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
@BLTpizza such a requirement is not present in the statute...
This comes out of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. The SCOTUS was bound by the law passed by our democratically elected representatives.
@bebadefabo I think it's more that they focused on the direct effects while leaving the indirect effects outside the scope of their goals.
They didn't walk away so much as they were never on board with going after the indirect effects in the first place.
volkris
boosted
#BrianKilmeade ― Sure Trump's war against Iran might have been a mistake, and maybe mistakes were made when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, but what matters is how you come back from mistakes! Now he just needs to bomb the hell out of Iran to keep them from declaring a victory! #USPolitics #Iran
But I'm not talking about passing new laws. I'm talking about the laws as they are today.
My point is that they followed the rules, the laws as they are. Might they change the laws for the worse in the future? Sure, but that's a different discussion.
That they followed the rules/laws is itself meaningful.
Perhaps that reflects more on the people you associate with?
The MAGA people I know are quite diverse, and few show that sort of trait. I guess I get out more?
*shrug* Lots of voters feel that way so he represents their perspectives as a representative figure.
Welcome to democracy.
You've never worked for a boss you disagree with? You might be a rare case of that! :)
But no, a ton of professionals will stick it out in part so they can do their best to minimize the harm to systems they care about until there's a new administration.
There's also the issue of, For so many in government there isn't exactly somewhere else to go. It's not like just flipping burgers at the next joint down the road; there's only one US government, and if you resign from it there isn't another program to switch in to.
So two reasons not to stage mass migrations: prevention of things getting worse and nowhere else to go anyway.
I think you're overlooking that so many people honestly don't know what they voted for, what's happening, or how any of this works in the first place.
So many stand up every day and promote a version of current events completely divorced from reality.
It's not that they're sociopaths that are fine with this. It's that they believe this isn't happening--they're constantly fed a different story--and you'd have to be a sociopath to want something different.
They believe the MAGA stance is successfully helping people, and you'd have to be a sociopath NOT to want to help people like that.
This is the lesson the world didn't learn about the US for about twenty years now: The president is not the country or even the government. He speaks ONLY for his administration, and only for the moment.
We don't have a parliamentary system.
The US stance, above the administration stance, comes from consensus between branches. The position of one branch is only that branch, and is not reliable.
Trust what's codified in law and regulation.
Has it been passed as treaty? No? Then it's nothing but a handshake agreement between individuals, without the reliable backing of the country.
From JCPOA through climate agreements, this was all foreseeable, but you'd never know from the portrayal by international news organizations.
"Trump promised"
Sure, and Trump has caused himself a lot of trouble by showing that his promises aren't worth much anyway.
Israeli officials are smart enough to know this.
We'll see if it actually pays out.
Eyeing a payout is different from actually receiving a check.
Wow, that's a leap.
An out of context quote expressing an analysis of political approach to an associated company actually causing harm and removing rights?
The one does not coherently follow the other.
Bezos has already made his money. Punishing Amazon is not going to change his lot in life.
It is missing, because it's not actually relevant.
The Court wasn't asked whether passing the VRA was hard. It was asked to weigh in on what the VRA and Constitution say, what the law of the United States says, with regard to this case.
The difficulty of passing the VRA has no bearing on that question.
To be clear, by rules I'm not talking about what might be a norm or a good idea or a gentleman's agreement. I'm talking about the actual laws that govern these things.
The norms may say redistricting only happens after a census, but the laws aaround districting provide for them at any point.
Just because you don't follow many people doesn't mean you don't interact.
The two are independent of each other.
Sure, but then, the population through our representatives is saying that's OK.
If we're OK with him skipping the explanation, then I guess it's not really worth his time anyway.
Exactly.
Joyce Vance may not be aware that idiotic speakers in conservative media have been pushing for this kind of thing for months if not years, and they can barely name functions of the DoJ in the first place. These are not strategic or informed people.
It is good that the article acknowledges that the no prosecution over official acts doctrine doesn't cover unofficial acts, though. So many people were mislead on that point, saying it was absolute immunity when it was the opposite.
@Nonilex most importantly, it looked like Paxton was going to win.
So, as he often does, Trump hitched his wagon to the side that was already going to win so he could claim the win for himself.
#Trump doesn't really care about all of that other stuff. He's spineless and oblivious to anything of substance.
He just wants the superficial chance to proclaim himself a winner again in front of his adoring crowd, and all of that factual stuff is just irrelevant annoyance.
@christopherbrown as a senator he wouldn't have that authority.
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:
