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
@carolleisa wow, what a moron.
But then, the CFPB should have never been founded on such shaky legal terms in the first place, and it's not like Warren was a powerful politician in a position to fix these issues since or anything.... right?
@mnutty well you're wrong :)
The fundamental design of the US government involves checks and balances wherein the executive has to constantly ask the representatives of the people for permission to execute, to act sometimes against people when it comes to law enforcement and to generally gain authorization to redirect society's resources in directions that are hopefully beneficial.
The shutdown was a creation of the idea that the president isn't a dictator, that he is restrained by the democratic process.
EVERY limit on budgetary authority contains a threat of a shutdown as the president cannot legally spend money without authority.
This is core to civics, core to the design of the US government.
In a chain without privacy (post? no, simultaneous) the evidence of innocent is obvious and out in the open and incontestable.
That's a feature.
YES if you want to hide your transactions then don't use a system that puts everything out in the open. That's just common sense.
But like anything else on the internet, or in normal life, a person might decide that convenience or value or whatever else outweighs privacy for some transactions, and from time to time will make that trade.
The open ledger proves innocence in this case. That has value!
You're stating that the states have equal representation.
You're layout out exactly what I'm pointing out.
Every state has exactly the same two representatives.
The incentive is to seek re-election.
Each member is to do his best to do what his constituents would want him to do, and hopefully that will lead to good outcomes. But in the end it's up to voters who decide who to empower and who to re-empower based on their performances.
@SteveThompson wow, the article accuses justices of playing fast and loose even as it itself engages in exactly that.
For example, concluding that the organization doesn't represent real people because of where and when it filed paperwork? The one has nothing to do with the other.
Mainly, though, this is a giant case of begging the question.
I get that the author wishes for different outcomes. Understandable! But this is not the way to get there.
it does get clicks, though. Thanks Slate.
@hulavikih I say this as an open borders kind of guy who WANTS to see more immigration, but there's a lot to be skeptical of in this article, a lot of loose ends that make the proof pretty weak.
For example, the highlighted comparisons against 2017 estimates are quadrupley suspicious as they are 1) relative to 2) an estimate from 3) many years ago 4) before the majorly disruptive pandemic.
Unfortunately I don't think many are going to have their minds changed by this article.
Perhaps USA Today forced them to cut a lot for brevity and they cut too much.
@vy at this point mainly because you don't seem to be willing to provide any solid support for the claim.
That does lead to me not thinking that you're correct.
That you'd rather deflect into psychoanalysis of me just further solidifies that impression.
@politico This rhetoric about bailing out #McCarthy is a bit disingenuous.
If the House wants to keep him as speaker they can. If they want to shut down business in the chamber they can do that too.
To focus on this drama about a bailout is to kind of distract from the real implications of members voting to shut down the legislative process when there's so much that needs to get done.
@DotardTed I don't think it sounds like worry so much as acceptance of the role he has to play.
It sounds to me like #McCarthy accomplished his goal of giving speakership a shot, and now it's up to the #House whether they keep him in the position or not.
He did what he wanted to do, and the rest is hardly worth worrying about too much.
If House members are so off the rails that they'd vote to halt business in the chamber, well, this is a problem solving itself for him.
@vy Indeed!
Better for me to ask why you believe what you believe than to just assume.
Yes, it can be tedious to try to learn, but I'm a patient person.
@vy I do so enjoy when people tell me what I think ::eyeroll::
But again, this isn't about me. I'm asking what you think, and I'm asking how you support your claims here.
That has nothing to do with me, it's your point that you're trying to make, and one would hope you would be able to provide solid support for your beliefs.
If you can't, it seems like maybe you should reevaluate your position. But again that has nothing to do with me.
Meh, trust is nice and can help grease skids, but it's not required. The Rules of the House are there for use regardless of trust.
Members can force action regardless of the Speaker if they have to, so this matter of trusting McCarthy is a bit overblown.
And that's not even getting into whether he can actually be trusted since we don't know what happens behind the scenes and what agreements he might be 100% upholding despite what politicians are saying publicly.
Keep in mind that McCarthy's actions can often be seen as protecting members from votes they don't want to take, so he might be doing what all speakers do and satisfying his members that he negotiated with.
It's all quite the facade, but it's up to them to make it work since they're on the inside.
@cdarwin well it's not about giving courts more influence but rather giving Congress more authority.
The courts only defer to Congress in that balance of checks on executive power.
It needs to be made explicit that this would also be Democrats being united in a decision NOT to keep the House operating.
For better or worse.
Why would I trust conservative legal scholars, particularly if they are identified with a bias so intently, when I can go straight to the document?
It's like, either I can look outside and see that it's not raining for myself, but hey, let's go trust these umbrella sellers instead!
If these people have their agenda so front and center, that doesn't make them more trustworthy compared to our own eyes.
We can clearly see that the amendment says nothing about running for office. Anyone saying otherwise is making stuff up that's not in the clear text of the amendment.
I mean yes, that's the reason the entire House might stay with McCarthy, but that's an across the issue aisle.
But here we have mainstream Republicans calling for cooperation across the aisle to maintain government funding in the face of the hardliners like Gaetz, and I just feel like they directly reject what you're saying here.
Yes, every party, and every individual, wants to get their way without having to compromise, but when that's not an option Republicans often seem willing enough to work across the aisle.
The votes for the past few weeks show that.
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:
