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
I've heard it said that if you don't vote with whichever party then you are a coward. I think that's exactly backwards, and even reflects poorly all the person making that argument. It doesn't take much courage to go with the group.
Instead I go the other way: no matter which party you might prefer in general, it takes courage to say they nominated a moron, and fortunately the other party also nominated a loser, so no matter what the US is going to slog through these next few years.
In my opinion the courageous position is to say no, you nominated a moron, and I'm not going to give you my vote. We're going to be okay I guess, whether you win or not, but I'm not going to let you assume that you have my vote if you insist on nominating a moron. You should have nominated someone better. You should have nominated someone worthy of my vote. Do better next time.
That's the state of #USPolitics . As South Park said, big douche versus turd sandwich. So screw both #Democrats and #Republicans. Neither of you managed to nominate someone worth voting for, so I'm voting for my dog.
To give either party our votes is to sign on to their nomination of garbage people. Let's not. Let's say that they need to actually nominate worthwhile administrators.
But more practically, let's focus on #Congress. No matter who wins this election, they're going to suck, but we can still express ourselves through our representation in Congress, and that's honestly how it should be anyway.
Check out your representatives. See how they have actually been voting, and vote them out if they have been letting you down. That's really where our focus should be anyway.
Not on which jerk ends up in the Oval Office.
(But thank God #Biden is on his way out, as he has been terrible for #science in the US, which has not gotten nearly enough attention from the press.)
@Nonilex no you have that backwards, the Supreme Court ruling does not amass power in the executive branch as it tells the executive branch that it cannot prosecute in some cases.
The Supreme Court ruling was all about limiting the powers of the executive branch, not amassing more.
As for the positions in the branch, they are necessarily political. By definition. The Supreme Court didn't invent that, that is a direct result of the structure of the federal government.
And the president has to be held politically accountable for what his employees do. This is core to checks and balances the US system.
@x0 anything like that is anti-democratic, though.
We the people, acting through the political parties, nominated these two idiots. If we want to an elect an idiot, well, that's democracy.
Going farther, though, the requirement you bring up serves to reinforce powerful people. It supports the status quo which, in my opinion, is itself a reason not to go that direction.
The way to avoid the presidency of an idiot like Trump is to talk to your fellow people and have an exchange of ideas to let them know what a moron he is and why they shouldn't vote for such a loser.
No, it's going completely the wrong direction to try to impose new rules like this because you don't like the choice made by the people around you.
That path just leads to more trouble down the line.
@mikeash we should worry about the entire federal government, especially the representatives that we elect to Congress.
There's not much the president can do without Congressional authorization, so I would be way more worried about the idiots that we keep reelecting and re-empowering to Congress.
@MugsysRapSheet no that's not how the US government functions.
The House doesn't obstruct, but rather the people that we elected to the House get to represent us in passing legislation that they find to be compelling.
Yeah, we should stop reelecting the same jerks to the house, but so long as we do, they're not obstructing, they're representing us.
@mikeash The difference is a compliant federal institution.
Trump would have neither buy in from the federal bureaucracy nor the sanction of the courts. He would likely even be slapped down by Congress. Again.
We know his track record. He's a loser. He lost over and over again, and if he tried to do such things next year he would lose again. Because the guy is just that much of a loser.
Roosevelt knew how to win, how to operate within in the system. Trump's whole schtick is that he doesn't, and that's why he failed over and over, and he'll continue to fail, even if elected, if he tries to do stuff like that.
@pixel I mean, I assume it's a combination of failures of his parents and his involvement in the entertainment industry...
Off the top of my head I figure those are the main influences that screwed him up so badly.
@MugsysRapSheet compliant Congress?
Have you checked the record of Congress lately? They can barely comply with their own duties much less anything the other branch is asking for.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court refused to grant Trump the blanket indemnity that he was seeking, and that's not even getting into case after case where the court refused to join Trump in even considering his disputes.
So the record just doesn't support the conspiracy theory you're laying out here.
It's nutty. It's not realistic.
@ech @RussCheshire it's not quibbling, though. It's the substantial question of whether the money does or does not exist since the proposal is to take away money, that may not exist in the first place.
That's a core issue.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether companies are bad or good.
@MugsysRapSheet well why not is because he doesn't have authority to do so.
A president does not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution.
No, SCOTUS didn't decide that the president is above the law, it went out of its way to say the exact opposite, demanding the continued prosecution of the former president.
I don't know who you're listening to, but they are misleading you. If you read the Supreme Court ruling yourself it debunks those claims.
US pol: What is right?
@Incognitim what? No. If you read the SCOTUS ruling it says the exact opposite, that everyone is absolutely bound by law, and it explicitly lays out that Trump has to continue through the court case.
You say they 've completely done away with even The faintest notion that no one is above the law but the case itself talked about people being bound by law.
Whoever told you otherwise is lying to you.
@waldoj well what do I get wrong?
@waldoj Biden absolutely does have to do with how the federal cases are proceeding.
It's his administration. He holds responsibility for what his administration does. That is a core principle of the US system.
@Linux@kitty.social that seems really counterproductive.
You don't like the messenger so you kill the message, no matter how positive and pro-social it may be.
I just want to call out how selfish that is.
@knittingknots2 but this has always been Trump. He talks this way because, as per classical conditioning, he gets rewarded for being so mealy mouthed.
That observation isn't anything new.
The question is how he got nominated and how Democrats managed to nominate someone who even leaves him with a chance of winning.
@Tharpa I mean, when has Kamala done that though?
Yeah, Trump vomits up garbage all the time, but I'm really holding it against the Democrat party that they nominated such an incoherent speaker that leaves Trump within even striking distance of the presidency.
If only there had been a legitimate primary race so we could have chosen someone better, someone who would have steamrolled over Trump...
@Linux@kitty.social so you're going to deprive the rest of us of interesting information because you personally don't like the source?
@waldoj oh sorry, I was thinking about the other cases
Biden has been surprisingly compliant with a lot of Trump's demands.
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:
