volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@nopatience seems like it's pretty much doing what it was designed to do, so no need to update it.

On the other hand, updates that would change what it was designed to do would probably break backwards compatibility.

I have serious criticisms of AP, but at the end of the day if one doesn't agree with the goals and designs of the standard they should probably go find a different standard that better fits their application.

@fonecokid what are you referring to?

@bigheadtales there is a problem, though, in that the states explained reasoning that's questionable.

If the states had simply said, "Nope! Not eligible because I say so!" then, funnily enough, they would be on more solid ground.

BUT, since they laid out reasoning that's based on factually and logically shaky ground they've opened themselves up to challenge.

@gratefuldread

The thing people keep missing here is that Gorsuch said yes states do have a role in keeping ineligible people off the ballot, BUT it is a giant open question as to whether Trump is actually ineligible.

Arguably the 14th amendment claim doesn't hold.

So when the article says he's 90% of the way, or whatever, it's overlooking that that question is unresolved and is itself 90% of what we're talking about here.

Yes the state can absolutely boot an ineligible person from the ballot, but there's enormous argument over whether or not Trump is actually ineligible.

@icare4america not a care in the world that he was a loser in the last election?

Wins again would hold a lot more stake if he didn't lose last time, and probably will again, which is why he really shouldn't be running.

@bigheadtales
You are incorrect.

Elections are about whatever the voters want them to be about.

In the US, voters in each state get to decide what they want their votes to be about, so it's a democratic process about a democratic process.

Let me emphasize that the US Constitution says nothing about voting being about voting amongst eligible candidates. In fact it is notably silent on the issue.

You say regardless Trump is ineligible for office, but again that is an entirely different topic, and it is debatable, and it is being debated.

So you are wrong on the first topic, as the voting system in the US simply doesn't mandate your personal opinion, and you are on shaky ground with a second, no matter how many times you might repeat your position without providing any evidence for it.

Really zero for two there.

This is just how democracy works. And again if you want to be undemocratic that's fine, but admit that that is what you are up to.

@joesabin@mastodon.world

I always loved the bumper sticker: "Don't vote, it only encourages them"

We keep electing idiots. So so long as we are going to do that, we might as well just not vote.

@tutwilly @JoshuaHolland

@NWBison That's not how the electoral college process works, though.

@JoshuaHolland That's not how we elect presidents, though.

Might as well be comparing populations of the hometowns of candidates, for all that matters.

It's just not relevant.

@lauren frankly, I think a whole lot of people are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces if they think it would stick it to the folks they regard as the other team.

Whether it's another country that has been mythologized as being "sworn enemies" or a different political party or an individual who has simply been identified as being out of favor, a lot of people are willing to pay a personal price to go at them.

To me it is just part of the dark side of humanity.

A lot of people would be willing to give up agricultural advancements and industrial advancements if it means they can stick it to those baddies, to "them"

@nf3xn

@nf3xn The thing is, if their industry serves us better then we put ourselves at a disadvantage by refusing to take advantage of them all for what amounts to xenophobic perspectives.

To put a bluntly, if the Chinese want to work for us and want to improve our lives, we should let them.

@lauren

@bigheadtales no!

It's not about what the candidate says, it's about the voters.

We conduct elections for the sake of voters, not for the sake of candidates.

If voters want to vote for an ineligible person, that's how they express themselves. Often enough I vote for my dog because the candidates are just that bad. It's my way of expressing my opinion.

And similarly, maybe voters want to vote for Trump EVEN IF he's not actually eligible to be president.

They are two completely different questions.

Elections are how voters express their opinions, separate from how their opinions might work out in the end.

It's just how democracy works.

@RevPudDudley at that point it's up to the citizens of the state who do consider the Court to be credible.

In fact it seems like the problem you're trying to highlight is that the court remains credible to so many people, regardless of your own personal opinions.

@BruceMirken

@bigheadtales the constitution says nothing about who can run though.

The 14th, for example does not say who can and can't run. It says who cannot serve. That is a completely different question from who can run.

And of course it's interference to manipulate the voting system like that. You can say it's not all you want, and I can say water doesn't run downhill all I want, but that doesn't make it true.

Of course It is interference even if you think it's entirely right to interfere.

To own it if that's the way you want to go.

Otherwise you just come off as kind of dishonest.

@Joe_Hill Oh yeah, that podcast is really great. It has so much very important information about how the US legal system works, how the US government is structured, etc.

I can't recommend it enough for anybody willing to put in the effort to learn deeply about how the US system works.

That being said, I am very frustrated because in episode after episode on this topic Amar rests on exactly the sort of consequentialism that he calls out on others.

He proclaims that a consequence is absurd, which is to say he doesn't personally like it, and therefore the reasoning leading to the result that he doesn't like must be invalid.

I am at this point BEGGING him to take a step back and provide the basis for his opinions other than he just doesn't like it or he just doesn't personally understand it.

It's still a great podcast to take in, it is still extremely informative, even if it presents a perspective that sometimes, as in this case, I don't find compelling.

@bigheadtales

@ShingoMouse to replace one group of corrupt people with another group of corrupt people just makes the game go through another round.

@BetaCuck4Lyfe

@bigheadtales interference in the voting system is literally the only practical thing that is happening here.

There's no reason to deny that.

Maybe you want the voting system interfered with.
Maybe you think it's for the best that it's interfered with.
Maybe you think Trump is such a threat to whatever you think is going on that you would say that we need to interfere with the voting system.

Great!

So own it. It just emphasizes how critical that is to you. It's a way for you to say it is just that important that we fight against Trump.

But don't deny what's going on. Denying that fact just makes a person look foolish or untrustworthy.

Yes, this is about interfering with voting, whether or not that interference is justified.

@scientist The majority of people just aren't that interested in that cause, though, so yeah they are just going to carry on doing exactly the same.

@statisticsworld@mastodon.world and this is why the Palestinian Authority is such a laughing stock.

This kind of nonsense is why people have serious questions about whether they can be a legitimate governing force.