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
volkris
boosted
incompetence levels are 50% and steady
(50%) ■■■■■□□□□□
@rootschange what?
High profile cases have been ruling against billionaires and corporate interests, from overturning of Chevron through some of the financial services rulings of late.
This story of billionaires buying the Court are clickbait that just doesn't really match the rulings coming out of the Court.
@juergen_hubert I think you're overestimating the rationality of the Trump administration.
They're so irrational that when you're pointing out market size they'll be more interested in the color of the shoes of the negotiator.
You don't have to fight the fight. If you're too weary of it, take a break. That's understandable.
But that's where the fight is.
There's no getting around that. If you want/need to fight, then you have to engage the frontline where it is, not where it would be easy.
@theguardian_us_opinion I don't think such a commentator has a good view of what's going on from the inside.
Arguably this is the promotion of science in America as resources are going toward solid science and being taken away from ineffective or inefficient efforts.
That's positive for science, and we're seeing that on the ground, first hand, even as those who were comfortable with the status quo complain loudly.
@vij it's not at all like that.
If you follow the Court and understand the cases--which far too few people do--then you can see how the reasoning gets from there to here, and see how the rulings make a good deal of sense.
It only seems like a coinflip in the context of reporting that misleads their readers, or at least fails to properly describe the cases.
@MusiqueNow that's just how the US system was designed, though.
The judicial branch, like the other branches, was intentionally designed with limited powers over the others.
After all, we don't want these unelected judges to have too much power because often enough they would make orders that you and I wouldn't like.
@mystech this is a longstanding issue, where our elected lawmakers wrote obviously problematic laws long ago, and we kept reelecting lawmakers uninterested in fixing those laws.
Remember that during the midterm elections, and let's start holding lawmakers accountable for these laws. Let's stop giving them back their power after they failed so solidly.
@housepanther the Supreme Court didn't really side with the Trump administration as much as it called out the lower court for exceeding its legal authority.
That's how the Court acts, as an appellate court, reviewing lower courts' actions.
@old_hippie where specifically do you believe the ruling was wrong?
That's not what the Supreme Court does in the US system of government.
The position of the Court is emphatically not to support or attack such a thing. It's to give answers to specific questions of law brought before it.
It's BECAUSE the Supreme Court believes in the rule of law that it won't violate the legal system by speaking like that.
@Alonely0 I mean I would go on farther and say we don't even know how many lives of working class people that it cost.
I know quite a few people who lost their good insurance due to the regulations, and I personally lost my doctor over it.
This is one of those cases where the benefits might be visible but the costs are kind of hidden. Who knows how many people had worse health outcomes after it was put in place.
Both #Biden and #Trump are past their prime and not all there mentally.
There is a crucial difference in their presidencies, though: I didn't hear many people relying on Biden personally, but I hear a ton of people saying that these #tariffs don't seem right, but they trust that Trump knows what he's doing.
Even Trump supporters don't think it's right, but they think he knows what he's doing.
It's a mess.
@timkellogg.me I laugh because I find regex fun.
@lain seems obvious, but to lay it out, it was saying that the new gf is a trade down since she is apparently not as committed or fun.
volkris
boosted
To sum up: previous administrations ran draft executive orders past the government’s elite internal “law firm” to make sure they were lawful and formally correct. This one apparently doesn’t, which may help explain why Trump’s EOs are so often 1) contrary to law 2) sloppy drafting messes.
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:eqtfqntwixcnk2fn6im5ntwr/post/3llz4ebktrc2i
@radix023 @nbs @eriner y'all are racing right past the simpler explanation, that when Trump keeps giving out nonsensical and contradictory statements about what he's doing, it's because he honestly just doesn't know what he's doing. At all.
You don't need to reach for some grand plan here.
Sometimes a person sounds like an uninformed idiot because they are simply an uninformed idiot.
@byteseu It's funny because Harris ran such a terrible campaign, and was personally such an unlikable person, that yeah, she told us so and we still decided we would rather have it than her as president.
It just speaks to what an error it was for the Democratic party to choose her without consulting the membership for a dose of reality of how bad a candidate she was.
@lydiaconwell No, those screenshots increase the value of this platform and so promote this platform.
Without those screenshots we would have to go to those other platforms to get that content, so why bother with this one?
@europesays The problem is that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to regulate how states run federal elections, for better or worse. And Congress passed laws long ago authorizing this sort of regulation.
Trump's orders cited chapter and verse of the law that gives it constitutional authority.
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
