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
@rdfranke The idea is that the speaker is to represent all of the representatives, so they should have at least most representatives granting them that voice.
A speaker elected without most representatives voting for them doesn't really have the authority of most representatives they are supposed to be representing.
But no, it would be illegal to claim to be the Speaker without having been elected as per the rules.
US Politics
@ppatel How do you figure?
@TwShiloh I don't claim Democrats should take the primary blame/responsibility for Republicans not being able to achieve their agenda, though.
That's obviously not the case.
BUT Democrats do stand to be held responsible for the votes that they submitted especially because those votes were part of a larger political strategy.
Maybe a person likes the position the House is in, likes it being shut down. Maybe a person even thinks it's better to have it shut down to avoid evil GOP action.
Either way, we need to hold Democratic and Republican representatives accountable for each vote that they make.
Personally I do go a step farther and blame them for what might come next, but at the least we need to state clearly what they directly voted for.
Sorry I don't have half naked pictures to keep your attention.
@kandersonus right, and in the process prevented the election of any Speaker, continuing the shutdown of the Congress that they previously voted for, and ensuring that the GOP nutjobs have an inflated voice.
Yay.
I get what you're saying, but practically their votes have prevented the election of a speaker, just as yes, Republican votes have prevented the election of Jeffries.
Yes, Democrats have voted with GOP outliers to prevent the election of a speaker under the rules of the election.
I get that you are saying they aren't voting for the outliers' candidates, but nonetheless, their votes do prevent the election of a speaker
No I'm not making that claim at all here.
Yes, the Democrat vote did align with McCarthy's, opponents and support the extremists, but that's beside the point I'm making here.
The question of vacating the chair was purely about McCarthy and shutting down the chamber. Democrats voted for the shutdown and set the stage for election of a new speaker, and since Democrats are showing no interest in compromise across the aisle, they are requiring Republicans to satisfy the nut jobs.
Democrats could even, if they aren't looking to be part of the solution, just not vote and so allow Republicans to choose a moderate speaker.
So long as Democrats keep voting separately, they are actively setting up the numbers so that the nuts have to be courted.
It doesn't mean a vote against McCarthy is a vote in favor of opponents at all. However It does mean that the voices of the nut Jobs are amplified by the situation it creates.
@kandersonus but that knife cuts both ways.
Jeffries voted with the Republican extremists to shut down the House and put us in this position, setting the stage for Jordan's potential election.
He should be held accountable for that choice, not rewarded with even more power.
Right, so what's the difference between the process of selecting Majority Leader vs Speaker? Democrats.
You said the GOP can't elect a leader for their own party, but they did.
The issue here is that the whole House, not just the GOP, hasn't been able to elect a leader.
That's the responsibility of both parties.
There is one difference between the parties at this point, though: Democrats actively voted to shut the House down to put us in this position while Republicans voted overwhelmingly against it.
It's worth calling those representatives out on their votes.
@TwShiloh but we don't have to guess, we can look at the voting rolls and see that hundreds of GOP representatives voted against the MAGA members.
Political reality is that Democrats control the narrative here, so they don't feel any pressure to negotiate.
I mean just look around social media at the number of people who say Republicans shut down the House.
Democrats don't feel any pressure because they correctly know the American public doesn't really understand what's going on in the parliamentary procedure.
Heck, How many Americans can even name the majority leader? Americans just aren't very aware of the details of how the government works.
Oh the GOP absolutely did elect the leader for their own party. Steve Scalise was elected majority leader.
The Speaker of the House isn't the leader of a party, though, the office is the leader of the entire chamber, and so far Democrats have been voting with the GOP outliers to prevent the election of a Speaker.
We absolutely can blame them for that because it is the active choice that they are making for whatever strategic reason they see fit.
Republicans voted overwhelmingly against these people.
Had Democrats not voted to give them voice, they would be marginalized and powerless.
So I really think that we need to see how each of our representatives voted in these roles to hold them accountable for supporting the nuts.
I mean, I don't have any pictures of Nazis for you if that's what you're looking for.
You can say whatever you want! Yay! Social media!
But yes, when Kinzinger failed to represent his constituents he was turning his back on democracy.
And it's worth calling him out on that, and holding him accountable for it.
@TwShiloh again, that's not a practical option because Democrats would refuse to negotiate.
I see zero chance that Democrats would allow Republicans to hold committee power in exchange for a Democrat speaker.
So long as Democrats wouldn't make that deal, Republicans wouldn't go that direction, and so it's just a non-starter.
Remember, the House is not controlled by just a Speaker, but under the rules of the House there's a whole set of offices that matter a whole lot.
So given those realities, moderates don't have the numbers to pick a moderate candidate. So long as Democrats are effectively blocking a moderate candidate, they're stuck with this.
I think it's important to support democracy, because I am again pro democracy, by calling people out when they do that.
If a representative wants to support democracy, they should. When a representative turns their back on democracy, well that's worth criticizing.
Who's spewing anti-democratic verbiage? Not me.
And apparently if you are reading anti-democratic messages into what I write, then I guess I'm not so transparent, as you are failing to see my position.
And also, just to point it out, judging positions based on identity is a pretty basic bit of fallacy, even if you aren't fighting straw men.
Here, for example. A vote of 208 to 11 is a pretty decisive rejection of the extremists in my book.
@TwShiloh sure, but that's a pretty tall order when the entire Democratic voting block is supporting the stranglehold.
Republicans voted overwhelmingly to marginalize the MAGA faction, but at the moment they just don't have the votes to overcome Democratic backing of the extremists.
Until there's a new election and we can replace some of these politicians, we are stuck with this unfortunate math.
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:
