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
volkris
boosted
No, I don't know who you have been listening to, but that's just not correct.
The current dispute is over the borrowing limit, which has nothing to do with the budget cap. The budget cut was set in legislation passed by the last Congress and signed by the president already.
And you can see that this is not about obligations since the deal worked out with Biden rescinds spending authority. If it was about obligations then that couldn't happen. The deal they worked out debunks the idea that this is about obligations.
@cathyginter@universeodon.com
Jesus, is Jeffries unaware that they were Democrats who voted for this situation in the first place when they passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, and then the executive branch threatening default?
Does he not know basic civics about how the federal government works?
Or is he just counting on his audience not knowing?
What? Democrats were the hostagetakers here.
It was their Consolidated Appropriations Act, that they passed against Republican opposition, and Biden's spending, that put the country into this position.
Republicans voted a way out of the mess they made, the hostage situation they faced.
Key phrase: "165 Democrats - more than the 149 Republicans who voted for it - backed the measure and pushed it through"
But it was a lurch to the left that threatened default: Democrats and Biden passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act that set this situation up, and then Biden threatened a default unless he was given expanded borrowing power.
Those on the far right demanded a lot to clean up the mess, and moderates won the day, solving the problem caused by the left while squashing demands of the extreme right.
There was a lurch to the left in this controversy followed by a return to the center despite the demands of the right.
I just hope people notice how the rescission clauses in bill pretty much debunk the rhetoric we've been fed for months about how this is about paying our bills.
Those of us who are familiar with that term and familiar with how federal financing works have been trying to spread the word that politicians are either lying or ignorant about how their own government works.
(Take your pick)
If the debt ceiling was about paying bills then rescission would leave bills unpaid, so it wouldn't be a solution.
But BECAUSE those aren't bills to be paid, because it's merely spending authority, not actual spending, rescission helps solve the gridlock.
The press has really carried the administration's water, misleading the public on this one.
@alfredo_liberal@universeodon.com
You're misunderstanding, talking like there's one central organization that should be deciding who runs or doesn't run.
No, #Republicans are absolutely aware of what you're bringing up. Mainstream conservatives have been talking about it for a year.
It ends up being an issue of each candidate thinking that yeah, it's bad when there's too many candidates, so all of THOSE OTHERS should drop out.
Everyone knows there should be only one strong challenger. The problem is that all of the serious challengers believe they're the one that should stay.
There's game theory in there.
That's not how federal financing works, though.
The shortfall has nothing to do with taxes since the president already signed legislation that countenanced this level of taxation, which along with his spending, lead to this shortfall.
Biden already accepted this level of taxation. He put his pen to paper approving it through the CAA... which was passed over GOP objections, mind you.
So at this point the president is demanding power to borrow more because the bill he signed was mathematically unworkable given the level of taxation he accepted alongside his level of spending.
Taxation is not the problem here. It has nothing to do with this dispute.
No, it's the exact opposite.
The Supreme Court unanimously--conservative and liberal sides--voted to *reinforce* the Clean Water Act, pointing out that the EPA was misreading the Act.
They were emphatic that the CWA must be enforced as passed by the democratic system in the US.
See for yourself straight from the Court to bypass these reporters with axes to grind:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
The holdouts say the opposite. Take this statement from Chip Roy, just to grab one of them at random to grab his stance.
He's calling for discretionary spending at 2022 levels, and the US certainly did spend on more than the military then.
This isn't about budget victory, though, since this isn't about the budget.
The budget talks came last year and concluded with the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
All of this is just dealing with the fallout from that mess of a bill.
I disagree.
It sounds to me like your complaint is that the standard simply doesn't do what you want it to do, doesn't have the features that you wish it had.
Great! Work on improving the standard. Personally I'm pretty critical of ActivityPub.
But what I'm hearing you describe sounds like exactly a good faith implementation of what the standard is aimed at providing.
ActivityPub doesn't provide two way communication, and as far as I can tell isn't supposed to. I would not fault Facebook for implementing that exact same focus.
From what I've heard from the holdouts, their concerns tended to focus on spending, not taxes.
The numbers tell others things about the account, though.
Chances are someone who's being followed by many people has content that's worth following (circularly :) )
Also, large numbers suggest opportunities to engage with more people through that profile.
It's been a long time since I read through the history of it in the courts and US regulatory system, but it was sort of the unintended consequence of a collision of individually well-meaning left-leaning positions.
Something like:
(allow detainees to stay to argue for asylum instead of shipping them out immediately) + (make sure children are held in age-appropriate settings) = (separate children while they're being allowed to stay in detention)
As I recall from the standard, it's not so much about ambiguities as much as it's that ActivityPub simply doesn't have a built in concept of two-way communication.
An actor posts things to an audience. An audience of one is simply a subset of posting in that system. Two-way communication is at most two people making posts with each other as audiences.
ActivityPub is just not really built to be a messaging platform, so it would be in good faith for Facebook to implement it accordingly.
The whole idea of Fediverse is that there won't be one whole idea of Fediverse :)
I joke, of course, but this platform is built around instances being whatever they want to be, each with the [rather popular] option to exchange content with others, if that contributes to the direction the particular instance wants to go in.
Democrats actively passed laws recognizing student debt, including it in budgets.
That's what they *did*.
Student debt cancellation was never legal in the first place.
Congress has been legally relying on those payments for years as part of the budgetary process, leaving the president no legal authority to unilaterally waive it away.
It's not dead now... it was never alive.
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:
