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
@anonimno but we need to call her out for being populist to try to encourage the Democratic party to nominate someone different.
Democrats don't need to nominate someone awful. Looks like they want to at this point, so we can rise up with our voices to encourage Democrats not to go that direction.
@jcclement@mastodon.social but it's not, and the system was specifically designed to make sure it wouldn't be so much greater with the president.
The president president has to answer to the Congress under checks and balances. His impact is restrained on purpose. Mitigated on purpose. If only we would appreciate that system.
@Silba What specifically are you saying that I wrote that's not factual?
I try to cite sources, but if there's something in particular you think is not factual let me know so I can cite.
@jcclement@mastodon.social I mean, I wish independent voters cared more about the conflicts of interests of all of the representatives that they keep reelecting.
This isn't a trump thing. It's a governance thing. And we are apparently all okay with this nonsense going on because we keep voting for Representatives that promote it.
@ERBeckman disagree: democracy is always on the edge just by the nature of that system, so citizens will always have to be wondering about the maintenance of their governance.
@kagan That's a pretty ironic title considering that the entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was to to restore Congressional authority.
@timo21 only if that's authorized by Congress, which it shouldn't be, which goes right back to the democratic process.
So don't elect representatives who would authorize such a thing.
So often in the US system people forget how important it is to hold their representatives accountable for their role.
This isn't about the Supreme Court or the presidency. This is about the people that we elect to Congress.
SCOTUS v ethics
@maeve Well no, it's grounded in the concept of separation of powers.
Once you start intruding into the operation of the judicial branch the concept of independent judiciary is thrown aside. THAT is the corruption. After that wall is breached judges will have to be looking over their backs with every call they make worrying that they'll be punished by the other branches.
They won't be able to make calls respecting rights because of conflicts of interests.
In this case, sounds like the right-wing pundits are on the right side of political science.
@HamonWry It would only make things worse
@WideEyedCurious I mean it would be better if Congress simply voted on legislation clarifying it.
That's the job of our representatives.
It shouldn't be outsourced to a research group like this, and if the people we elect to Congress can't be bothered to address the issue then that itself says a lot.
@TammyGentzel Yes, that seems to be their official position.
@raploc@mastodon.social I imagine Putin is pretty happy with Harris being the nominee.
So let's not.
@NZedAUS If you tune into right-wing media, the response so far is exactly what they were predicting.
You say the media never anticipated it, but I was listening to the media, they absolutely did anticipate it.
@anonimno she's running a populist campaign, so no?
#KamalaHarris is such a flawed candidate for #Democrats, one with so much baggage and historically bad choices that to nominate her is to risk giving #Trump another term as president.
Almost any other candidate would cinch the election, so why risk it with Harris? Do Democrats not want to win?
We've already seen that Democrats can choose a different candidate. All the folks insisting over and over that it has to be Biden have been shown to be wrong, so let's not believe the new chants that it has to be Harris.
Democrats need to nominate someone more electable, someone that more voters would get behind. Because that's just how this works. Whatever you think of Harris, to put her forward is to take a risk that Democrats don't have to take.
To paraphrase Archer, You like Trump? Because this is how you get Trump.
The DNC needs to nominate somebody more electable.
@bronakins they didn't, though. That's not what the ruling said.
@chessert Go read the ruling directly from the Supreme Court, because a whole bunch of these press outfits are putting out stories that flat out lie about what the Supreme Court actually said.
That's why the press has lost so much legitimacy lately, because those of us who actually read underlying documents realize that even outlets like CNN are just not telling the truth.
Rape and US politics
@Lyle Right, apparently the judge came out and made some statements that I would regard as incredibly inappropriate for a judge.
If you and I want to say that we would commonly call what the jury affirmed rape, that's one thing. But technicalities matter in law, so I've seen this going around and I don't think the judge should have spoken out in that direction.
It's more bar talk than judicial expertise
@knittingknots2 Well the other side of The ledger is that young families would end up paying for this.
Rape and US politics
@Lyle No that's incorrect. The jury refused to return a verdict saying that he was a rapist.
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:
