LogFAQs > #948294536

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit Challenging Biden's Victory
SKARDAVNELNATE 12/13/20 6:00:03 PM #91:	darkknight109 posted... My hypothetical was if Texas was able to prove their case, which alleged that voting laws in respondent states were changed illegally and allowed too many people to vote. In your scenario Texas was able to prove its case. The case demonstrated that voting laws were changed illegally. Due to the changes being made illegally the ballots voters were sent were invalid to use for voting. Because people thought they already voted they didn't vote using valid ballots. In your scenario who disenfranchised the voters? Was it the court for ruling in favor of Texas? Was it Texas for bringing the case? Was it the state for sending voter invalid ballots? My conclusion is that the state was at fault while Texas and the court are holding the state accountable. This conclusion is based on your premise of Texas being able to prove its case and what that would mean. darkknight109 posted... You're arguing a hypothetical where the respondent states changed their voting laws and allowed not enough people to vote. One is the intent of their actions. The other is the consequence on their actions. I'm not substituting a different intent. I'm drawing a different conclusion about the consequence. darkknight109 posted... The laws weren't changed illegally, which has been established dozens of times in court You quoted something where I was still discussing your scenario in which Texas was able to prove its case. I can only guess at how you think the actual events have a bearing on a hypothetical where things turned out differently. darkknight109 posted... Please define what the phrase "every issue" means in your definition and how it differs from "all situations". That's a tough one. I'm not sure my position is that they mean different things. I wasn't considering whether they were interchange in the part you quoted. I was paying more attention the wording elsewhere. darkknight109 posted... Never said it was and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. Are we just going the repeat the whole bit again? My thoughts on the cartoon are as follows: I think the cartoonist is making fun of someone but I'm not sure who. Clearly the issue represented by the 2 sides is not one where you can meet halfway on. One possibility is the cartoonist is making fun of moderates being indecisive about which political group to align with. In this depiction the moderate doesn't form an opinion about a given issue but simply approaches it the same way they approach all issues. The other possibility is the cartoonist is demonstrating how political extremists see moderates and are unable to understand them. I hereby acknowledge that you did not say that this is your interpretation of the image. I am going off my own interpretation of the image to understand in what way Muscles' comments reminded you of it. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:948294536] in Supreme Co... [t:79169274]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>My hypothetical was if Texas was able to prove their case, which alleged that voting laws in respondent states were changed illegally and allowed too many people to vote.</quote>In your scenario Texas was able to prove its case. The case demonstrated that voting laws were changed illegally. Due to the changes being made illegally the ballots voters were sent were invalid to use for voting. Because people thought they already voted they didn't vote using valid ballots. In your scenario who disenfranchised the voters? Was it the court for ruling in favor of Texas? Was it Texas for bringing the case? Was it the state for sending voter invalid ballots? My conclusion is that the state was at fault while Texas and the court are holding the state accountable. This conclusion is based on your premise of Texas being able to prove its case and what that would mean. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>You're arguing a hypothetical where the respondent states changed their voting laws and allowed not enough people to vote.</quote>One is the intent of their actions. The other is the consequence on their actions. I'm not substituting a different intent. I'm drawing a different conclusion about the consequence. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>The laws weren't changed illegally, which has been established dozens of times in court</quote>You quoted something where I was still discussing your scenario in which Texas was able to prove its case. I can only guess at how you think the actual events have a bearing on a hypothetical where things turned out differently. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Please define what the phrase "every issue" means in your definition and how it differs from "all situations".</quote>That's a tough one. I'm not sure my position is that they mean different things. I wasn't considering whether they were interchange in the part you quoted. I was paying more attention the wording elsewhere. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Never said it was and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.</quote>Are we just going the repeat the whole bit again? My thoughts on the cartoon are as follows: I think the cartoonist is making fun of someone but I'm not sure who. Clearly the issue represented by the 2 sides is not one where you can meet halfway on. One possibility is the cartoonist is making fun of moderates being indecisive about which political group to align with. In this depiction the moderate doesn't form an opinion about a given issue but simply approaches it the same way they approach all issues. The other possibility is the cartoonist is demonstrating how political extremists see moderates and are unable to understand them. I hereby acknowledge that you did not say that this is your interpretation of the image. I am going off my own interpretation of the image to understand in what way Muscles' comments reminded you of it. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1