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
@kwheaton you're still missing how it was designed AND how it works today.
The House represents population, representing the majority of people. The Senate represents states, representing the majority of states.
BOTH work to counter the tyranny of the minority, as without the Senate the House would have minorities of states able to take control while without the House the Senate would have minorities of populations taking control.
Both chambers were set up **and continue to operate today** as checks against tyranny of minority.
But like you yourself highlighted, the point is that no, the Senate doesn't favor any states. It has equal representation of all states, exactly as it's supposed to in order to avoid tyranny of the minority of states.
Makes perfect sense today as ever.
@jimlil well, FWIW, I do see a lot of that even though you don't.
Different feeds and subscriptions, I suppose.
But if it matters, then FYI, there is a lot of that on this platform at least in some webs.
One problem is that people who take that position seem vocal about actively excluding new people, pushing for instance bans and such.
@watson@freeatlantis.com the Congressional Record debunks this claim.
Yes, a lot was done. It makes no sense to deny that when we can see it with our own eyes.
@watson@freeatlantis.com and so there are serious questions being raised about Gaetz's honesty when he makes these charges.
He's not exactly a guy who invites people to believe his claims.
The vast majority of members voting against continuing were Democrats, so for better or worse, it was really thanks for them.
Had they not supported Gaetz the far right lawmakers would have no influence in the Congress.
@radhakrishnan@mas.to well no.
He was ousted by 216 members who decided they'd rather shut down the chamber, for better or worse.
A member like Gaetz doesn't have such authority under our system.
@taco well, the obvious alternative is a nonfunctional Congress and a government shutdown.
That's what the Dems seem to be choosing, though, so enjoy the popcorn, I guess.
Maybe stock up because things would get weird without a federal government in operation?
@ncw413 well that 8 and the 208 Democrats that voted alongside them.
@lauren I have a lot of patience, don't care about the politics of it, and I won't be sad about being voted out if they don't like how I do things.
Hat in the ring!
Yep. And I'd encourage everyone to check the voting roll to see if their representative voted for this shut down.
Here's the roll:
https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2023/roll519.xml
@drrjv she often seems to ask questions that come across as someone not familiar with the case material, who didn't do their homework and read the briefs.
That might be good for journalists who need to be the voice of the people, asking questions that have straightforward answers, but it's concerning when they're coming from a judge in the process of working on a case.
She often seems like she should have a better understanding of the case before she starts spending time asking such basic questions.
@cliftonmr you are incorrect :)
Speakers don't get to just set up rules on their own, unilaterally. The House has a running set of rules that have been agreed to by the entire chamber.
So no, he didn't set the rules this way.
@Nonilex right, and then McCarthy went on to list the conservative positions that Gaetz voted to squash, from reining in spending through border security.
He didn't just make the bald accusation. He provided examples to back his claim.
@Nonilex well... they did
@jamesmarshall what?
In this vote the Democrats voted with the GOP extremists.
volkris
boosted
just a reminder that the Nobel Prizes are being announced this week so if you get a phone call from country code +46, don't let it go to voice mail or they'll move along to the next best person.
@carolleisa wow, what a moron.
But then, the CFPB should have never been founded on such shaky legal terms in the first place, and it's not like Warren was a powerful politician in a position to fix these issues since or anything.... right?
@mnutty well you're wrong :)
The fundamental design of the US government involves checks and balances wherein the executive has to constantly ask the representatives of the people for permission to execute, to act sometimes against people when it comes to law enforcement and to generally gain authorization to redirect society's resources in directions that are hopefully beneficial.
The shutdown was a creation of the idea that the president isn't a dictator, that he is restrained by the democratic process.
EVERY limit on budgetary authority contains a threat of a shutdown as the president cannot legally spend money without authority.
This is core to civics, core to the design of the US government.
In a chain without privacy (post? no, simultaneous) the evidence of innocent is obvious and out in the open and incontestable.
That's a feature.
YES if you want to hide your transactions then don't use a system that puts everything out in the open. That's just common sense.
But like anything else on the internet, or in normal life, a person might decide that convenience or value or whatever else outweighs privacy for some transactions, and from time to time will make that trade.
The open ledger proves innocence in this case. That has value!
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:
