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
Trump
I really don't know what connection you are trying to make there, I don't know what the similarity is.
Except that by law they were not fraudulent electors, but were instead the ballot being presented to the Congress for Congress to judge.
So your argument really goes in the other direction.
It is because the outcome of the objection process is not the beginning end of the legal issue that the charge against Trump doesn't make sense and can't be judged based on that.
Well to be clear this mainly comes down to the democratic process where the people that we elected chose to use student loans to fund Obamacare, so we can't really discharge these debts without defunding significant parts of the federal budget.
Yes it's stupid. And yes we chose to reelect the people who made these stupid decisions.
Wrong branch of government.
The executive branch is the branch that polices things.
The judicial branch only offers opinions, rulings on cases and controversies that are brought before it, it does not police things.
That is just not how the US government is set up, and these fundamental matters of civics are all too missing from our education system, apparently.
We have three brushes of government, and it is not up to the judicial branch to police. Wrong branch of government.
And I don't think you are being intellectually honest if you are trying to duck the matter of imposing your values on others 🙂
So now that we have gotten what we think of each other out of the way, let's stick to the facts.
If you want to use the force of government to impose things on other parents with regard to kids or whatever else, you are trying to use force to impose your values, and maybe that's for the best, but at least admit it!
It is literally what's happening, and if you are being intellectually honest then you need to admit that.
What are you talking about? I am absolutely anti Trump and I look forward to him being locked for the idiotic nonsense that he has gotten up to.
This has nothing to do with how Trump works. It has to do with holding the police accountable.
We cannot abide by this really factually incorrect theory that federal law enforcement doesn't answer to the president. No, by law the president is responsible for what the executive branch does. Biden doesn't get to just take the out and pretend like federal law enforcement is doing its own thing, and he's not responsible for them.
That is giving federal law enforcement way too much freedom to abuse their power, to be used their positions.
We need to be very clear about this. No, federal law enforcement doesn't get to just do it at once without being held accountable under the president.
I know I'm repeating myself over and over again, but it just seems like you aren't getting the message, yes you are imposing your values on other people's kids, and if you are great with that then great, I have no disagreement with you!
I just really don't know what you are arguing against here.
Great, you think your values are the right ones to be imposed on other people's kids and that's fine! I have no argument against that. But it is what you are doing.
So long as you recognize that you are imposing your personal values, then great!
Trying to justify your personal values doesn't enter into the issue. Yes those are your values. Yes I know that you really believe them to be the right ones. Yes you are trying to impose one other people. I have notice agreement with you on any of that.
Go for it.
But just, admit that that is what you were doing.
I think it's pretty clear.
Well first of all I don't identify as libertarian. I have some pretty big disagreements with most of the people who seem to take on that title, but setting that aside.
No it's just a simple matter that if you want to impose your personal beliefs on other people's children, great! Just say that's what you're doing, that is factually what you are doing, and let's get on with it.
I don't think it makes sense to impose your personal values on other people while denying that's what you're doing.
It's just, well that is the factual thing being proposed, so let's get on with it.
That is literally the foundation of the US federal government.
The White House is absolutely responsible for all of it. And the president gets to be held accountable for all of it. And he can be impeached for misbehavior of any of them.
Honestly I think you might want to think a little bit harder about the alternative, as it seems like you are supporting the concept of law enforcement being able to act without oversight.
The whole reason that the president is in charge of the FTC and the DEA and the FBI is because we really need to make sure that law enforcement has accountability, that the president is liable for all of their actions, and if they misbehave the president might lose his job.
So I don't think you should be so quick to celebrate this concept of law enforcement without accountability.
The clarity is in owning it.
It is in saying My representative is forcing this set of values on other people, and I'm okay with it. It's in accountability. It's in the democratic process.
You're up for imposing your own values on others? Great! Just own it. Don't try to avoid that by shifting accountability, just say I am forcing my values on other people.
And then yeah no problem. As long as you're doing it honestly.
@sj_zero @GottaLaff Well, I hate to double reply but, really I think this is a story about how the media so often does the country a disservice by not describing this stuff completely, by oversimplifying it.
It's really not that hard to properly describe a stay pending appeal for what it is, and yeah I just hold the press responsible for not reporting that accurately.
I'd say report it accurately and the general public will learn so much more about how their own legal system works, and it would be so good for the country.
But there you go. #journalism
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!
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:
