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
@jawarajabbi no, SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to kick Trump off the ballot even if they wanted to.
So no, there's no chance of that. It's just not their role in the election process.
@sjgenco@me.dm If the Constitution was clear then there wouldn't be so many people arguing back and forth making different claims about its meaning.
No, the Constitution is not clear.
And it begs the question to claim it is for the sake of confirming one's biases, and it does society no good to set that fight up like that.
@icare4america we'll see..
Personally I wouldn't be so excited about betting on a loser like Trump.
I seriously don't know why Republicans would look at a guy who made such giant strategic missteps that he gave away the last election and lost to someone like Biden, and then say, yeah that's the guy we want to run this year.
@1031 not allowed?
The members of Congress don't ask for permission. They can do what they want, and they were absolutely able to conduct that review regardless of the mayhem.
And the New York Times isn't exactly authoritative these days.
The joint session of Congress had the exact same ability to review before and after the events, so they judged that they had sufficiently reviewed the matter.
I don't know who you think would have been there preventing review, but that's just not how the process works.
They were perfectly able to conduct their review, and that's how the EC vote turned out, with a resounding loss for Trump.
No matter what excuses he might try to be making for his loss.
@icare4america Oh it happens often.
Heck there are even court cases brought about because EC voters go against state vote results.
I'm sorry you're listening to some sources that are misleading you, misinforming you, but yeah, you need to find some better sources.
@moira see my experience says the complete opposite of what you're saying here, so *shrug*
Even the article that you linked to doesn't support what you're claiming here, which tells me that my experience isn't just some outlier. Even your own article reflects my experience that runs counter to what you are claiming.
So it comes across as gaslighting.
@icare4america that the EC votes were backed by state returns doesn't mean the EC doesn't matter, it shows that there's even more reason to accept the EC result.
No the EC is not some mere formality. The electors can vote for anyone they want to. And they voted against Trump because he was just that much of a loser, the guy who made decisions that ruined him in the eyes of the electors.
None of this other stuff, 40,000 votes or whatever else you want to throw at the wall matters in the US election system.
Presidents are selected by the EC vote, and that's the long and short of it. Everything else is a distraction.
It really is too bad that Trump doesn't seem to have understood how the US government functions, so he lost.
@1031 The session was allowed to review before counting the EC votes.
And this is what it came up with during that review.
"They" are fabricating insurrection based on political strategy, because they think they get ahead by doing it, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the vote itself.
Trump lost the EC vote regardless of any of the political nonsense that has happened before or since.
@whatabout what goal post did I move?
My stance is the same as ever, just pointing out the rules as they are.
@moira That's not what the article says, though. It's not what they actively want.
So you're setting up a strawman argument to misrepresent the stance and inject your different, sensational version that, I imagine, supports your cause even though it's not actually factually correct.
That really doesn't do any of us any good.
@SteveThompson Right but Trump lawyers have said a awful lot of really really dumb things over the years, so I don't know why anyone would start believing them now.
@Phil again, just because some government puts some law on the books doesn't mean that law is enforceable, and states have no authority to bind their electors, no matter what they might write in their statutes.
Electers remain free to vote however they want, even if in some cases they face penalties for voting differently from how the statute would direct them to vote.
Just because a state says something is true doesn't mean it actually is true. Binding of electors is unconstitutional.
volkris
boosted
The sky was looking ominous so I asked Siri, “Surely, it’s not going to rain today?”
And she replied, “Yes it is, and don’t call me Shirley.”
That was when I realized I’d left my phone in Airplane mode.
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com fortunately Trump doesn't have judges, and we ought to be pointing out just what a moron he is for saying such a thing, not getting upset about the moronic thing that is clearly untrue anyway.
Trump is a liar. And a loser. Let's keep on emphasizing that, as that really is the way to counter him.
@Phil No, states don't have legal authority to bound their electors to the candidate that want.
Yes, there is permission on the books for states to punish electors that vote differently, but the electors are still free to vote differently, to accept that punishment if they want, they are still unbound to the state election result.
And even that idea is a bit questionable with a lot of people arguing that states have no authority to exact such punishments, even if that is currently the state of the rules.
@whatabout in the US system the president is chosen by the EC. There was no fraud in the EC vote. Every single vote can be verified, with each elector confirming that they did in fact vote the way it has been recorded.
You can talk all you want about other elections, but they don't matter. It all comes down to the EC in the US system of choosing a president.
Talk fraud all you want. Talk space aliens. Whatever you want. But at the end of the day, the EC voted against Trump so he lost fair and square.
In the US system of choosing presidents ONLY the EC matters.
@bommo4444 sure, that and all the other reasons.
Actually pretty much all the other reasons except for that.
Carry on.
@jezebelley@kzoo.to Oh yeah?
Please show me a party platform that embraces book burning.
@jamusb@mastodon.sdf.org those nutty conspiracy theories just don't really hold water when you know how the US government actually functions.
But the thing is, if x offered no value people wouldn't use it. If it offered not enough value people wouldn't use it.
Even ignoring the relative part, that people use it means it offers them value.
And so the other social media platforms continue to exist only because their users value them.
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:
