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
LA Times is really misleading here.
Firstly, that's not what the ruling said. The ruling just said that the lower court properly applied SCOTUS precedents in *rejecting* a map.
But the Times's story misleads that there is a contradiction here. Even if Roberts opposed a clause in a law, now it's his job to rule on laws even if he doesn't personally favor them.
It's a completely different job in a completely different situation.
People being surprised at #SCOTUS rulings really need to stop and consider that their surprise indicates a lack of understanding of the Court.
When this sort of thing happens, a person should stop and reevaluate where they get their news, since that place has let them down, leading them to not see something coming.
The voting rights case handed down today should not be a surprise to anyone who really keeps up with the Court.
Heck, the core of the opinion was about remaining consistent with their past rulings.
No, because today's ruling was against a specific backdrop, outlining specific tests that may not have applied to any other state in the country.
It wasn't merely "make more majority-minority districts" but rather about applying existing precedent and tests for, for example, compactness that might have no application to those other cases.
The shadow docket didn't give Republicans control over the House. Voters did that.
People underestimate how complicated the topic of gerrymandering is in the first place. It's not something you can simply get rid of since it's also used for good.
States also use gerrymandering to amplify the voices of marginalized groups, bringing them together into areas where they'll be able to choose representation.
It's because these balances are so subjective that the courts tend to stay out of it.
I mean, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
A proportional resolution can be favorable, and it sounds like this case is arguably relatively favorable, just as the headline says.
Heck, if the requested resolution wasn't favorable then the requester wouldn't have standing in the first place.
No, there were even pictures in the copyright case handed down a few weeks ago.
Yes, but they declined to expand the federal debt or increase taxes.
For people who wanted a more expanded set of social services it is really striking that they declined to provide any financing for it, which led us to this situation.
Democrats could have and should have provided financing for their priorities, one way or another, but apparently their priorities were not committed enough to actually do that.
Well keep in mind that the marketing would only be effective if it resonated with his base.
If Republicans were so opposed to social programs, even though they strangely keep voting to fund them, then why in the world would a Republican politician advertise himself in a way that would turn off Republicans?
And more, how in the world has he been successful in appealing to voters using positions that voters dislike?
What you're saying here just doesn't make any sense against what we see. It requires us to discount all of this evidence and instead jump through many hoops to maintain these claims that just don't square with reality.
It's a serious question with a serious answer: people will move when the user experience is sufficiently better to overcome the effort it takes to move.
A serious answer because it emphasizes that we can complain about corporations all day, but until the platform actually has such a better user experience, none of that matters to most people.
They must be won over with a higher quality offering, not ideology.
Do you happen to know how reporting works with the #ActivityPub protocol? Is it part of the protocol, or something #Mastodon added on, or is it part of the protocol but just transmitted through a standard bit of content addressed to the admin?
I'd go look it up myself but I am on my phone right now, so I'd be interested if you happen to know.
I don't know where you are getting your information, but mainstream Republicans flat out campaign on preserving and expanding social services before putting their pins to paper to vote on funding social services.
I think you're buying into a theory that just doesn't match reality when we pull up the record.
Didn't I share you a link above where even one of the hardcore Republicans was releasing a statement in which he was adamant that social services be preserved? I think it was this thread.
To be clear, debt is not necessary, only better, in light of most transactions.
We absolutely could have economies that operate with zero debt at all, and we would still have economic growth and value for those involved. We could, but it would be far far less growth and less value. We choose to engage debt because it provides that much more value over the alternative.
It's like, sure we could have a society without mechanized transport. The reason we choose to engage cars and trains and everything else isn't because they are required, but because they make our lives so much better, enabling so much more.
We apply debt because it so exponentially expands the economic options for us all. And banks help coordinate that technology. But it's all optional nonetheless.
According to the civil servants at the Treasury, they were bringing in plenty of revenue to service the debts regardless of the debt ceiling, so no, Republicans did not and could not have threatened the credit standing of the country.
That was all up to the administration. It already had the borrowing power to maintain the credit standing of the country.
But even setting that aside, you're still brushing right past the way that it was Democrats who set this up. You can talk about how Republicans responded to the situation, but even so, Democrats set up the situation through their legislation and executive action.
Don't like that Republicans used this situation to press for change? Fine, but let's be clear that Democrats actively gave them that opportunity. Let's hold them accountable for it.
If a parliament passes a budget then lord knows the US president should ignore it since there is no parliament involved in the US system of government :)
The US does not have a parliamentary system of government. The one has nothing to do with the other.
The US system is fundamentally different from a parliamentary system for better or worse.
When the people we've elected pass laws that are impossible to execute, as is the current situation, that doesn't grant the president extra power.
Rather it means the laws themselves are subject to nullification. And yes, we should vote all of the clowns out. But we reelected them, so *shrug*
The last Congress voted to authorize the president to spend a bunch of money that wouldn't exist. "Out of the $10 in your pocket, you may spend $20."
That's not license for the president to mug someone to acquire the extra $10. It means the $10 of spending can't happen, so the president is right to ignore the impossible action.
The debt ceiling is a requirement of the US Constitution, so it's pretty off the mark to compare the US against parliamentary systems that, firstly, are parliamentary systems, and secondly, aren't subject to the US Constitution.
No, the debt ceiling isn't literally the USA deciding to order but not pay. The US can, must, and will pay its debts regardless of the debt ceiling. Treasury takes in plenty of revenue to pay its debts regardless of the debt ceiling.
That's a flat out false claim and we shouldn't put up with it when politicians start going on about it.
No, the debt ceiling is merely an expression of the idea that the representative branch of the federal government gets final say over whether the whole country will obligate itself to paying back debts.
But the GOP voted against this crisis.
Democrats voted for the Consolidated Appropriations Act that set this budgetary crisis up while Republicans voted against it.
Exactly, so costs WOULD BE cut, just like I said.
If they only have $10 to spend then they won't spend $20. They would cut costs because it would be mathematically impossible not to.
A more responsible administration would have already cut costs to avoid this precipice, but unfortunately Biden's in the White House and he was eager to spend us into this crisis.
Biden has no authority to issue any executive order that would have undermined the Constitution to get rid of the debt ceiling.
It would have been absolutely illegal.
Presidents don't have the unilateral authority to just do what they want. They aren't kings. They can't just ignore the law, ignore the Constitution, when their obligations become inconvenient to them.
But most of all keep in mind how anti-democratic what you are saying is. You are talking about removing from the people the vote as to whether generations of Americans should be beholden to debt obligations.
I keep in mind just how extreme your proposal really is.
Well really it's that debt ceiling fights come out of dumb execution of dumb laws.
When Congress tells you that you can spend $100 million out of the $50 million dollars in the bank, so you go ahead and spend and run out, that is just dumb. And that is where the debt ceiling comes in.
When the president agrees to spend more than he has, well that is dumb and that is the core of what has happened here.
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:
