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
That's not what's happening. It is literally illegal to spend money that Congress has not authorized, and the administration is trying to figure out how the courts expect it to spend money that it doesn't have to spend.
This is a legal issue, plain and simple. The president would love to have a lot of extra spending authority, he just doesn't have it.
A lot of people don't realize that it's the complete opposite: it would be a crime to spend money that hasn't been authorized by Congress.
That's the issue here, with the Senate blocking funding, it is literally a crime to spend the money.
The UN backed him.
If it was a lie, it's quite the conspiracy theory to get the whole world on board with it...
I mean I remember the news reports showing video of the WMD that the UN was so concerned about.
To be frank, that sort of talk goes into moon landing conspiracy areas.
The funding legislative process is being blocked in the Senate, by Democrats, not in the House, by its Republican speaker.
This headline doesn't seem to understand US government procedures
I'd say the SCOTUS is MORE than happy to get rid of Trump since he causes them so many headaches. Why would they keep this thorn around?
If the most glaring example the article can come up with is their 2024 decision about ballot access, then it's a very weak thesis. That decision was pretty straightforward, that the judge below had run afoul of state election law, not Trump.
Meanwhile Trump supporters themselves say his statements mean he's not interested in pushing for a third term.
The Hill is promoting a wacky conspiracy theory here...
The Democrats' election successes yesterday really reflect how out of touch and unsophisticated mainstream conservatives are these days.
They don't understand the complexities of society, being rather stuck in a nice, comfortable echo chamber, and so they're unable to mount effective political campaigns with candidates that will attract votes from outside of the chamber.
It sets it up so that they rely on their opponents failing rather than themselves winning.
After all, that's how we ended up with #Trump being reelected, and that emphasizes that he don't really have this mandate he claims.
@zombywoof could just as easily say the other US courts are biased against the Trump administration. It's not a very useful comparison, especially considering timescales of the US judicial process.
But in the end, with the structure of the judicial system this isn't a clearcut way of looking at things, with lower courts bound by the past.
@huntingdon problem is, all too many people actually believe that's how it works!
And that explains so much about why we keep electing officials who are really bad at their jobs.
It's simply not true that the shutdown is the only point of leverage Democrats have over the #GOP.
That's not how #Congress works.
In particular, we've seen how fractured the Republicans are in the House, where Democrats can absolutely peel off a few members to gain majority on votes.
So that line about this shutdown being the only point of leverage is simply misleading political point-scoring.
@lcamtuf is the debate that Google submitted a report of a bug found by AI?
And, I guess, that they shouldn't recognize such bugs?
@ChrisHolladay all we have to do is to stop electing and reelecting them.
There doesn't need to be a law. There just needs to be better understanding of civics and current events among voters making those decisions.
That's not how the Court works, though. This is a question of law that will be argued by lawyers, regardless of Trump.
It doesn't matter one bit what Trump thinks. These are professional jurists who will make their best cases. for the Court to hear.
Yes, because I'm not a fascist!
Yeah, people can vote for dumb things. People can vote for fascists. If you really want to vote for these fascist policies, go for it. That's how democracy works. You can vote for a fascist if you want to.
Totally cool with it? Well I mean it's annoying to me. I think it's extremely ignorant the positions that you are taking. I think it's bad for society that you would take power away from workers like that. But I'm not an anarchist, I'm into that whole democracy thing, so you can vote fascist policies like rent control if you want to.
Totally cool? Well, I wouldn't say totally, but I accept that dumb people will vote for dumb things and that's how democracy works, that's how government works.
You want to vote for fascist things like rent control? That's your right. It annoys me for privileged people to vote for fascist things, but that's democratic government for you.
@RD4Anarchy there's no qualification.
If people want to vote for fascists they can vote for fascists. You don't have to say that, it's not like voting for a racist is different whether you voted for them or not.
If you want to vote for a fascist go for it!
@Lyle The problem is, even though this kind of thing is opposed by everybody, folks have dramatically different opinions on how to address it.
Emphasizing the problem doesn't help resolve the dispute over the cure.
@RD4Anarchy you say the rent control you experienced was voted in by the community, but you seem to be missing that I'm saying exactly that the community is welcome to vote it in!
When you point things like that out, it just sounds like you are completely missing what I'm saying. And I'm really trying to emphasize it, so I don't know what the disconnect is.
I'm saying something and you seem to be reading something completely different.
YES the community can vote it in. THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT
No, this gets the argument before the Court exactly wrong.
Both sides appearing before the Court agreed that "states have the right and the responsibility to regulate a practice that has been proven harmful to its victims." That isn't the argument here, so this editorial doesn't seem to have understood the issue.
SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to overturn the VRA, and in fact that is explicitly not what's being requested before the Court right now.
It was discussed during oral arguments, and despite what so many sensational headlines yelled, the movants before the Court specifically said they were NOT putting overturning VRA on the table.
Democracy dies when people fall for false headlines like that...
Following through to the actual TX SC decision, as best I can through the links, the ruling doesn't do what the article suggests.
This is the ruling, right? It's a clarification on Canon 4 related to activity outside of the judge's actual job, effectively related to the judge speaking in public.
So it wouldn't sanction discrimination against same-sex couples because it would operate outside authority.
If anyone has a different link, please share. I wish such articles would link to what they were talking about.
Following through to the actual TX SC decision, as best I can through the links, the ruling doesn't do what the article suggests.
This is the ruling, right? It's a clarification on Canon 4 related to activity outside of the judge's actual job, effectively related to the judge speaking in public.
So it wouldn't sanction discrimination against same-sex couples because it would operate outside authority.
If anyone has a different link, please share. I wish such articles would link to what they were talking about.
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:
