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 two aren't mutually exclusive.
Obviously the White House, and its elderly resident, have reasons to be extra cautious.
@BigMcLargeHuge@mstdn.social
YES!
They do!
Heck, I think I was one a jury once when the judge was doing something like that.
Judges really do have a lot of latitude to work with the lawyers to make these practical choices in the process, and the sides are free to appeal if the judge really is misbehaving.
That's just normal operation of courts in the US system.
I don't think it's about intelligence, though. An awful lot of people will be so viscerally disgusted by Trump that they will refuse to vote for him, regardless of.... well, are we going to even assume he'd be saying something that lands on the spectrum of intelligence these days? :)
I have heard mainstream/centrist/moderate folks talk about how he's changed, how he has better people around him now, and how he's learned in the years since his loss.
I think the CNN town hall demonstrated to a smallish audience that he hasn't changed, he's still repulsive, and I look to a debate to really drill that home to a larger audience.
Again, EVEN IF Republicans had a clean sweep, that would not be sufficient to lead to what's being described here.
AND, pointing that out is one great way to avoid that clean sweep.
Well, really it's Trump needs to stop down as a candidate, says... a competing candidate :)
Asa isn't exactly a neutral commentator here.
Oh, they're already pointing out that the jury pools will be biased against him, which is not entirely untrue.
They also simply claim that the juries reached the wrong verdicts, as happens in other high profile cases from OJ through, heck, the Senate's trying of Trump's impeachments.
It's not that they don't care about his legacy. It's that they see these indictments as badges of honor.
To them these things IMPROVE his legacy.
@BigMcLargeHuge@mstdn.social
This kind of thing is pretty common in courts, though. Judges generally work with council to consider practical issues of scheduling.
It would not protect him from state or local action, but it would protect him from federal action.
The reason for this is that in the US system all of those executive actions are done as extension of presidential authority, so as president he would be effectively choosing to arrest himself.
Trump COULD arrest and jail himself, but you know, probably wouldn't :)
And to be clear, there's absolutely nothing preventing voters from electing him president while he's sitting in jail, and as president he would then be holding himself and could release himself
I think this article gets it wrong for a couple of reasons.
For one, it is possible to set up debates that actually force participants to debate. In fact, it's not even hard to set such rules. It is hard to get candidates to show up to a debate with good rules, but that's a different issue.
For another, sure LET Trump engage in the gish gallop to demonstrate to the country that he hasn't reformed, hasn't gotten better, to dispel the notion that he's now more acceptable because he's changed over the years.
Sounds like the author is mainly worried about protecting voters from their own reactions. I say let them have the information, and let the democratic process rip.
Well it makes sense since Mastodon is a piece of software, not a service, arguably operated by many different service providers, and there's no solid way of accurately counting all of its weekly active users.
I'd say folks on the Fediverse aren't challenging Twitter. They're in something of a different industry.
Firstly, I'm pretty sure the GOP won't take both House and Senate much less do so with a set of members who will cooperate.
Secondly, even if somehow that happened, Congress still couldn't drop Constitutional restrictions on presidential action.
So most importantly for this context, a president can't claim unchecked power if he's relying on the democratic process to cooperate AND still has to abide by constitutional restrictions.
The idea that Trump can just seize that power gets weaker with every qualification to the story.
Right, and so not by a president unilaterally, no matter what idiotic promises he might make to his base, which is why we need to call him out for making false promises to his base, AND call him out for failing to keep previous false promises.
We need to point out how weak Trump is, and how he is bound by law, not play into his claims to his base that he's going to do all this stuff he has no authority to do.
Anyone wanting to sic their followers on someone can simply link the thing, perhaps with a screenshot as you suggest, so keeping QT away from authors doesn't block the negative practice; it only blocks the positive that comes from it.
No because that doesn't convey the author intent of embedding and building on the post.
It doesn't bring that conversation into this one. Instead it says, "that over there"
And it doesn't carry the same level of informing the original author that he's being included in a new composition.
There is no real, full alternative for the QT
You imagine incorrectly :)
No, agencies tend to exist by law passed by congresses and are bound to uncountable legal agreements made year after year. Presidents have no authority to do what's being claimed here, whether they want to or not.
Again, if Trump is telling his supporters he has authorities that he doesn't, promising things that he won't be able to fulfill, why in the world would we buy into his nonsense?
The better response isn't to buy into Trump's garbage. The better response is to point out that he's an idiot who can't live up to the promises he's making, just as he didn't live up to them before.
This false idea that a President Trump would have these powers is exactly what he's running on. Let's debunk that, not promote his campaign rhetoric.
The problem with your argument is that you named a bunch of primarily state and local government responsibilities to claim that the feds have underinvested.
And that's a big contributor to the problem: all too often we see other governments not doing their jobs and investing in their citizens, escaping accountability by passing the buck to the US.
And none of that really overcomes the Occam's Razor, that these representatives simply believe these to be ineffective ways of using federal resources. We don't have to grasp for malice to explain it.
@IvidappAvidapp you might want to check out the list of special features that @QOTO has added to their Mastodon instance.
Everything from QT to QT opt out to fancy math formatting and Markdown support.
It's a long list.
And for better or worse, some people want it this way.
Yes. I am suspended by mastodon.social! An entire instance blocked a user who isn't even on their own server. No warning and no way to request an a...
I figure they're bound to count different subsets of instances and so have different user counts, even setting aside policies for types of instances and maybe what counts as an active user.
In the distributed system there is no central point to actually count all users, so it will be an estimate no matter what.
@mastodonusercount
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:
