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
But it's worth emphasizing that both represent marketing, with the terms in common use detached form history.
Still, if we want to look at origins, we consider Federalist 10:
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place"
Federalist 10, by Madison, looks at republic vs democracy in depth as the terms are intended in the US context.
A think a lot of advertising is hamstrung by publish backlash to tracking and tailoring ads.
We don't want tailored ads? Well, then i guess we're going to see a bunch of stuff we're not particularly interested in. We're welcome.
This is sensationalism.
Secret job? He was just one of countless bureaucrats working in the government without the authority to do stuff requiring public vetting.
This is just trying to stir up drama and get clicks.
Meh, it's only deeply problematic if the hearing was granted the full attention of the Court. It could be but a minor annoyance if the Court simply checked the box and dismissed the case after a perfunctory hearing.
Not a great image, but maybe there is no perfect solution to this issue.
But that letter is meant to be PR, persuasive, not solid reporting of what happened.
I see accounts like this, though:
"The spending estimates for the Department of National Defence include funding for Operation Unifier, an armed forces training mission for Ukrainian soldiers. The Conservatives voted against approving that estimate." [1]
Voting against etimates that included spending for the program may not have been the vote against the program that is being portrayed. I was looking for more solid evidence of that.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/late-night-house-of-commons-carbon-tax-1.7052741
More importantly: stop reelecting the same reps that have proven ineffective, if not complicit, so far.
Calling them every day just makes them feel seen, as if their political ads are working.
And thus his brand gets promoted...
volkris
boosted
All of a sudden those maniacs compiling everything themselves from known good sources seem a great deal more reasonable.
The platform remains valued and actively used for a decade and a half.
That's a clearly measurable indicator that shows success.
@NMBA because he voted against a free trade deal?
That's not exactly blocking funds.
I mean... Trump likes that kind of attention, and his more competent PR folks use it to his advantage.
So many of the No Kings folk don't realize they're playing into his game, actually helping the guy. Their methods are counterproductive, and stuff like this helped get him reelected.
I think you're going the wrong way with that.
This setting seems to be a pretty accurate portrayal of what a joke the guy is.
I always like to emphasize that the presidential administration doesn't run America but rather one department of many within one government among many of one country that is far more than its government.
The reason this distinction is important is because it emphasizes how little power these folks actually have against other institutions in the country, unless those other institutions support them or acquiesce to what they're doing.
It's about holding other institutions accountable for sanctioning the administration's decisions.
No reason to reach for the conspiracy theory when the simple explanation is that bookies wanted money.
It's a great reminder of the dangers of EVER tying control of significant social institutions to purely political institutions like government.
There was always and always will be figures like Trump coming in. Don't tie important things to that ship.
This gets it backwards, though.
If you watch how Musk engages with the public, his fans in particular, over they years it's often the fans making a bunch of sci-fi bullshit promises that he accepts.
SO MANY TIMES I watched idiot fans asking Musk if he was going to do whatever, and he'd even push back to say no that seems unlikely, and they keep pressing until he just says, "Yeah, whatever," and lets them have it.
This is a pattern that has played out so often with so many public figures, and I think with increasing frequency in the social media age.
I wish we were all more aware of it.
If nothing else, it basically made Trump.
This headline is pretty misleading and the article glosses over the critical point: Exactly how does it imagine the controversy getting to the Supreme Court in the first place?
Without a path for someone to actually bring a case before the Court the Court lacks the authority to "upend Congress power". So no, it's unlikely that the headline is correct.
And it goes even more off the rails from there. Even IF SCOTUS addressed the WPA, which is not explained how that would be but IF, it would likely magnify, not upend, "Congress power" since the WPA itself moves power from Congress to the Executive.
Really this comes down to public misunderstanding of presidential power to engage in war. The power rests in Congress. WPA can't legally change that, but we accept that it did.
Why do you think they're not too stupid?
I mean seriously, have you heard them? Why give them that credit?
A lot of what Raskin writes here is not only wrong but actually serves as the member seeking to duck accountability for his role in sanctioning the program.
Right off the bat, the slush fund "purports to draw from the Judgment Fund"? Well right, and it's exactly why the Judgement Fund shouldn't have been funded by Congress in the way that it was.
This has been a problem for a long time, and Raskin bears some responsibility for it.
We need to hold folks like him accountable for being part of the problem.
Another example of "to understand US politics in this moment":
MAGA supporters are voicing confusion about why more big name acts aren't headlining a concert on the National Mall.
Same as when they were recently voicing confusion about why World Cup tickets weren't selling more quickly.
US conservatives outright say Trump is really popular, almost everyone loves him, he's awesome, and folks who don't say they love him are really just hiding it. They secretly do.
All of this evidence to the contrary, well, it's all fake news.
And they govern based on that.
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:
