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
@dalfen Well there are examples like when he said his advisors didn't give him alternatives for the Afghanistan pull out, when the advisors later said they did, that provide exactly that sort of evidence
@kern really?
"My memory is so bad I let you speak" doesn't come across as particularly, well, coherent.
@Free_Press I mean, right. That's how the democratic process works.
No one is in charge, there is no authoritarian at the top of the GOP caucus, rather the independent representatives are accountable to their voters.
@josemurilo the energy is being spent to buy bitcoin.
It's not that bitcoin consumes it but that people are willing to trade it for the value they get for Bitcoin.
@ianhecht I mean, it just goes to prove that Florida's GOP did not ban those books.
The solution debunks the claimed problem.
@dalfen again, they didn't say they didn't find a crime.
And they also didn't say there wasn't enough evidence to warrant the conviction of any crime.
That's just not what document said, even your own highlighted parts.
All they said was that they didn't believe they were in a position to present it at trial, which is an entirely different matter.
@katrinakatrinka in the US system the president is held accountable by Congress and through the election process.
That sounds to me like you are suggesting the unelected attorney general is somehow easier to hold accountable, but how would that be?
@dalfen the post above said there was no crime.
So that's what I'm addressing.
As far as I can tell there was a crime, but at least we can say that the report doesn't say otherwise.
The report says it's not strategically advantageous to charge a crime, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.
@lauren I really don't care about Trump.
Trump is awful. But Biden is as well. But let's hold Biden accountable for his own missteps regardless of Trump.
Maybe if we recognize how awful Biden is the Democrats might propose a candidate who's better.
I see no benefit in indulging the morons that Biden has surrounded himself with. It's not like that somehow makes Trump better or worse, it just means we are kidding ourselves about this group of idiots.
Of course it is. And we can tell because we can quote the rulebook that very very plainly and simply states that the executive power is vested in the president.
It is simple for a very very good reason, because that allows for accountability that is so important, which is exactly why it is made so simple.
You bring up power but you get it exactly backwards: It is because we need to fight against power that it is made so simple, so that there isn't room for complication through which an authoritarian would try to escape the checks on power.
It is BECAUSE we need to restrain power that it is made simple that the executive power is in the hands of the president who stands to be impeached the moment the executive branch does wrong.
No complication. No room for the president to claim innocence or ignorance or independence. It is his responsibility to obey the law, and if he doesn't, boom, he's out.
To make up this idea of an independent agency is to relieve the president of accountability, it is to promote exactly the authoritarianism that it sounds like you and I are both worried about.
It is exactly why it is simple, and exactly why we need to emphasize that simplicity, that is core to the design of the US government
The president must be held accountable for his branch of government, including the DOJ. That is how the US government is designed, simply and unquestionably, to avoid the chaos of an unaccountable department.
@dalfen Even that is a huge leap from saying there was no crime.
This is a statement about prosecutorial discretion, not about innocence.
The investigator concluded that they weren't on a strategic high ground, regardless of criminality.
@mjf_pro looking at the actions of this administration I really don't know where you get the impression that Biden is surrounded by well intentioned intelligent people.
In case after case, everywhere from legal proceedings through rhetorical public appearances, the people surrounding Biden seem both corrupt and pretty damn stupid.
From weak arguments before the courts through really counterproductive policy positions published in the federal register, this administration isn't filled with particularly competent people.
@dalfen No, that's not what your highlighted part says.
It absolutely does not say there was no crime. It says they don't believe they could successfully prosecute the crime.
@katrinakatrinka I go the other way around.
I'm not trying to simplify a legal complexity but rather trying to point out that it is simple and we don't need to complexify it.
The president simply has control of the executive branch. We don't need to make that more complicated by imagining independent legal institutions within the executive branch with all the complications that that would entail.
We can simply point out that it's all up to the president and he has to be held accountable for everything that happens in his branch.
It overcomplicates things to try to grant some sort of independent agency within the branch somehow divorced from the constitutional order that defines it. We just don't need to jump through those hoops.
@BeAware@social.beaware.live Well again, their approach is different from ActivityPub in that they don't emphasize the role of admins, making it about users first over and above instances.
Anyway, in theory they have released all of their software open source on git, if I recall correctly, so anybody is welcome to start their own system.
Of course, practicality is a different matter...
@BeAware@social.beaware.live
Ah, well then you might find this two second statement of their goals interesting. It's one of the things I'm really interested in since like you I find Mastodon a bit underdeveloped for shaping experience.
> As with Web search engines, users are free to select their aggregators. Feeds, App Views, and search indices can be provided by independent third parties, with requests routed by the PDS based on user configuration.
I know that's just the elevator pitch without details, but I remembered coming across it and figured I'd share the link.
@danwentzel The 14th Amendment is about taking office, not about ballot access.
And the question before the court today isn't even about that, but as an appeal of a state court ruling the question is whether the state court acted properly.
Ballot access is a matter of state law that the 14th Amendment is silent on.
It's important to realize the question the Court is actually grappling with so as not to misinterpret its conclusion.
@dcdeejay well they don't have to bridge that divide, and the general principle is that courts should not be bridging divides that aren't in front of them.
The question today isn't even whether Trump can or can't remain on the ballot. The appeal is to consider whether the CO court made an error in it's own judgment about ballot access.
That's it!
They aren't even supposed to be re-litigating the lower court's finding, but just reviewing the process to make sure it was followed correctly as per state law.
So eligibility to serve is a question even farther out of their present jurisdiction to tackle.
@katrinakatrinka well I'm trying to find the common ground!
That's why I'm asking things like, can we at least agree that there are three branches? We share that reality, right?
@darnell again I have to emphasize that this is an appeal of the CO state court decision implementing CO state law with regard to CO ballot access.
Colorado, like all states, is perfectly free to run ballots however they'd like, subject to few constraints. They don't need SCOTUS approval to remove Trump from their ballots.
The question before the Court is whether the CO court followed CO rules about ballot access.
That's the question the Court has jurisdiction to answer and the one it accepted.
Appeals are very different from initial hearings.
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:
