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
@retrohondajunki@mstdn.social
What in the world are you talking about?
Biden is the one talking about holding debt payments hostage even though the treasury has the revenue to service them unless the legislature grants him additional power to borrow against obligations of future generations.
You are misidentifying the hostage takers here.
I keep having to laugh that "show most recent post first" is an algorithm.
It's a dumb algorithm, in the sense that it doesn't take much processing, not that it's bad or anything, but it is definitely an algorithm.
People who talk about coming here to escape algorithms might miss that they are still just under the finger of a different algorithm.
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
That's not how the funding of the US federal government works, though.
The Treasury is an executive branch institution, and it says it has enough money to service its debt. Yes the president seeks power to borrow more money to spend more money, but that's not about a cliff, that's about a normal politician wanting to have more power.
The president is the one using an illegal negotiating wedge here, claiming that he might not pay off debts that he is legally required to pay off unless he gets more power.
We really need to be clear about what's going on here in the US government. That is vital to holding these politicians accountable for their actions.
Ha! What dog whistle? I strongly suspect that you don't realize my screen name is an extremely nerdy Star Trek reference :-)
But now I'm curious as to what significant misinterpretation you have for about it?
You are entirely missing the point. This has nothing to do with the timing of the payments.
It doesn't matter whether the executive branch agrees to pay up front or after delivery; the issue is whether the executive branch agrees to the transaction at all.
If the executive branch doesn't have the money to pay for a fighter jet, then it should not order a fighter jet, regardless of whether the payment will be up front, or 50% upfront, or to be paid for on delivery. That has absolutely absolutely nothing to do with it.
The question is whether the executive branch has the financing to pay for some transaction that it might be interested in seeking.
You have really missed the point here once again.
If the president wants to buy a billion dollar piece of equipment, but it doesn't have a billion dollars to pay for it, then there's no dispute here over when it should pay, it's simply a matter that it should not buy the piece of equipment at all.
No I didn't follow that list. Please post a link so I can see it!
Well, what exactly do you see in the Constitution that gives the legislative branch immense power over the judicial branch?
That seems like quite a statement in a system of co-equal branches that have checks on each other's powers!
Please quote.
No Independence of the court does not mean they get to dictate to the other branches what they may or may not do. Anybody who thinks that does not know how courts work.
Courts issue opinions. Nothing more. If we want to all ignore the opinion of the court, well, there we go.
I am glad you are so amused at the hindering of the democratic process.
Perhaps we shall have more of it to keep you entertained for the next season of the reality TV show!
What are examples of many other worst instances of similar things?
In the US system, the US Treasury balances its books with a constitutional restriction on creating new currency.
That's really fundamental to the US system of government.
@AstroAttorney @PBruce @DrALJONES
Yes but correct for population size and diversity
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.
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:
