Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

Reader mode
Zachowon said:
What did they do?
And Tl;DR of the bill?
Click to expand...
They walked out so the legislature wouldn't have quorum and can't pass the bill.

It's a way the minority party can exercise power and obstruct. A minimum number of legislators need to be present to vote. So if they're outnumbered and want to protest, they leave. Now even if a majority supports it, it doesn't matter because they don't have quorum and can't hold a vote.

Last time this happened they fled to new mexico for a month, in the 90s I think.
 
Rocinante said:
They walked out so the legislature wouldn't have quorum and can't pass the bill.

It's a way the minority party can exercise power and obstruct. A minimum number of legislators need to be present to vote. So if they're outnumbered and want to protest, they leave. Now even if a majority supports it, it doesn't matter because they don't have quorum and can't hold a vote.

Last time this happened they fled to new mexico for a month, in the 90s I think.
Click to expand...
Abbot is saying fuck no to that.

I mean, that happened in GA as well, it didn't help
 
Rocinante said:
They walked out so the legislature wouldn't have quorum and can't pass the bill.

It's a way the minority party can exercise power and obstruct. A minimum number of legislators need to be present to vote. So if they're outnumbered and want to protest, they leave. Now even if a majority supports it, it doesn't matter because they don't have quorum and can't hold a vote.

Last time this happened they fled to new mexico for a month, in the 90s I think.
Click to expand...
It was in 2003 when they fled to OK & NM over congressional redistricting.
 
Megadeath said:
Genetic fallacy is about ignoring context, it's not meant for the idea that the source is never relevant when judging information because of course it's relevant and suggesting otherwise would be silly. In this case, it doesn't apply. Their past demonstration of bias and willingness to lie to support that bias on the subject of fraud is probative when considering the veracity of some new information they'reclaiming, related to that same issue of fraud, that also supports their bias and which doesn't have any evidence to support it.
Click to expand...
Except that's not how this works.

If they have made a claim, and supported it with evidence, you need to prove that exact claim/evidence is wrong.
 
I am a Canadian from the Great White North, a person who should hate Trump for his stupid tariffs antics. (And I still do but that's just business, nothing personal).

But I support him and if I were American I'd only vote for a Repub that he endorses and shares his views and positions. Like Ted Cruz and that Chad, DeSantis.

All others are Red Democrats or cock-sucking RINOs.

Damn I miss good ole' Stephen Harper. Best PM Canada has had in modern (post 2000 history). His was a gold age filled with Gov budget surpluses, withdrawal from false treaty like the Kyoto fraud, and he handled the Great Recession like a champ.
 
Vaermina said:
Except that's not how this works.

If they have made a claim, and supported it with evidence, you need to prove that exact claim/evidence is wrong.
Click to expand...
Except my point is it's not evidence. They're just quoting someone else making an unsubstantiated claim. A claim doesn't become evidence simply because a public figure makes it. If you do want to accept that standard of evidence though, I'm sure I can find hundreds of examples claiming there was no fraud. Or that trump is a criminal, the world is flat, the world's governments serve only at the pleasure of their lizard people overlords, or any other crazy theory you care to name. I'm curious too what claim you'd like for me to provide evidence of? That newsmax are untrustworthy on the issue of fraud? I mean, they litterally admitted to lying about that very subject, so that's not exactly hard.

Finally, none of that changes that you were wrong to suggest that the existence of the genetic fallacy means any judgement of the source of information is invalid. In a court case, her statement is a perfect example of inadmissible hearsay, whilst their past actions are admissible as evidence to character.
 
Megadeath said:
Finally, none of that changes that you were wrong to suggest that the existence of the genetic fallacy means any judgement of the source of information is invalid. In a court case, her statement is a perfect example of inadmissible hearsay, whilst their past actions are admissible as evidence to character.
Click to expand...

So, you seem to have a pretty stern standard of evidence. I'm curious as to whether or not you apply that to other political matters.

For example, Biden's oft-repeated campaign claims about Trump being racist.

Or for that matter, any claim any Democrat makes about any Republican or conservative being racist.

What are your thoughts on that?
 
LordsFire said:
So, you seem to have a pretty stern standard of evidence. I'm curious as to whether or not you apply that to other political matters.

For example, Biden's oft-repeated claims about Trump being racist.

Or for that matter, any claim any Democrat makes about any Republican or conservative being racist.

What are your thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
I think it's an irrelevant attempt to play what-aboutism, with no bearing on the specific issue being discussed or on the topic of the thread in general. I'd also hardly call needing more than a twitter post about what a third party said, from a source that admits to lying to support their bias, a particularly "stern" standard of evidence. In fact, it's not viable to accept a standard of evidence that would value the twitter post as evidence, as it would inherently lead to accepting as equally true a huge range of mutually contradictory positions. In other words, if you believe everything you read on twitter you'd be an idiot with some terrific cognitive dissonance.
 
Megadeath said:
I think it's an irrelevant attempt to play what-aboutism, with no bearing on the specific issue being discussed or on the topic of the thread in general.
Click to expand...

You're using whataboutism wrong.

It's whataboutism when you are bringing up other issues to distract from a issue.

It's not whataboutism when you are calling someone out on hypocrisy. Such as having a double standard or some such.

LordsFire said:
So, you seem to have a pretty stern standard of evidence. I'm curious as to whether or not you apply that to other political matters.
Click to expand...

They aren't deflecting from a issue. They are questioning your standards and if you apply them fairly.

Sorry, but I see people misusing whataboutism all the time and it bugs me.
 
Megadeath said:
I think it's an irrelevant attempt to play what-aboutism, with no bearing on the specific issue being discussed or on the topic of the thread in general. I'd also hardly call needing more than a twitter post about what a third party said, from a source that admits to lying to support their bias, a particularly "stern" standard of evidence. In fact, it's not viable to accept a standard of evidence that would value the twitter post as evidence, as it would inherently lead to accepting as equally true a huge range of mutually contradictory positions. In other words, if you believe everything you read on twitter you'd be an idiot with some terrific cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to play 'whataboutism.'

I'm not criticizing your standard of evidence.

I'm asking if it's actually your standard, or if you're just using it when it suits your political position, but won't use it when it doesn't.
 
Bigking321 said:
You're using whataboutism wrong.

It's whataboutism when you are bringing up other issues to distract from a issue.

It's not whataboutism when you are calling someone out on hypocrisy. Such as having a double standard or some such.



They aren't deflecting from a issue. They are questioning your standards and if you apply them fairly.

Sorry, but I see people misusing whataboutism all the time and it bugs me.
Click to expand...
No, we mean it the same way, we're just interpreting the post I responded to differently. To me it does read as an attempted deflection. No answer I could give would have any bearing on the validity of my previous posts or the issue being discussed, and any answer opens up obvious avenues for derailing in discussing that answer rather than the issue I was responding to.

LordsFire said:
I'm not trying to play 'whataboutism.'

I'm not criticizing your standard of evidence.

I'm asking if it's actually your standard, or if you're just using it when it suits your political position, but won't use it when it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Ok. Well, if you're not interested in derailing or whataboutism, I'm sure you will be happy and content to hear that yes I do set the standard of evidence higher than "Random unsupported twitter post from groups known to lie about the issue." in general, not just this specific case.
 
Megadeath said:
No, we mean it the same way, we're just interpreting the post I responded to differently. To me it does read as an attempted deflection. No answer I could give would have any bearing on the validity of my previous posts or the issue being discussed, and any answer opens up obvious avenues for derailing in discussing that answer rather than the issue I was responding to.


Ok. Well, if you're not interested in derailing or whataboutism, I'm sure you will be happy and content to hear that yes I do set the standard of evidence higher than "Random unsupported twitter post from groups known to lie about the issue." in general, not just this specific case.
Click to expand...

Okay then, let's take a different specific case.

Do you follow the Democrat Party Line that Republicans and Conservatives are racist?

If you do, do you have any evidence beyond 'Democrats said so'?
 
Megadeath said:
No, we mean it the same way, we're just interpreting the post I responded to differently. To me it does read as an attempted deflection.
Click to expand...

I mean if you just don't want to answer someone questioning if you judge everything by the same standards that's fine, no problem.

My point is that it's absolutely not whataboutism.
 
Bigking321 said:
I mean if you just don't want to answer someone questioning if you judge everything by the same standards that's fine, no problem.

My point is that it's absolutely not whataboutism.
Click to expand...
Really? How can you look at the post immediately before yours and not think this is a clear case of attempted deflection by spurious comparison. I.e. whataboutism.

EDIT; I'd also point out that I did in fact answer the question, further down in the post you quoted.

LordsFire said:
Okay then, let's take a different specific case.

Do you follow the Democrat Party Line that Republicans and Conservatives are racist?

If you do, do you have any evidence beyond 'Democrats said so'?
Click to expand...
  1. AFAIK, that isn't the official party line.
  2. I don't believe all republicans or conservatives are racist, or even that the majority are. I do believe that racism is more prevalent in those groups than in democrats and progressive groups, or in a random sample of the population.
  3. My belief is informed practically not at all by what democrats say. Rather, as in many large issues where data is incomplete and hard to get, I'm informed by personal experience and anecdote. For example, practically every example of comparing Obama to a monkey was conservative. The huge majority of examples of usage for "sand nigger" are conservative (Yes, there's one dramatic counter example but that doesn't really change the preponderance.) Even this site itself has a thread that could appropriately be renamed "What's so wrong with jew-bashing anyway?" and dozens of other examples of racism dressed up as "pro-white" rather than anti-other. Even people saying that it is true to say they're racist, but that there's nothing wrong with that and that their preferred defence against accusations of such is to say "So what?" That stands in stark contrast to what one finds on more left leaning or apolitical sites.
Now, I've played your silly game, perhaps you'll do me the equal kindness of explaining how that has any bearing on the value of the post I responded to as evidence, or the broader topic of election fraud and integrity?
 
Megadeath said:
Really? How can you look at the post immediately before yours and not think this is a clear case of attempted deflection by spurious comparison. I.e. whataboutism.
Click to expand...

Because it's still not whataboutism.

It's a line of questioning to see if you apply the same standard to other things or if you have a bias or double standard.

It may or may not be some kind of other fallacy but whataboutism it isn't.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top