials like this.
The headline comes across as bad stats to get clickbait headlines.
@FinchHaven@mastodon.sdf.org
I see that kind of thing on the web interface, running Chrome.
It's as if the interface goes out to check on the post, notices the block, and then tries to hide the reply, too late.
Yeah, but one size fits all tech policies raise different problems in a world of diverse users and use cases.
It might be even worse.
You're repeating talkingpoints that are really easy to debunk. I don't know who you're hearing them from, but you probably should stop trusting those sources.
Right now the Treasury has already been approved to finance all debt involved in the tax cuts. How do we know? Because it already did! Those costs would have hit before last year, and the government is still functioning.
That debt is handled.
THIS is about the president seeking new borrowing power to pay for the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which promised to spend nearly 2 trillion dollars.
Isn't there a counterclaim that the documents weren't classified at the time?
I know that was the argument over some documents, but I really don't care enough about Trump to follow all of the drama.
I'd be even more worried about detriments to good actors, as the standard would run into issues of diversity in the sector and progress.
With different areas having different forms of association between users and service providers, it'd be hard to come up with generic models that apply effectively to all, even as tech changes, and that's overlooking issues of different users having different preferences.
Believe it or not, young airmen and presidents have different authority in the US system of government.
I'm just still waiting for you to quote from his ruling a part you think was in error.
No, spending happens throughout the year. Congress *appropriated* money, but the Treasury will spend as the fiscal year carries on.
In fact, you can see how much they report having spent every day on their website here:
https://fsapps.fiscal.treasury.gov/dts/files/23051700.txt
But we are in this position because of legislation that Democrats passed over Republican objections. They literally brought up to this by authorizing spending of money without providing a way to actually raise it.
This brink is what they legislatively set up.
So, Republicans have voted to increase the debt ceiling, over Democratic objections, with a Democratic president threatening not to service debts he is constitutionally obligated to pay... it's really silly to me that people would blame Republicans for this.
Well right, the limit was soon to be hit, so the president was asking for more borrowing authority, and negotiated this trade as part of the process.
There definitely was negotiating, and you can see they lost a fair number of Republicans who weren't happy with the trade.
The normal appropriations process is a yearly one, so the debt ceiling looming ended up pushing them into a corner where they gave up on regular order to extend additional spending that neither side was really happy with.
In the current case, Republicans have passed something with Democrats refusing to go along, so this seems to be an example that you're looking for.
That's not how the law, or the courts, work.
Again I ask, please quote from the ruling where he made any statement about drug safety that overrules experts at the FDA.
In fact, the judge based his ruling in part on experts, citing them.
For example:
"In February 2000, FDA wrote a letter to the Population Council stating that “adequate information ha[d] not been presented".
Sure, just to pull one example, see the "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019" that raised the debt ceiling after negotiations for tradeoffs gained enough support in Congress to pass.
Here's the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3877/text
Yeah, and to put a point on it as an example, I so often hear people say we need to get rid of section 230 to protect the kids when they clearly don't realize that 230 was specifically written to encourage protection of kids.
If that person knew what the law actually said they might have the opposite opinion to the one they're literally yelling about.
No, the opinion didn't have anything to do with section 230. It was about a different law, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
Twitter was sued under that act, and the Court found that that act didn't apply to this case.
@lauren
I think it's more people who don't understand legislation.
Yeah, people only have vague notions about how the internet works, but they'll have outright wrong ideas about what legislation actually says even as they express passionate opinions about it!
They have before...
It's pretty common not to grant presidents additional borrowing power without something in exchange.
You can pull up past debt ceiling legislation where Democrats demanded action on their preferences in exchange.
And still, it was a "respectfully dissent"!
(Occasionally they use other wording to indicate a not-so-respectful reply)
And for more detail, it spent $43 billion more while collecting $16 billion.
I wish it was more well-known that the Treasury spends and receives every day, so people would see the actual cash flow.
I really want to emphasize that Democrats actively set up this situation when they passed appropriations bills last Congress without also passing borrowing authorization at the time, setting the stage for this showdown.
Even at the time this was obviously going to be the result if they went that direction, and they did. I wish there was more accountability for them, but meh, most were reelected.
Things won't change so long as we keep reelecting the same sort of people.
Well, there is a key detail to keep in mind: #SCOTUS ruled here with respect to enforcing a specific law, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, the terms of which had certain legal requirements.
They ruled that the complaint did not reach the requirements of JASTA.
There may be some indirect implications with regard to something like #Section230 but the ruling isn't so broad as to decide liability in general.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf
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:
