What did they do?TX Governor Greg Abbott (R) calling special session on SB7. It will pass so easily! TX Dems overplayed their hand.
And Tl;DR of the bill?
What did they do?TX Governor Greg Abbott (R) calling special session on SB7. It will pass so easily! TX Dems overplayed their hand.
They walked out so the legislature wouldn't have quorum and can't pass the bill.What did they do?
And Tl;DR of the bill?
Abbot is saying fuck no to that.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.
It was in 2003 when they fled to OK & NM over congressional redistricting.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.
Thanks for the clarification. I just remembered it being a long time ago, wasn't 100% sure whenIt was in 2003 when they fled to OK & NM over congressional redistricting.
Except that's not how this works.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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'?
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.