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
Keep in mind that there are different rules for individuals than for governments.
We put constraints on government because it has so much power and so much ability to abuse that power.
Well he is running for president, so anyone looking to take that job should be open to whatever the democratic process settles on.
It's just part of the job description.
Sure, you're welcome to bash people for not comprehending whatever point you're trying to make, but in the end if you want to convince people of your perspective, whatever that is, you do have to communicate effectively.
Or else why bother trying?
So maybe a different bumper sticker slogan will get your point across? Maybe you just haven't found the right one yet? Want to try again?
I think it's a bit tone deaf to say fuck that guy because he went on vacation.
Heaven forbid people take vacations?
How is the Supreme Court destroying democracy?
Exactly!
And as you can see, the language recognizes the position of the Treasury within the executive branch so that it may constrain the president's hand, requiring him to have permission to spend.
If it was Congress doing the spending then that phrase wouldn't make any sense. There would be no consequence of appropriation requirement, it would simply be saying that Congress spends.
So yes, the Constitution is clear as it defines the interaction between the executive and legislative branch, recognizing that the president must have permission to spend, as he spends.
Oh no, exactly the opposite!
In theory there are all of these stories about the personal lives and motivations and speculations about what's going on with justices.
In reality would actually matters is the reasoning in the opinions that the Court puts out.
I'm pushing for people to drop all of the dramatic theory and instead focus on the substantial work of the Court, the reality of the reasoning in the opinions.
@StOnSoftware @LFpete @rbreich
It IS decision making.
The debt ceiling exists because there should be a democratic process to empower a president to obligate future generations to indebtedness.
The debt ceiling exists because our elected representatives should think hard about whether to authorize such generational action.
What in the world are you going on about?
Yelling bumper sticker slogans doesn't get anybody anywhere. In fact it helps promote injustice by distracting from realities.
OF COURSE the president controls the purse strings.
The Treasury, the purse, is part of the president's executive branch. To say the president doesn't control the purse strings is to miss the fundamental design of the US government, and the separation of powers between the branches.
Yes, Congress has to authorize access to the purse, but once that authority is given, the control is in the hand of the president, as he is head of the executive branch.
But the US doesn't need to borrow more money to service its debt. The Treasury will bring in enough money in tax revenues to service the outstanding debt. That's why all of this talk of default is mathematically silly. The Treasury has more than enough money to avoid default regardless of the debt ceiling.
Legally the president cannot order default, but technically it's up to him. If the president chooses not to service the debt, that would be an impeachable offense in my opinion.
But because the president controls those purse strings we need to hold him accountable for it, and call him out for it.
What you're missing is that the Court produces logical arguments that can stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of anything involving who writes those rulings.
The Court doesn't merely vote. It actually produces logical arguments, and that is central to its work, and yet that core activity of the Court is hardly mentioned by people complaining about all of this behind the scenes drama.
In other words, it doesn't actually matter one bit if the court is corrupt or not, as long as it produces logical opinions.
And if it doesn't produce logical opinions, it doesn't matter one bit if all of the justices are angels.
Of course we can tolerate a Supreme Court comprised of grifters because we get to see their rulings, and we get to judge the output of their work regardless of who writes the rulings.
If they are grifters who are writing good rulings, great! Or if they are honest but write bad rulings, then it doesn't matter how honest they are, they are doing a disservice to the country.
All of this focus on personality instead of results is a dramatic distraction from the actual work of government in our democratic system.
It's pretty antisocial, pretty misguided.
@TCatInReality @crooksandliars
I mean, why do you disagree? What is your argument?
I mean each of us can understand civics and understand the functioning of our own government for ourselves. In fact I'd say it's vital to a democratic institution that the people do understand the way their government works.
To just accept claims without reasoning is a problem here.
If a ruling is correct, I really don't care if it was bought.
If a ruling is wrong, I really don't care if it wasn't bought.
That's because we can judge rulings on their own merits without needing to speculate or consider any behind the scenes drama. A ruling is right or wrong regardless of anything related to the personality involved.
To put it another way, if we get correct rulings because they are being bought, then goodness, let's have more buying of correct rulings! If that's what it takes to get good rulings, then great!
But in reality, it just doesn't matter because we can judge rulings on their own merit.
@StOnSoftware @LFpete @rbreich
That there can't be a debt ceiling is going to be news to all of us who are talking about the debt ceiling that exists 🙂
Right, but the US has enough income to pay the debts it has already incurred, which the president is constitutionally required to pay.
Right, he won't be able to borrow more, but he will be able, and he will be required to, service the debt that has already been entered into.
No. Politicizing the branch that is specifically supposed to be above politics is just a bad idea.
Judge the justices based on their work, not based on any of this personal stuff.
All of their opinions are public. We can read them ourselves. THAT is what they should be held accountable for, not their personal lives, not this TV drama nonsense.
I really don't care what a justice does in his free time. I only care about his rulings.
No that gets it backwards.
The Treasury has plenty of money to pay its debts, Biden's own Treasury says so, and yet President Biden is threatening default if he is not given this extra power to borrow.
He's the one who wrote the ransom note.
No that's factually false. If you pull up the documents directly from the legislature, they were not punished for peaceful protests.
They were punished for breaking the rules that they themselves had already agreed to, and so the accountability that they also agreed to was triggered.
You can't just stand in the way of the democratic process without facing any consequences.
@Pat That's not how the federal government works.
You can't overturn a constitutional matter with a simple majority of one house of the legislature.
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:
