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 think you're overlooking that so many people honestly don't know what they voted for, what's happening, or how any of this works in the first place.
So many stand up every day and promote a version of current events completely divorced from reality.
It's not that they're sociopaths that are fine with this. It's that they believe this isn't happening--they're constantly fed a different story--and you'd have to be a sociopath to want something different.
They believe the MAGA stance is successfully helping people, and you'd have to be a sociopath NOT to want to help people like that.
This is the lesson the world didn't learn about the US for about twenty years now: The president is not the country or even the government. He speaks ONLY for his administration, and only for the moment.
We don't have a parliamentary system.
The US stance, above the administration stance, comes from consensus between branches. The position of one branch is only that branch, and is not reliable.
Trust what's codified in law and regulation.
Has it been passed as treaty? No? Then it's nothing but a handshake agreement between individuals, without the reliable backing of the country.
From JCPOA through climate agreements, this was all foreseeable, but you'd never know from the portrayal by international news organizations.
"Trump promised"
Sure, and Trump has caused himself a lot of trouble by showing that his promises aren't worth much anyway.
Israeli officials are smart enough to know this.
We'll see if it actually pays out.
Eyeing a payout is different from actually receiving a check.
Wow, that's a leap.
An out of context quote expressing an analysis of political approach to an associated company actually causing harm and removing rights?
The one does not coherently follow the other.
Bezos has already made his money. Punishing Amazon is not going to change his lot in life.
It is missing, because it's not actually relevant.
The Court wasn't asked whether passing the VRA was hard. It was asked to weigh in on what the VRA and Constitution say, what the law of the United States says, with regard to this case.
The difficulty of passing the VRA has no bearing on that question.
To be clear, by rules I'm not talking about what might be a norm or a good idea or a gentleman's agreement. I'm talking about the actual laws that govern these things.
The norms may say redistricting only happens after a census, but the laws aaround districting provide for them at any point.
Just because you don't follow many people doesn't mean you don't interact.
The two are independent of each other.
Sure, but then, the population through our representatives is saying that's OK.
If we're OK with him skipping the explanation, then I guess it's not really worth his time anyway.
Exactly.
Joyce Vance may not be aware that idiotic speakers in conservative media have been pushing for this kind of thing for months if not years, and they can barely name functions of the DoJ in the first place. These are not strategic or informed people.
It is good that the article acknowledges that the no prosecution over official acts doctrine doesn't cover unofficial acts, though. So many people were mislead on that point, saying it was absolute immunity when it was the opposite.
@Nonilex most importantly, it looked like Paxton was going to win.
So, as he often does, Trump hitched his wagon to the side that was already going to win so he could claim the win for himself.
#Trump doesn't really care about all of that other stuff. He's spineless and oblivious to anything of substance.
He just wants the superficial chance to proclaim himself a winner again in front of his adoring crowd, and all of that factual stuff is just irrelevant annoyance.
@christopherbrown as a senator he wouldn't have that authority.
There are a lot of problems with proposals like those, ranging from uncertainty arising from the lottery through issues of coequal branches and judicial independence.
Really, we need better civics education and press coverage ahead of everything else. Thanks to misinformation folks don't understand what the SCOTUS does or how the legal system operates anyway.
Even that headline is false.
Sometimes Trump's most ardent supporters admit that the guy has a pattern of hitching himself to whatever cause looks like it's already going to win, so he can claim the success of other people.
The primary results from yesterday seem to be a fine example of that.
#ClayAndBuck ― News is #Trump just endorsed #Paxton for senate. Looks like Paxton's campaign showed Trump polling figures saying Paxton was going ...
We know it wasn't initiated by Trump because it was being talked about and put into place long before he glommed onto it.
Remember, don't give Trump credit for leadership. It's just his thing to hitch his wagon onto whatever looks like it's going to win so he can claim to be on the winning team, even if he undermines the effort.
But yes, it was following the rules. We may or may not LIKE the rules, but the rules where there for these states to follow.
No, that's not what the SCOTUS ruled.
The ruling emphatically BACKED the ability of voters, including protected minority voters, to elect the candidate of their choice by reinforcing the VRA:
"A §2 plaintiff in a vote dilution case must show that a districting scheme denies members of a racial group the same opportunity as other voters to elect the candidates they prefer."
This was core to their ruling, and it was reinforcing the VRA, relying heavily on it.
What the Court really struck down was a lower court order that imposed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The lower court was wrong, and this appeal corrected it.
Mother Jones is not a reliable source.
Its business model is all about getting people outraged, so they click more and align with their causes.
They're manipulating you with misinformation. Always go to primary sources, and you'll see how outfits like MJ are peddling conspiracy theories that are really bad for society.
You're missing a couple of things, especially that part of being in that cult (or echo chamber) involves obliviousness to their losses.
They literally don't know they're losing races. Their preachers preach every day about how much they're winning races.
What you're saying here gives them too much credit. But it's also ahistorical, as the mid-decade redistricting started long, long ago. Remember, the high-profile LA case has been in the works for many years, and the redistricting behind it for years longer than that.
But all of this is fair because it's followed the rules of the system, just as a play in baseball might be fair so long as it was within the rules. They don't blow up the system, they use it.
Maybe the rules themselves need reform, but that's a different question.
Meh. He often gets the backstory wrong with his news rants, so I really wish he'd just go back to straight comedy.
When they dip into hard news it anchors the comedy down to annoying stuff like factual acuracy that matters.
The answer is that in this specific case they won fairly. They didn't try to blow up the system because they had the winning position.
Yes, in other cases the idiots were sleepwalking into knocking the system over, but that broken clock is right twice a day, and this was a case where they stumbled into a win by the rules.
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:
