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
Ah yes, sorry I see what you are saying now.
Yep, The way the court system works in the US is a little complicated but really not that complicated, and it's unfortunate that more people don't understand the details of how it operates.
But yeah I think you're right.
Well the way it works is that each court can issue whatever opinions it wants, and higher courts can, but don't have to, correct them.
And it's critical to realize that technically every single ruling is only about a specific case.
So basically the way it works is that the Supreme Court issues a ruling in a specific case with the expectation that lower courts will rule similarly in similar cases that come up later, but that is not really a requirement, lower courts CAN rule differently but they are risking having higher courts slap them down and reverse their rulings.
I don't know if that makes sense, I can probably phrase it a different way if it doesn't.
Keep in mind that there are two sides to this: an order preventing a figure from speaking also prevents the rest of us from listening.
So it's not just that Trump could be strapped with an order silencing him, it's also that the rest of us would be constrained in our ability to listen as well.
I think this is one of those cases where if you are shocked hopefully that will lead you to reconsider your understanding and learn more about the court.
Like, this is not a surprising development for anybody who has been keeping up with good information about how the court functions.
Anybody who is surprised is probably listening to some news outlets that aren't doing a good job of informing them, so they need to stop listening to those outfits.
No they can't act autonomously. By law the executive power of the US government is vested in the president, so if a president is shirking his responsibilities to oversee his branch, that's pretty much an impeachable offense right there.
The DOJ is an executive branch agency.
As head of the executive branch the president is responsible for what it does, and the president needs to be held responsible for both good and bad actions of that law enforcement body.
To say that the president is not responsible for his agency is to say that the federal law enforcement doesn't have to answer to their boss. It's a pretty dangerous proposal, giving the police free reign.
I don't know how you feel about cops, but I for one am not comfortable with the idea of police being able to have such unchecked authority.
You might be forgetting that the DOJ is part of the executive branch and so it takes its orders from the White House.
The Attorney General is part of the president's cabinet and he answers directly to the president.
Anyway you say I'm getting it wrong but I'm just echoing the DOJ. The indictment itself recognized the laws that sanctioned Trump's actions.
So why did it charge him even as it in its own words pointed out that he was following the law?
Well again, Biden's DOJ brought suit against his main political competitor, so at the least that looks really really fishy.
That is really nothing to apologize for or worry about.
Yes exactly!
Biden's DOJ charged Trump with crimes that, in its own charging papers, are clearly factually off base.
In its own papers the DOJ indictment acknowledges that the law provides for the challenge that Trump made in the run up to the election that he supposedly tried to overturn before it had even happened.
Yes, that is how law enforcement works: The administration gets to accuse people of things, but that doesn't mean they actually did it, and in this case the charges are defeated by the acknowledgments in the indictment itself.
I mean yes. Of course they are.
You might argue that this imposition of your values on others is for the best, and that's great, but it's the thing that has to be owned.
Great, you think your values are worth imposing on other people, so proudly stand up and stand for it!
No, Biden's administration indicted Trump for trying to change an election that hadn't occurred yet, and the indictment itself cited the timeline that pretty much admitted that it was not on solid factual grounds.
It's all right there in the indictment.
@NaturalNews I would just emphasize that it's not up to the Supreme Court to decide whether we allow discrimination based on race or not.
The democratic process outlawed such discrimination, and if we want to we can pass new laws to allow discrimination. But that's not up to the court, that is up to us and our representatives.
I'm saying that Biden's indictment of his political opponent is by its own terms factually without merit.
The indictment itself cites the law showing that Trump cannot have committed the offense it claims that he committed unless he somehow traveled in time, as it accuses him of trying to change an election that had not happened yet.
So the indictment itself is a stretch, a reach, by its own factual claims.
And we really need to hold Biden accountable for this screw up.
Well have you taken the time to discuss his viewpoints to understand them?
It sounds like you are saying you don't understand him, and it sounds like the sort of thing where it might actually improve your view on the world if you did.
It was written right there in the indictment.
Well it is not the Supreme Court's job to police things like this.
But I think it's also a very telling how the article repeatedly said they didn't have information to explain. They basically said we don't know why they did it, and you know, go ahead and make some negative assumptions based in speculation.
Did you?
Even the indictment points out that Trump was following the electoral count act in the lead up to the January election.
So I don't know what you could have seen with your own two eyes, him trying to overthrow an election that had not yet occurred.
The other side of the coin is to say that you should be able to impose your personal values on other people's kids. You know, like the Nazis did. Since you seem kind of obsessed with them.
Well the protocol is stupid and also a whole lot of people don't realize how insecure it all is, a whole lot of people think they have more control over their privacy than they actually have.
I am pretty bothered by this whole thing, especially the focus on instances instead of humans.
I would have done things differently.
That's interesting, but we can see the polling results showing that a lot of people are standing behind Trump because of the indictments.
A lot of people are seeing them as corrupt and so they are flocking to the guy not because he is worthwhile but because they want to stand up to The Man and rebel against the state.
I'm pretty annoyed at it all.
The alternative is saying that I have the right to dictate which propaganda kids are brought up around. So let me choose what propaganda your kids are exposed to. Let me shape their brains. Yes that will work nicely.
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:
