@Gdanning's banner p




2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 13:41:38 UTC


User ID: 570



2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 13:41:38 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 570

As I said earlier, I am 100% confident that some Romney supporters voted for him out of anti-black animus, and some Obama supporters voted for him out of anti-white animus. The numbers are probably quite small in both instances. But I disagree that that is the source of the heat.

No: I want you to stop pouring your disdain on this community

We're not talking about that. I already conceded that point:

If ascribing motives to people who post here is considered against the rules, fine

What we are talking about is your assertion that your statement, ""Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is," was not a claim that I said that a group is bad.

It is something else entirely to go about darkly hinting that mere racism rather than legitimate reason is at the heart of any group's political concerns, but especially the group you're directly talking to, of which you are a part.

I, of course, did no such thing. I stated, not "darkly hinted", that some portion of the small number of people here who complain about Romney being mistreated, despite not liking Romney, might be motivated by racial animus. Hardly a claim that "mere racism rather than legitimate reason is at the heart of [this community's] political concerns." This place isn't 4chan, or whatever the latest analog thereto is.

then you need to speak plainly

I did. You need to read plainly.

I will mod you a second time

Don't bother. The level of discourse here has gone way downhill. If I could figure out how to cancel my membership, I would, so I would appreciate it if you did it for me, Thanks!

And it is true in very much the same spirit in which I didn't say that you said it.

Never mind. I guess you just want to play childish games.

I think if you double-check, you will find that "most" referred to people opposing Obama for all reasons, and that "some" referred to only a subset thereof.

so don't try the old "it's the fault of the Republicans for not picking nice guy candidates".

What does that have to do with anything? Neither OP nor I said anything about Romney's qualities as a candidate, nor about whose "fault" it is he lost, esp since he, like most candidates, lost because the fundamentals favored the other guy. Though of course the fact that Republicans have lost the popular vote in 8 of the last 9 elections might indicate that other factors, such as demographics, are at play as well.

Right. By means of ostensibly saying that the group was bad, right? Jesus, what is the point of claiming you didn't say what you said? It doesn’t undermine your broader point, which is that you don’t want people opining about the motives of members. That rule holds whether one thinks that the motive says something about the moral status of the person, the moral status of the motive, neither, or both.

As I said, only some people who are defending Mitt Romney are possibly motivated by anti-black racism. Just as some people who supported Obama were anti-white racists.

Dude, if you think "some of those people" refers to you specifically, that's on you.

Let's review: It is common knowledge that some people here express anti-black animus. Indeed, this site prides itself, and rightfully so, in giving users the freedom to express such sentiments. Indeed, as I understand it, that was one of the reasons for leaving reddit.

Now, OP noted that many people here seem to be very exorcised about Romney, and only Romney, supposedly being treated unfairly during the rough and tumble of a presidential campaign, despite the fact that they don't seem to be particularly enamored of Romney himself. It stands to reason, therefore, that they might be less upset that Romney lost than that Obama won. Now, there are many reasons why one might be opposed to Obama being reelected, but for those people here who display anti-black animus, one would have to willfully ignore human nature not to hypothesize that his race might be a factor. Which, again, does not make them bad people. After all, 100 years ago, most people were far more racist than that, but most people 100 years ago were not bad people; I assume that they were on average just as bad or good as people today.

"in order to show." What did you mean, if not that I was saying that the group is bad?

I didn't say that you said anyone is bad.

Yes, you did: "Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is."

If ascribing motives to people who post here is considered against the rules, fine. But I suggest clarifying that in the rules, because the rule you quote explicitly endorses ascribing motives to the common behavior of groups: "let's talk about the underlying reason why congressmen do this sort of thing regularly".

I didn’t say anyone is "bad." I was describing their possible motivations, not their moral value as people. For example, Trump was right to say that there were "very fine people on both sides" at Charlottesville; in fact, the vast majority were probably perfectly fine people. Even James Fields's actions were perfectly understandable, even if they were morally wrong. I have known of ]gang members who have done terrible things, but who are not terrible people](https://oaklandvoices.us/tag/lam-vo/page/2/). Whether a person's actions are wrong does not mean that the person is a "bad person," and indeed with some exceptions, claims about the moral worth of individuals are meaningless, at best.

  • -14

Because that is not what you said, and if you meant to imply that, you are mistaken; as I explained, there is indeed evidence for my statement. That does not, of course, mean that the statement is necessarily correct. But it is consistent with the evidence.

and practically everyone is guilty of the other to some extent or another

That doesn't make it ok, and the proper response when someone points out that one has fallen victim thereto is thanks.

  • I think very few people base their beliefs solely on evidence, nor do I think it's healthy to do so.

Perhaps, that is a red herring. The issue is whether it is unhealthy to base belefs on a complete lack of evidence, or on things that purport to be evidence, but are not.

I have evidence, because I have been on here a while, and just as there are some commenters here who clearly have issues with Jews, there are some who have issues with blacks. Not all, nor even a majority, but some.

And, for the record, I demand evidence for claims that I like. I am not a fan of Justice Alito's jurisprudence, and so it would be great to dismiss him as a "partisan hack," but alas I can't, without evidence. Do you form your beliefs in a different manner?

And the people claiming this don't even really like Romney all that much!

I would guess that most of the people complaining are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person.

  • -26

I guess I don’t understand why you are saying that, when I specifically asked what evidence you have for that exact claim. No offense, but it sounds like you don’t have any.

My condolences. I can tell you that, re civilian deaths, the mere fact that Israel is not targeting civilians does not necessarily absolve them of war crimes, because "attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof and that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" are also barred. How that might be determined by third parties is not clear to me.

But what does that have to do with being partisan? His point is that Thomas, by being very willing to throw out precedent, ends up being ineffective as a justice. Like it or not, the ability to influence other justices, and thereby influence majority opinions, is a big part of the job. You say that Alito's reasoning is political, not legal, but the internal deliberations of the Court are partly political, in the broad sense. If including "all deliberate speed" in Brown was necessary . But that is not the norm. You are singling out Alito for behavior that all the justices engage in. Moreover, that kind of behavior is often necessary in order to do what you think the law demands in the long run, because judge-made law is nothing but slippery slopes. See, eg, the de facto abandonment of the Lemon test.

What is your evidence for that claim?

I'm sorry, "pursuing policy which will probably be held illegal and stopping when ordered to do so" isn't my complaint, nor anyone else's complaint, and you know it.

That is precisely OP's complaint, because that is what happened.


Still, would have expected to hear about Trump getting to enforce a Muslim ban

The Biden Admin did precisely what the Trump Administration did: It promulgated a narrower rule in an effort to save it.

Your own link re ultra vires states that it refers to govt acting outside of constitutional powers, not to acting outside its statutory powers. Obviously the former raises constitutional claims, not the latter.

And as for nitpicking, OP made a claim of the administration acting "outside the constitutional order," which is silly. Refusing to comply with a court order is acting outside the constitutional order; pursuing policy which will probably be held illegal and stopping when ordered to do so isn’t. It is SOP. You are engaging in special pleading.

It seems very unlikely to get the required 2/3 vote in both houses. A substantial majority of the Senate voted to remove Trump for the same behavior only a couple of years ago, after all.

So what? What is your point?

If your claim is that eg Alito or ACB has goals other than consistent jurisprudence

My claim is literally the exact opposite.

This is the concurrence in its entirety:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. I agree with the District Court and the applicants that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014). Because the CDC plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the application to vacate the District Court’s stay of its order. See Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in chambers) (stay depends in part on balance of equities); Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U. S. 1301, 1304 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.