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
Just to point it out, Nancy MacLean has been roundly criticized for historically inaccurate work lately.
It's almost like they were talking out their asses, got called on it too frequently, and retracted their video because it was just too full of it to keep it up.
The rules of legislative bodies tend to be pretty public and static. A rule like, "don't bring a bullhorn in to interrupt proceedings by yelling over the representative who has the floor" doesn't seem like a particularly strange one to be pulled out at the last minute. It seems pretty common sensical, the sort of rule that will have been around for generations.
Maybe, just maybe, you watched a video that was being a little bit dishonest, a little bit sensational, to get the clicks?
The world is a lot more complicated than that.
In modern finance we have a lot of different options that imply all sorts of economic, financial, political, game theoretic, and other other aspects, so there is no clear answer to this sort of question.
It is a misrepresentation to talk about things so simply.
@duckwhistle @Skembear @PamCrossland@mastodon.world @PBruce
Firstly, keep in mind that this is not a scientific question. This is a question of law. It would be fantastic if science and law were synonymous, but realistically they are not.
The law says how processes must be followed, hopefully in line with science, but not necessarily. Welcome to democracy! It is a messy thing!
But more centrally here, the FDA's own records said that the drug was not approved according to law.
The thing is, like I said it would be great if law and science were the same thing but they are not. You can talk about science all day long, but when the law does not agree with it, well, courts look at law.
I emphasize that maybe we need to reform the law. Maybe the law is really ridiculous, really wrong, and needs to be rewritten. In fact I think that's probably the case.
But unless we can recognize that this is a broken law we can't really push for action to fix the law.
And that has nothing at all to do with science.
The idea that the US system is set up so that no black man could win is going to be quite news to all the black men who have won.
You ask what the Electoral College is?
Do you actually want to know the answer, or do you want to just throw out questions and just enjoy that rhetorical ignorance?
Because there are extremely good answers to why EC exists, many of them becoming very front and center during the last defeat of Trump.
Sounds like you're just doubling down saying it's a constitutional matter to say what is a constitutional matter, which is what I'm saying.
I didn't say Fed spending comes from Fed tax revenues. The federal government takes in significant revenues from sources other than taxes.
But that doesn't matter in the least, as federal spending is based on total revenues, as it cannot spend money that doesn't exist.
I mean that's just simple math.
... The design of the UK government is fundamentally different from the design of the US government.
I don't see how simple legislation can inject itself into the processes of the independent judicial branch.
Sounds like it's too clever by half.
@Jeffrey_Smith@mastodon.social @DemocracyMattersALot
Well the Justice still owes allegiance to the judicial process and stands to be impeached should he violate that allegiance.
The stuff going on in his personal life, and his bank account, doesn't change that at all.
@kevinrns @Jeffrey_Smith@mastodon.social @DemocracyMattersALot
That's not quite how it works given the coequal branch design of the US government.
We can't have the different branches controlling each other like that because it would violate the independence of the judicial branch.
Neither legislators nor executive branch employees should have control over the justices, except for the one exception of impeachment.
If the president does not buy the jet then there is no bill for a jet to pay.
Once the president does buy a jet, then there will be a bill to pay. But until the president buys the jet, no bill.
So if the president doesn't have funding for a jet, he should not buy the jet. Therefore there will be no bill to decide not to pay.
Once the jet is bought, though, then the president has no choice but to pay the bill.
You're mixing up your branches of government again.
Congress does not place an order for a jet. The procurement agencies are in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
Congress can authorize the executive branch to buy a jet, but the Treasury, DoD, GSA, and all of the other agencies that are involved in the procurement are executive branch functionaries.
The Treasury already has enough income to pay its bills and service its debts.
The coin minting idea is based on a misreading of the law, so it is not constitutional. The Treasury cannot legally treat a coin minted under that statute as if it was tax revenue. The law simply does not provide for that.
So Biden should simply knock off all of this talk of default and direct the Treasury to service it's debts through its tax revenues as it is legally obligated to do.
All the rest of this is just political grandstanding, and it's irresponsible.
You misunderstand.
It's not that the Treasury can pick and choose which bills to pay. It must pay all bills.
The key that I think you're missing is in assuming there are bills for money not yet spent. Those aren't bills, and the Treasury must not create bills that it can't pay.
If the president does not have the money to buy a new fighter jet and he cannot raise money through borrowing, then he should not buy the jet.
There is no bill for the jet that he does not buy.
Who is discussing the second amendment as an all or nothing matter?
I generally hear even gun rights activists describing it as a balancing act and not all or nothing, and that's from the people with the most incentive to frame it that way.
I'm really not sure what conversation you're listening to, but it's very very different from the one I'm hearing.
If the Court said that there was no constitutional matter, then that itself is a constitutional matter, that can't be changed by a simple majority vote in the legislature.
What is or isn't in the Constitution is dictated by the Constitution.
If people want to make it into a constitutional matter then they need to amend the Constitution to put it in there.
Sure, here's a link to the Treasury showing how much it's spends. You can compare it against appropriation laws to see that the two don't equate.
No I'm saying the exact opposite.
I'm here pointing out that the Treasury can and must pay its bills, so how in the world do you conclude that I think Treasury can simply not pay its bills?
I'm emphatically saying that it must!
Well they are apples and oranges, but I'd say it is pretty bad for government to have unrestrained ability to use its power against its citizens.
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:
