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
@stevevladeck.bsky.social But Alito addresses your concern in his concurrence by emphasizing the timing aspect.
He says that effectively the state courts have run out of time, so to wait around for another appeal to process would have been no appeal at all.
Alito cites precedence based on such concerns for timing, so in his mind this is settled the other direction.
What does a quote post of a quote post do? Well, we'll see.
Well, this aged. Less than a week ago Kilmeade was yelling at an administration official who dared say that #Iran still had a nuclear program: "Everyone knows #Trump destroyed that!"
Now he's embracing the existance of the program as [one] justification for the attack on the country.
These idiots don't know what they're doing.
It’s just an example of how #Trump is not the leader that folks hold him up to be. His supporters pick and choose what they believed from him, and ...
I often find that it's important to go directly to the ruling instead of quoting some reporter writing about the ruling, because so often they get the story completely backwards.
In any case, what you wrote there gets it backwards🙂
The way the US system works is not about shielding from lawsuits but about actively providing access to federal courts. Access is provided through law. If you want to go to federal court then you have to cite a federal law that grants you that access.
To put it another way, the default is not permitted unless denied, it is denied unless permitted.
What the Court said here is that the law granting access was explicitly not available by the language of the law. It wasn't about shielding, again that's not how this works, it was about just not providing that remedy.
If we would like that remedy to be available then Congress can provide it any time they want to.
I repost these to really illustrate how incredibly stupid the people driving public policy in the US are these days.
People with such superficial, black and white thinking that they can't even imagine that there might be something in between all or nothing.
I honestly think these people with such influence on US policy don't have the intellectual resources to do any better.
No Grand conspiracies, no deep strategies, just really really dumb people at the helm.
#SeanHannity: How do you compromise with mandatory voter ID vs no ID?#USPolitics
@wjmaggos But that makes me as being like saying the point of screwdrivers is to replace hammers.
No, centralized and decentralized platforms both have strengths and weaknesses, offering fundamentally different functionality, just as Twitter and Facebook offered fundamentally different user experiences.
They absolutely can and should coexist, each being specialized to what they do well, and giving users access to both environments.
They compliment each other.
Well most importantly, right-wing commentators don't know how the legal system works or how to read SCOTUS opinions.
Lacking that knowledge, they couldn't stick to the ruling if they wanted to.
They stick to narratives about supposed hypocrisy because that's the level of intellectual development that they have, kind of a 5th grade level.
SCOTUS isn't protecting Republicans in power here. The law against suits was passed by Congress long ago. SCOTUS had nothing to do with it.
But yes, this is a great reason to be skeptical of the quasi-private nature as that makes quite a mess of things.
If USPS is at the point of conspiring to steal an election by refusing to deliver ballots then a lawsuit is hardly going to stop them.
Congress passed the law against such suits a long time ago...
SCOTUS isn't in charge of the USPS. This is a matter of law, specifically statutes passed by Congress.
Congress wrote a law saying USPS can't be sued for this stuff. If you have a question about that, well, ask congresspeople how they expect that to work out.
Keep in mind that the Supreme Court ruling simply recognizes the law that Congress wrote specifically to ensure that such a lawsuit can't be brought.
So, it's a matter for Congress to address if they wish. They can update the statute at any time to close that exception.
The ruling wasn't particularly insane. The law may be, in which case Congress should fix it, but the ruling just applied the law.
Bingo, this #SOTU was about showmanship, not communicating.
#Trump was putting on a show for his audience, his supporters, nothing more. That's why it wasn't worth watching for anyone outside of that audience, why it wasn't worth factchecking, and why it went so long.
Might as well factcheck a concert performance or complain that the musicians didn't cut their set short.
It was obvious that that's what it was going to be, and it was.
#Trump turned the Well of the House into a stage from which he could perform for his adoring crowd, and they got exactly the show they wanted.
The thing is, you absolutely can enshrine that into law, and SCOTUS is happy to recognize that reality.
As the line goes, government has the social monopoly on violence. That's core to what government IS, the entity that promises to commit acceptable acts of violence so members of the public hopefully won't.
So yes, we have laws enshrining everything for prisons through executions through use of military through taxation, and on and on.
In reality, yes, law is largely about violence or else, without penalties, they'd have no teeth.
We have to start with that realization before talking about how best to use that enshrined harm.
The key is to emphasize that fascism isn't culturally normal.
I mean yes, everybody lives with the outcomes of the dice that we all roll when we vote.
What of it?
Trump is constantly refuted by his minions. He constantly makes pronouncements that don't actually come to pass because he's a joke and everyone around him knows it. They all just use him.
Look at all these trade deals that he announced that didn't actually turn out. Look at all these peace plans that he announced when there was no peace afterwards. Look at all these laws that he announced that didn't actually get passed the way that he said they would work.
The guy is a joke, and everyone around him knows it and they just use him for staging and then they ignore him and do what they want to do anyway.
Unfortunately so many people voted for him because they were convinced that he was this great leader. Unfortunately his opposition didn't bother to tell them What a loser he is.
There's a good chance. Even sadder is that he's just pushing buttons, too damn stupid to know he's even doing it.
And then he'll get all huffy and blame someone else.
@faab64 He just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Is he real? Sure. He's just as real as any other idiot armchair quarterbacking based on what their buddies tell them.
@SPF are you kidding?
Trump constantly attempts to communicate with the public in long form speaking. It's part of his narcissism. And it just doesn't matter.
In theory you might have a point, but in reality? It doesn't apply to this president because talking at length is pretty much all he can do, whether he makes sense or not.
There's no reason to listen to this. You can listen to him ramble any day of the week, so don't waste time on this one.
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:
