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
@footsteps not quite, I don't think.
It's not that it's up to Congress to remove the person, but rather it's up to Congress to create some process by which the person would be deemed ineligible for election.
Congress should not pass a bill saying Trump is ineligible. Rather, Congress should pass a bill laying out a process to sort out eligibility in general that would apply to every single candidate.
@originlbookgirl@mastodon.online Dems put many of those justices on the Court, though.
Voting straight ticket Dem supports many of the exact politicians who led to this result.
@ClaraListensprechen4 The two are very different types of cases, though, one directly implicating constitutional matters and the other involving matters of criminal statutory conduct.
They are really apples and oranges.
volkris
boosted
@charlescwcooke: "The gap between what is actually a strong legal argument and what the press insists is a strong legal argument has rarely been wider."
#TrumpvAnderson #SCOTUS #PresidentTrump #2024election #14Am
https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/1764679007415451796
@darulharb it's interesting that the tweet describes it as unassailable theory because it had this kind of life cycle where it began as a fringe theory that snowballed to the point where it was so strongly adopted and now relegated back to being fringe.
(To be clear, I'm not trying to say anybody is right or wrong, but just looking at the viral nature of the idea)
@goodreedAJ Well why would court challenges be the appropriate venue for remedy?
The constitution seems pretty clear that the running of elections is a matter for the other branches.
@GNUmatic what specific argument do you think is wrong?
It's one thing to just say the court is losing it, but specifically, where do you think their reasoning is wrong?
@darnell every state gets to run its own elections, so a decision to strike him from the ballot is not a decision made at the national level.
And the decision that was handed down today, while wrong, doesn't do anything to change that.
@rameshgupta I hold neither of those perspectives.
Thanks for asking, though. Better than just assuming.
Yes, you are wrong.
Or to be more accurate, you are misinformed because a whole lot of special interests are misinforming the public about what happened. A whole lot of people are spreading misinformation about what the ruling was about and what it said.
Which is just, very very sadly that happens every single day today.
No, that's not what the ruling said. At all. And the ruling went out of its way to try to head off that kind of misreporting, but the misreporting happened anyway.
@rberger Well right, that's how democracy works.
@darnell that is incorrect, though.
The question before the court is not whether Trump is banned from being on the ballot in every state, because that is not a federal question.
Every state manages its own elections. In the US elections are state processes.
US Politics
@matt never be sorry to post about politics. It's often the only way we can vent about how horrible things are.
As for #Haley vs #Trump I recently heard a primary voter saying that they were going to vote for Trump because there's no way Haley could win the primary.
...
I hope you see why this is relevant. This person was voting for the guy because he didn't think the alternative would get votes. It was the dumbest, most idiotic position I've heard, but I fear that a whole lot of #GOP primary voters are voting based on that same motivation.
So maybe the results aren't so confusing so long as you don't overestimate the American voter.
@secbox I feel this so much.
#Biden seems to like any particular respectable political philosophy, which in itself is very sad.
I can respect somebody who has a solid philosophy that I might disagree with, but Biden doesn't seem to have any philosophy at all, he just seems to be drifting in the wind, and that is not how a US president should function.
@scottjenson but then, I think Ted talks are generally worthless, so it's like, a forcing function toward mediocrity 🙂
I know, I know, just my opinion.
Give me unlimited lengths. If you have something to say, say it!
There comes a point when it's not so much misinterpretation as gaslighting.
If the meaning of public documents is so malleable then I guess we just should give up entirely. If we can't trust our own eyes to read what we read, then what's the point of even bothering with governmental transparency?
The rulings said what it said. People claiming that it said things that it clearly did not say should not be indulged. That sort of thing is really flat out antisocial.
@Hyolobrika Yes, if I had a switch that would censor all falsehoods that are harming society, I would censor that.
But such a thing doesn't exist, so the best I can do is go with the adage that the best solution to false speech is more speech, debunking the falsehoods.
@jpaskaruk The problem is that this story is a lot deeper than @rameshgupta described above.
The issue is that Willis and her prosecutor seem to have been lying to the court, to the judge, which is a cardinal sin. The professionals standing before the court are expected to be firstly honest with the court ahead of everything else.
And so in the face of the alleged breaking of their faith with the court and unprofessional behavior in these proceedings, the judge will have to think about how deep the misbehavior went, and in the end the entire office might be stricken from the case, which would entail bringing in an entire new team, which would involve starting from scratch, which would be a huge delay.
But let's be clear: Willis brought this on herself.
She should have known better than to open herself up to this sort of complaint, but she honestly just seems outright incompetent.
@Hyolobrika I mean, under different circumstances, where I had a switch that would turn off misinformation, I would flip the switch 🙂
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:
