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
@SteveBologna I mean voting blue is what set this up in the first place.
Democrats voting with Republican nut jobs is what vacated the chair and set Johnson up for taking over.
And we should probably stop electing those idiots.
@Mcpenn0rbutt ha! Okay I know what you mean, but now I just want to see the post so I can reply to it.
Because I've got nothing better going on on this Sunday.
@realTuckFrumper says Jake Tapper, playing the game.
@bluebeetle I just gave up on Star Trek ever bringing back, you know, Star Trek.
Pink blood just doesn't make up for all of the mistakes made through Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, etc.
@fluffy Why not?
If you had something to contribute, you might as well contribute it.
@realTuckFrumper this is called bipartisan report but it is completely lacking the perspective of the party with the most membership.
No, he doesn't expose house Republicans. He makes claims against them that are pretty weak and fairly easily refuted.
@manlycoffee Well what is it?
@realTuckFrumper Why is this worth giving Trump attention over?
@touaregtweet I mean it is possible to simultaneously say that there should be a ceasefire and also acknowledge that the ceasefire would advantage Hamas.
The two are not mutually exclusive
@lrreynolds Yeah definitely. @TheConversationUS
@fsinn heaven forbid there are exchanges of opinion on this platform *eyeroll*
@fsinn Well that's not right.
We know that the threat from Gaza makes it likely that far more than one life will be at stake. The incoming rockets threaten more than one person.
So the person who wrote this is just clearly factually wrong.
@bobwyman revenue divided by GDP is a pretty slanted metric to use, though.
Might as well have multiplied by astrological sign or Powerball numbers at that point.
The government doesn't run on GDP, so dividing by that just really doesn't make sense unless a person is trying to sell a story where that statistic conveniently happens to support their rhetoric.
That's not even getting into the issue of the tax reforms applying to previous years where revenue increased. Not only are they choosing a nonsensical statistic, but they are cherry picking only years of the statistic that match their conclusions!
@lrreynolds Well, part of it was probably that it was easier to move SpaceX closer to the Gulf of Mexico than it was to move the Gulf of Mexico to California 🙂
@TheConversationUS
@jackiegardina wow no.
Sounds like French focuses on the way Biden is responding to these events but missing that Biden was at the least not proactive in heading them off, and at the worst actually set the stage for them.
It paints Biden as being a good defensive player, which itself I would dispute but never mind, while overlooking his failures on the offense.
Each of these events to which Biden is playing the reactive role is an example of his NOT leading, letting others set the stage, and fumbling to keep up, poorly.
So no, I would say the exact things that French is pointing out here really go against the guy, not for him.
@BigAngBlack what this misses is that the Supreme Court merely recognized the laws written by Congress.
The court didn't scale anything down. Congress had the authority and the court just pointed that out.
If Congress wants to expand administrative authority it can, it can do it today. That our representatives never did that sets the boundaries.
It's not the court narrowing protections. It's Congress declining to give the president very extensive control over so much of US territory.
@mnutty but I didn't use the term wrong. I am 100% on board with your definition.
The Constitution provides that voters still have the power to elect Trump regardless of whether he was impeached and/or convicted.
The difference between impeachment and conviction has no bearing to that issue.
We can elect a person who has been impeached, and we can elect a person who has been convicted.
Yes we can spend our time arguing about minutiae but I don't see the point in it. And I'd rather not.
@quinn so do you know what his motivation is? Is this something he has clarified before?
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:
