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 is that legislating the actions of the Court would violate the separation of branches, violating the independence of the judiciary.
If a justice is misbehaving then he should be impeached. That's the one and only tool provided to address it, the compromise that allows justices to be held accountable without too much interference in their work.
And if a justice is not misbehaving, then there's no need for trying to interfere with court business.
So impeach or don't. That's the choice our elected representatives have.
But this is a question for the Congress, not for the Court.
The Court doesn't have the authority to decide what *should* be law. That's for the democratic branch to decide.
The Court is to look at what we, through our representatives, have chosen, and rule based on that.
If we don't think discrimination should be protected speech, great! Let's elect people who will carve out that exception to speech protection.
But to look at the Court for this is to look at the wrong branch of government.
SCOTUS did not order the Florida to stop counting votes.
It only slapped down a state court that was out of line in interfering in the election process.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/#tab-opinion-1960861
This article is pretty nonsensical, though, a reporter citing another reporter, one from Slate, whose own analysis cherrypicks to come to its conclusion.
For example, it highlights the line that Kavanaugh's argument cannot be taken seriously but leaves off that the opinion is referring to *two* arguments, Kagan's as well.
No, justices aren't losing patience with Kavanaugh, any more than they're losing patience with any other. Justices disagree, as they always have.
It's silly to put out such a muckracking story, except that it gets clicks.
I imagine it's just the standard motivation of an underdog barking to get attention for the one they favor.
But again remember, don't oversimplify, legal issues in the country aren't just resolved by the Supreme Court. There are hundreds of courts around the country all ruling on disputes, sometimes even ignoring the Supreme Court when they don't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling.
So again it's the same thing: oversimplifying processes in the US government allows reporters to make these fear-mongering stories that are just completely unrealistic because the checks and balances often exist in the details that get overlooked in those clickbait stories.
Trump failed in so many of his promises because he did not understand how the government worked, and he shows no sign of having learned in the years since.
We need to be smarter than him, which is not hard, and we need to point out to everybody just how ignorant he was and remains, how incapable he is of fulfilling his promises because he has no idea how the US government works.
But we need to know how the US government works to point that out.
Because constitutional restrictions still apply without the amendment process, which requires much more than a slight congressional majority, just to name one reason Trump's promises to his supporters are empty.
You're overlooking a couple of things: just because the US spends money doesn't mean it's being spent effectively.
Too often people look at the price tag and assume it bought something good, when it didn't.
Secondly, so much infrastructure is state and local responsibility, where projects can be better managed and local leaders held more accountable by their communities.
National defense is definitely a federal matter, so it has to be in the federal budget, but so much of this other stuff is better funded through processes closer to home, where they can better serve residents.
volkris
boosted
Tonight's #SpaceX #Falcon9 launch from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California will be almost an hour after sunset, during nautical twilight. When the rocket climbs into sunlight, it will become visible across much of CA, NV, AZ and NW corner of Mexico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_phenomenon
Careful giving Republicans that much credit...
Especially considering so many of the mainstream Republicans, there are many that I would never accuse of having much of a plan, much less a rational, informed plan.
No, most votes don't matter.
Regardless of what Republicans think of the election mechanics that so few seem to understand in the first place.
The US government, by definition, had no choice but to respect the votes of the electors.
The downside of democratic systems is that sometimes the people vote badly.
That doesn't mean we should throw out the ideas of democracy, or sue the government over the votes of our neighbors.
Snark: I only want politicians on here if we have quote tweets so we can more effectively call out their BS.
Slightly more serious: Alright, a lot of people complain that #QT is used for negative reasons, and I generally point out the positives of having it, but this might be a case where the negative use of QT might actually be warranted and healthy.
Actually serious: sure, why not? Worst case we all ignore the politicians.
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.
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:
