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 big problem with the #Biden State of the Union speech was that instead of speaking to the whole country about the whole country, it focused on speaking to his own choir about himself and his reelection.
That's why people are criticizing it as a campaign speech.
If you're a Biden supporter, realize that the speech did not invite non-supporters, including independents, to join in his efforts. It appealed only to those already on board, which is not productive in terms of actually getting those efforts done.
In other words, if you're in favor of what Biden was calling for, you too should be critical that this #SOTU won't help get those things done.
The speech seemed focused on helping nobody... except Joe Biden's personal reelection.
@manton exactly.
We live in an era when swaths of the US can't agree on facts even when they watch the same media.
It's so important to recognize that fundamental issue, and the role it plays in shaping our times.
If we can't agree on the color of the sky that we're both looking at, is it any surprise that folks can't agree on the actually complicated questions?
@mbkriegh each politician should be held accountable in their own right, not compared to anyone else. That's how we encourage each one to be better, and how we encourage parties as a whole to be better, so we can hopefully have better choices in the future.
Heck, Biden dipped into promoting some of Trump's campaign rhetoric. Had many speakers on the left not been doing that for years we might not be facing the possibility of Trump at this point.
We need to be calling these people out, not giving them a pass because they're better than alternatives in matchups that they themselves help make.
@JeremyMallin well, I'd say in the states it just means many different things to many different people, same as how liberal and conservative have also come to mean such different things.
It's just generally best to avoid that kind of terminology when talking about #USPolitics unless one is sure that their audience is all on the same page with a single definition.
I find it better to talk about positions instead of labels at this point.
Just for one example, consider the huge numbers of libertarians who are completely opposed to the Libertarian Party. Those terms have simply changed meaning over time.
@eurobubba not at all.
This is consistent with the VRA in that both highlighted the lack of legal process. In both cases the Court pointed out that punishment was being doled out without a legal finding of guilt.
Gerrymandering is a little more complicated, but even that's similar: without a legal process for ruling, there's no legal process for blocking it.
@x_minus_t@mstdn.social funny that you jumped to "make me a sammich"
That's some projection there.
@manton it's one of those cases where different people end up walking away with opposite perceptions.
No, he said so many things in the speech that seemed political rather than magisterial, flat out false, out of touch, and the delivery itself came across as uninspired.
He blamed others for his own failures to enact policy, just highlighting that he seems incapable of living up to his promises.
His priorities seemed out of touch with the mainstream, leaving us to wonder, what was this? Just a campaign speech?
That's not what a president is supposed to be doing with a State of the Union presentation.
But most importantly, whether out of ignorance or lack of talent, he seemed unqualified for the office of president.
@manton wow, that is a bizarre take
When you start having to look at the arguments that were rejected by the court, you're not on high ground.
You can look at the dissents all you want. You're looking at argument set didn't work out. Why in the world would you look at them without further explanation?
Those were the losing arguments. Why in the world would you stake your claims on losing arguments?
@harleygold No, as an appellate court they could not have bypassed the lawsuit.
They could have chosen not to be involved, they could have chosen to declare that the lower court ruling wasn't worth their interest.
But I wouldn't say that's the same thing is bypassing the lawsuit.
@Ralph058 keep in mind that this is not just any old committee, but one where they don't need just votes but actual explanations and arguments to be percentage to the public.
If you think things were complicated with only nine judges to deliberate between, just wait for thirteen.
It would make hearing and deciding cases just that much more complicated as it would involve that much more running between offices to trade drafts and vie for coalitions.
You know the phrase too many cooks? It applies here.
@AmenZwa I mean, he's already lost Supreme Court battles.
So much for that conspiracy theory.
@BohemianPeasant the misunderstanding is that no, the Constitution doesn't impose that bar. It only authorizes the bar, but the Constitution itself always relies on others to impose such stipulations.
For any constitutional concept to take force there has to be some functionary interested in giving it life, whether Congress through, say, EC processes or the executive branch through execution of law, or courts through judicial processes.
The Constitution does NOT impose the disability. It can't. It's only a piece of paper spelling out rules.
It's up to others to impose the rules, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court recognized in its ruling.
@harleygold I think a problem is that so many eyes aren't actually on the Supreme Court but rather on media outlets and others who give out flat out false versions of what the Court has done.
These pages are full of people promoting claims about court cases that just don't match the actual rulings.
So many now view the Court as puppeteers not because of anything they've done but because viral clickbait articles lay out this dramatic version of events that's not quite how any of this works.
I wish more went right to the source instead of buying the stories spun by these third parties.
@6G@mastodon.social wow, no, that's not what the ruling said.
The ruling was specifically about whether a *state* can intervene in a federal election based on the constitutional provision.
It doesn't mean the feds can't step in to deal with the federal matter. The Court specifically pointed to federal laws on the books to handle insurrection.
@Hyolobrika right, but that doesn't change that the US president is determined by definition, not by claim.
If folks want to move away from the presidential system and start implementing orders from someone who doesn't qualify for the office as per the qualifications that determine who holds that office, fine, but they're still by definition not following the US president.
The reason this matters is that legions of separate people with their own interests and desires sign on to the system that supports the actual president. Any other actor wanting to claim power is up against that giant mountain all built around the presidency.
And someone who's not president will face that tremendous obstacle even if they claim or even believe themself to be president.
Because by definition they're not.
@lin11c No, the ruling was focused entirely on what a state can't do rather than what an insurrectionist can do.
That's how US courts work: since the question was whether the state could act, that's what the Court answered, not the separate question about whether an insurrectionist can be president.
It wasn't the question before the Court, so the Court didn't answer that question.
@IAmDannyBoling @Stinson_108 @atrupar
@jeffowski ah, yes, a vast right-wing conspiracy, you say?
@Legit_Spaghetti sounds like you're putting words in his mouth with regard to the problem he's identifying.
The stuff Trump says is awful enough without stretching it like that and losing the high road.
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:
