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
The Democrats really need to get their message together.
Half of them are saying there are no real cuts at all and this is a tremendous success over the Republicans, and then you have people like this saying there are serious reasons to protest cuts coming on the back of black women.
Which is it? Did Biden pants the Republicans or did the legislation seriously harm the people?
The political spin is all over the place.
That's not what the ruling says. I'll link it below so you don't have to trust places like vice.com
What the ruling said was that the union can't use a particular federal act to shield itself against the normal court processes. That's it.
That doesn't mean the union has to ensure the company won't lose any money since the court didn't comment on any such law.
If the union operates in a state where this action is legal, great! Go for it. If that sabotage is illegal, though, it has to face the courts and be held accountable. That's not up to the Supremes, though.
The precedent is merely saying that "the NLRA did not preempt Glacier’s tort claims"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
@BarryPiatoff@c.im
I mean, I assumed Biden's months of demands for expanded borrowing power without any conditions was his prediction that he'd give up a lot less...
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
The Supreme Court invented this notion that executive branch agencies can't claim power that's not granted by law?
Quite a new weapon, that.
Your point number 1 is incorrect. The Treasury's daily reporting showed that revenues coming in were sufficient to meet the current expenditures of the US government regardless of the debt ceiling.
AND, if revenues were insufficient, then current expenditures would be adjusted accordingly.
The Treasury can't spend $20 of $10. Current expenditures are limited by holdings, not the other way around.
Your point number two doesn't match the legislation they passed, but that's a different issue.
Your theory doesn't make mathematical sense.
if the GOP doesn't desire balanced budgets then they would simply lower those taxes without bothering with spending since they wouldn't care about the deficits.
The fact that you say there is a drive to reduce expenditures undermines the rest of your theory.
I really don't care who won this political battle. I could point out ways that Biden lost by his own statements, but again, I really don't care.
What I *do* care about is that Biden signed the CAA and then conducted US finances in such a way to put us in this situation in the first place, where he'd be out there threatening to default unless he got more power.
He won the political game? Fine. Good for him. But we all suffered from his actions in that pursuit of power.
Right now people are criticizing BlueSky for having effectively only a single instance.
For better or worse, that alone makes it less confusing.
(Personally I would go with worse because I think it's a good trade-off to have more instances, but for the moment that alone justifies the claims that it doesn't have that confusing element)
@DemocracySpot@mstdn.social @theintercept @micahflee
Biden has agreed that these aren't bills to pay. The bills don't exist. The agreement that Biden signed on to, and that Democrats voted for last night, show that this is not about paying bills.
The legislation they voted on last night cancels spending which would make no sense if this was about paying bills.
And that in and of itself shows that those politicians have been misleading us for months about this issue.
Probably not a good idea.
Next time just look at the public record so you don't have to agree with anybody. Just look at how the government functions, and the public records showing what it has been doing, and draw your own conclusions.
So far I don't know who you have been listening to, but they have not told you the truth, so here is the public record for you to see for yourself, so you don't have to believe them. Or me.
This is about fact checking.
I think that a lot of people who say Mastodon is not confusing are sort of projecting their own personal brain processes and not realizing, or not appreciating, how other people operate differently.
Different people are different, and the amount of understanding needed to understand instances will be more or less brain work for different people, not to mention the choice paralysis for choosing BOTH Fediverse interfaces multiplied by instances will be different for different people.
In short, anytime a person is dismissing the confusingness of Mastodon, they need to keep in mind that so much of the population have brains that work in patterns much different than theirs.
@DemocracySpot@mstdn.social @theintercept @micahflee
@DemocracySpot@mstdn.social
I just appreciate how you don't seem to particularly care about supporting the case that you object to, or even working to improve things.
You're harming your own case, but nevermind that, huh? I'll just piss right off.
Yes, and you can't believe a lot of articles :) There's SO MUCH misreporting on things like Supreme Court cases.
Below I'll give you the link to the opinion for you to read for yourself, so you don't have to rely on trusting such outlets.
And then stop trusting such outlets :)
Importantly, the Court did NOT rule on the end result here. It ONLY ruled on the question before it, whether the case could even be brought.
The article is at odds with what the Court actually said.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
@DemocracyMattersALot
OF COURSE it was a budget issue as the money to pay bills has to be budgeted!
The president signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act that established a budget without money to pay for it all. His budget was bad, and this was cleaning up his mess.
Here's where the House is in the process of working on next year's budget:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/AppropriationsStatusTable
@DemocracySpot@mstdn.social
The funny thing is, your reply comes across to me as mostly confirming the article.
Mastodon people get defensive! says the article, as you get defensive.
Mastodon is confusing! says the article as you list off the alternatives that help make Mastodon confusing.
And so on.
Keep in mind that economies were growing before there were modern financial systems, showing that no, banks are not so critical.
I hear people making that claim occasionally, and it's just bunk.
Some banks have the ability to create money, but others have legal restrictions on such things. Modern finance is more complex than I think you're crediting it for.
By analogy, banks can fertilize the soil, but that's not sufficient to see plants grow. There still needs to be seeds and sunlight. They can help, but they are not anywhere close to the end of the story.
Nope. I meant expanded power to borrow, because that's how the checks and balances of the US government work.
Every president wants more power to borrow and spend, and Congress is tasked with checking that power.
And no, this wasn't about paying the bills. The legislation he negotiated reduces the amount he can spend, which debunks that rhetoric. If this was about paying the bills then the legislation would just run into the same issue.
But those were lies the administration promoted. It's not how the federal government actually functions.
FWIW, mainstream conservative media has been calling for ballot harvesting, at least legal ballot harvesting, for months now.
Folks need to read this case directly because there is a lot of nonsense going around about it today.
The Supreme Court didn't particularly hand a defeat to organize labor; it merely said that a strike is not an excuse to vandalize others' property.
If organized labor is directly connected to vandalism, well, I don't think that is a winning position for them to take.
I always try to emphasize, and I'm critical about this, that #Fediverse was engineered to be centralized on instances, not decentralized to users.
I would have preferred to have online presence be the apex of the system, but that was not the design choice that was made.
And so Fediverse puts all of the power firstly in the instance. We can only hope that instance managers will use that power to promote user experience.
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:
