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
Well, it's really that the US Executive Branch--not the US or even the entire US government, just that one branch--has a Supreme Leader... which it constitutionally does as the Constitution provides that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
This is a key part of checks and balances.
@wdhughes.bsky.social members of congress serve states, not the federal government, so the recall process varies from state to state.
It's not really a SCOTUS thing but a state thing.
@Nonilex that's not what SCOTUS ruled, though.
It didn't grant immunity to presidents. It restrained presidents for prosecuting over specific categories of action.
You're getting the ruling backwards on multiple dimensions.
@SonofaGeorge no, that's not how the Senate works, despite what so many politicians would have you believe.
ANY senator can move to consider such a nomination, and if the Senate wants to do it then it doesn't matter on iota what McConnell thought. He would be overruled and the nomination would proceed.
The story wasn't constitutional... and it didn't happen. It couldn't have happened under the rules of the Senate.
Garland simply didn't have support of the senators, but they were all happy to let McConnell be the fall guy instead of having to go on the record about it.
@GaryRLundberg
@RememberUsAlways no, that's the opposite of what happened.
In their ruling SCOTUS pointed out that that money was already able to flow, and wasn't on the table for the question before them, so they were leveling the playingfield, allowing us to organize AGAINST that money.
@Doreen32128
@ronsparks.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy I think you overestimate the amount of power that a single federal senator sitting in DC has over a state.
Yes, exactly. We have so many promoting the norm that a voter HAS to vote, and if they don't then they're actually voting for the other guy.
If only we could push back against that common rhetoric we have a good chance of getting better candidates and better government in the end.
When the norm is that the parties have to actually run people worth voting for, or else voters will stay home, then they'll be motivated to stop running such trash candidates.
You can see how we ended up with #Trump vs #Harris as the two parties relied on opposition to the other rather than actually putting forward quality candidates.
@GetMisch remember: last year the Dems were voting with Republican extremists in the House.
It's not just that Dems are rolling over. They're actively encouraging all of this.
But... we elected them. We should stop reelecting them.
What in the world? That position is pretty out there, and expert after expert on the matter said the exact opposite, and with Russia's size, population, and industrial base they have the more likely position.
Ukraine had the upper hand? It was projected that Russia would run out of resources? Both of those claims are really pretty nutty considering what open source information tells us all with our own eyes.
@HappySkullsplitter Trump didn't say Ukraine started the war.
A whole lot of people are spreading misinformation on social media about that, but that's not what he said.
What people might want to take away from #Hannity interview of #Trump and #Musk is that, firstly, yes Trump is president and deserves all blame. Please stop saying he gave the presidency to someone else. That's not helpful for the sake of holding him accountable.
But more importantly, it's Hannity, not Musk, that represents the idiocy that Trump is Jacquelyn in his administration.
Musk is just messing around, you can see him stroking Trump's ego to keep playing in the sandbox, but it's Hannity that is promoting the utterly ignorant positions that Trump ends up listening to and acting on.
The buck stops with the president in the US system, but if you want to understand what Trump is doing in office, follow Hannity because he represents the mainstream conservative perspective that Trump is acting on.
And you really can't strategize against it if you misunderstand what's going on between those three people.
@zombywoof if you look up the list of SpaceX launch customers, there are PLENTY who aren't governmental.
SCOTUS will demand that the government clear this up through the normal legal process of judicial procedure.
@burnoutqueen I'm not forgetting that at all.
If you want to ignore the law as a mere social construct without teeth, ok, but in so far as we talk about the law, whether applied or not, we should be clear about what it actually says.
It may be purely academic, but no sense getting the facts wrong.
@burnoutqueen I'm not forgetting that at all.
If you want to ignore the law as a mere social construct without teeth, ok, but in so far as we talk about the law, whether applied or not, we should be clear about what it actually says.
It may be purely academic, but no sense getting the facts wrong.
You're missing that without legality and act cannot be official. If an action is illegal, it's not an official act.
Remember: the Supreme Court actively sent Trump's case for further prosecution for the actions that didn't have clear legal basis.
The whole story that the Supreme Court said Trump can do anything is quickly debunked by the fact that the Supreme Court referred him for further prosecution. No, that story is completely wrong, gets what the Supreme Court said backwards.
What the Supreme Court actually said was that any president, in that case Biden, can't prosecute somebody who didn't do anything illegal. That's all it said.
If Trump does something illegal, which I'm sure he will do if he hasn't already, then according to Supreme Court he is perfectly open to prosecution, as the act would not be official by definition.
@markku Well it gets a bit tricky because if we can't even agree on what his words were, how likely is it that we'll be able to come to a consensus about what he actually did in complicated and breaking current events?
Agreeing on the content of a sentence should be easy. Much harder to agree about a directive issued in a complicated governmental procedure based on documents that haven't made it through the publication process yet.
Every day now we get four different versions of what Trump did even just through professional news organizations, not to mention political outfits and simple rumor. How can we relate him to other dictators by his actions if we don't know what his actions are?
I'd say rewriting history so propagandistically--rewriting the words of political enemies--is a hallmark of fascism.
We counter fascism by calling it out and saying no, we're not going to accept the false narrative.
Trump said what he said. It's fascist to insist that we didn't see what we saw for the sake of political convenience.
I'd encourage you to recognize that you're not only defending but actually promoting fascism with your rhetoric here.
@nuurnu such is the case when folks like @jamesmarshall just keep going around and around the same circle trying to "break through" a record that's inconvenient to his argument.
But heck, it's social media. I'm game.
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:
