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
"I spoke to the governor, she was very nice," Trump said. "But I said, 'Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what's happening? My people tell me different.'"
Almost ... a glimmer ... "am I in an anti-reality bubble populated by sycophants?" ... and gone.
Trump seems to back off Portla...
politics, USPol, US Politics
But this court starts with factual error, at least by the excerpt. Contrary to what it said, no state is being forced to send funds to religious institutions. The premise is wrong.
What the Supreme Court said is that governments must be blind to religion. Separation of church and state prevents states from penalizing churches, from disfavoring people on the grounds of their religious beliefs.
The SCOTUS position is really one that's pretty common sensical.
The Guardian article gets the record wrong right off the bat, and it just goes downhill from there into really outlandish sensationalism.
NO, the Supreme Court didn't rule that presidents are above the law. The ruling said the exact opposite, refusing to grant Trump his claim of unlimited exemption and instead buttressing the system through which he may be prosecuted.
So no, ACB didn't join the majority in creating a constitutional crisis. It takes similar misinformation about the Court to promote that sort of claim about what's going on here.
The Guardian article gets the record wrong right off the bat, and it just goes downhill from there into really outlandish sensationalism.
NO, the Supreme Court didn't rule that presidents are above the law. The ruling said the exact opposite, refusing to grant Trump his claim of unlimited exemption and instead buttressing the system through which he may be prosecuted.
So no, ACB didn't join the majority in creating a constitutional crisis. It takes similar misinformation about the Court to promote that sort of claim about what's going on here.
Sometimes it's not a story about fearing dangerous comedians but about them simply kind of sucking.
It's important to realize the difference between the two.
@carolpeters honestly, at this point we need to replace the whole lot of them.
They've really all let us down.
@normative.bsky.social what? He got in hot water talking about the killer.
@CharlieMcHenry Just because Jackson so often doesn't seem to know how the Court or law works doesn't mean it's Calvinball.
She's often pretty out to lunch as jurists around her sigh and stop during hearings to explain to her how judicial branch procedures work.
There are fixed rules. Jackson just over and over says things showing that she doesn't seem to know basic rules of the judicial branch.
Obviously the complaints being brought under ideologically different administrations will have different legal, not political, leanings.
It only makes sense that one batch will appeal to a justice more than the other on grounds that are purely legal.
The sets of cases being brought before Kavanaugh are very different, not directly comparable.
@bespacific What are you on about?
On a daily basis Trump is complaining that the other branches of government aren't obeying what he wants them to do. He wants to rule them, but he complains constantly that they don't cooperate with him.
No, the three branches of government are not ruled by one man. That's not how the US government works.
Hand-picked court? What in the world? No that's not reality.
No, the US system does not give presidents the ability to hand pick the court. Intentionally, presidents have to live with the court as it is, as it is a separate branch of government, and membership must be confirmed by the people we elect to the Senate.
This court has ruled against Trump plenty. If it was hand-picked surely they wouldn't be ruling against him so much.
So no, it sounds like you're promoting a conspiracy theory that just doesn't jive with the way the US government is set up.
@dgregor79 No, that's the opposite of what the Supreme Court said in their opinion. They actively went out of their way to be clear that that is not what they were saying.
@Nonilex That's the exact opposite of what the court said in their opinion.
@Nerde What do you think it means?
We elected a bunch of idiots to the House, the so it's his job to to give voice to the idiots that we elected.
He'll express whatever our elected representatives need him to express.
@DeniseG Right, because that's how US election systems work.
They weren't fake electors. They were proposed electors that Congress was to judge through the EC system.
That's just how this was always supposed to go.
He's the Speaker of the House so his official job is to represent and cooperate with members of the House.
We elected a bunch of really dumb people to the House
He pretty much has no choice but to say dumb things because he represents dumb people that we elected.
@grrlscientist don't overlook that it's also for fun.
People enjoy playing with guns, same as they enjoy anything else.
It's important to recognize this motivation because it has to be considered when talking about seeking consensus for change.
@grrlscientist the problem is that we elected congresspeople who are generally not interested in pulling the 25th Amendment trigger at this point.
We should stop reelecting such people, and then maybe we'd get better government.
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:
