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
You are expressing exactly the misunderstanding that I'm trying to highlight there.
Constitution holding him accountable? No, that's exactly what I'm trying to point out, this is not about anything holding anyone accountable any more than the definition of water holding accountable people who say this bucket of rocks is full of water.
There's no holding accountable. It's not a functionary or mechanical statement. The presidency is defined by the Constitution. If you don't meet the definition of being president, then you are not president as per the Constitution.
There's no holding anybody accountable, no action, there's just a definition and then a question of whether or not you meet that definition.
At the moment Trump is president not because of any process but because he meets the constitutional definition of being president. It's not that the Constitution supports his presidency or anything like that, it's not a process, it's simply here's a definition, and this dude satisfies the details of that definition.
I know I'm repeating myself a couple times in this reply, but it's because you are highlighting exactly the thing I'm trying to clarify.
@virtuous_sloth also keep in mind that activities on the Senate floor tend to be pretty highly scripted. It's rare that anything happens that hasn't been already agreed to back in senators' offices.
Every once in awhile there will be uncertainty, but in general you even have senators from opposing parties getting together to write out the debates that they will deliver "against" each other. It's mostly for show as each Senator tries to score points in their own constituencies.
It's just natural, but we need to be aware that what we're watching is something of a pantomime.
@virtuous_sloth No, that is not the case.
In the Senate the rules are designed to seek consensus, to prevent any one senator to have that sort of control over the chamber.
People get this backwards a lot, and it's worth emphasizing that the politicians have interests in promoting that myth too. But basically, a senator can only direct the chamber with the consent of the chamber in general.
If a senator ever tries to do something that the chamber in general is not up for, the rest are able to vote and shut him down immediately.
But like I said, politicians love to be able to point fingers and pretend like they couldn't do anything about whatever's going on when otherwise they would have to take difficult votes.
That's how that myth gets promoted. But it's not true.
The Louisiana governor is not far right. He's pretty moderate from a state that's pretty diverse and therefore moderate, with candidates having to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters.
My impression is that the governor did a poor job of explaining the amendments, so people were confused by the language and so didn't support them.
Keep in mind, Louisiana has a long history of constitutional amendment because it has a government structure that's unique in the US given its unique history in the country.
@rhys I think you might be overestimating that growing folk hero idea.
The idea only seems to appeal to a pretty out there community that was already effectively marginalized for extremist ideas.
I don't think there's that much room for growth outside of that choir.
People seem not to understand that the presidency is defined by the Constitution; it's not subject to compliance, voluntary or otherwise.
I'm not the president by definition. It doesn't matter if I agree; it doesn't matter if I refuse to accept that I'm not the president; by definition I'm not because I don't fulfill the constitutional definition of what the president is.
All this talk about Trump refusing to accept an election or, in the last couple of days, saying he would take a third term misses that it's not up to him. He can think he's the president all he wants, but the Constitution, not Trump's beliefs, define whether or not he is the president.
I wish more people understood this because it's an important part of understanding how the US government is designed.
And it's an important part of ignoring #Trump trolling.
@MicroWave and many supporters try to draw attention to the argument that some of these people being laid off themselves threatened public health, so we're better off without them.
FDA was caught giving information that ran counter to what even their own experts were telling them about the health topics they were meant to be regulating, so it's good to see some accountability for that, even if long delayed.
@ll1t kind of a cutting off the nose to spite the face move.
@europesays this is really funny because the Greenland thing is likely a joke on everyone else who takes it seriously, so saying that it's a joke on Trump that he doesn't get it is kind of a joke on the people who would propose such a joke.
It's a really funny situation.
@mausmalone right, I had a similar reaction.
It's like, you use a hammer. That doesn't mean the hammer goes away; it means you used it.
No, that's not what happened, not what they ruled.
SCOTUS didn't void at all void Art2§4. It emphasized that the article is absolutely in force, but it has to be applied properly.
They were emphasizing Federalist writings, not ignoring them. But the reporting misreports legal issues so often it's no wonder people get this stuff backwards.
Read the ruling directly. The Court emphasized the importance of federal oversight of federal law.
@dbcurren.bsky.social there's nothing surprising or underhanded about this, though.
The administration tried to do unusual things, lower courts issued unusual rulings on unusual things, so of course appeals are bound to be other than usual.
That's especially understandable when #Trump promotes his actions as emergency.
Folks shouldn't let the dramatic narrative distract from the underlying correctness or incorrectness of the legal arguments.
@Nonilex No it is good because it is sorting a mess out.
When you put independent in quotes it's because that was never really a thing. It was always a giant mess with all sorts of legal and practical ramifications that were really negative, but nobody wanted to actually address the problems.
This is good that we're finally addressing it.
There is no such thing as an independent part of the executive branch. That's a contradiction.
@adwright depends on what experts you're listening to.
I've been hearing from a whole lot of professors and other researchers in the field trying to push back against hysteria around this topic because it's not helpful to their fields.
But yeah, it seems like the whole world is broken when people can't tell what's true and what's not, with no way to sort out whose claims are actually true.
Is Europe really so monolithic and homogeneous as to have one version of those things?
@sb there are an awful lot of experts offering really good content on substack.
A friend would embrace the value that the other friend is trying to share by providing that content.
A friend actually listens to what the other friend is sharing and judges based on content, not slamming based on not only the identity of the speaker, but the identity of the identity of the speaker.
@RickiTarr No I say you duty to consider alternate beliefs so you can be sure that they are lies and that what you believe is actually true.
That is, you need to do that if you want to have a higher level of confidence in what you believe, especially in what other people have convinced you of.
There's no alternative to the scientific method.
@flexghost You're falling for the myth that so many politicians sold us, that it was all McConnell's fault. We should not have bought into it then, and we should correct the record now to hold people accountable.
Senate rules do not allow any member, including the majority leader, to dictate direction like this. The Senate is free to completely ignore whatever the leader says. No member gets to override the rest of them.
But it was convenient for the rest of them to escape tough votes by just pointing the finger at this one guy.
A lot of senators who we keep reelecting were responsible for all of the things that you're complaining about here. We really need to emphasize that because they are escaping accountability every time they come up for re-election and get re-empowered.
Firstly, to emphasize it, we can show Americans that the legal process can support the cause of dealing with rapists.
But back to my response:
In a way that's my point.
Americans don't care... even though caring would get them closer to their goals. The point is to communicate to Americans why they should care.
The failure of the left goes hand in hand with Americans not caring about legal process. That needs to change, and it can change, if only the left would bother.
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:
