If DeSantis wins

[Phoenixmgs]

...and in that one fictional example you've given, the character also identified himself as a woman. And as soon as his deception was exposed at the end of the film, the others immediately referred to him as Daniel again, even when he was dressed as Mrs Doubtfire for the kids' show.



So yet again all you have is loose correlation. And not even really that, given that most transwomen also don't use laser hair removal surgery.



Yes, most people abide by traditional gender stereotypes. You think that-- and your anecdotal experience-- shows what's achievable?



No, you just have completely groundless confidence in your ability to "tell".



You commented at great length about the urban living situation in a country you don't even live in, making judgements about what people there should do. This is more transparent hypocrisy.

Would someone like a waitress who doesn't know him refer to Miss Doubtfire as a he or she? To people that know Daniel, then they just see Miss Doubtfire as Daniel as if it was Halloween and that was his costume. You're taking normal human interactions and logic and acting like it's some proof against what I'm saying.

It is often desired by transwomen.

Without even dressing particularly like a man or woman, you can tell sex.

You were literally saying you can't tell if someone is Asian based on looks... you're gaslighting at this point.

I was asking questions directly to you because I didn't know. For me, a situation where I can't save money to own a place is not a tenable situation and would get out of it if it was me. That's regardless of location, that's just a standard for me.

 

[Silvanus]

Would someone like a waitress who doesn't know him refer to Miss Doubtfire as a he or she? To people that know Daniel, then they just see Miss Doubtfire as Daniel as if it was Halloween and that was his costume. You're taking normal human interactions and logic and acting like it's some proof against what I'm saying.

Lol, I'm talking normal human interactions? You're the one insisting on using this fictional film as evidence for a discussion of real-world interactions.

So, since you're acknowledging anyone who actually knows him would refer to him as Daniel, you're tacitly acknowledging that the sole reason people would use female pronouns is the deception.

It is often desired by transwomen.

So what? It's also desired by many cis women. Should those women also be referred to with masculine pronouns?

Without even dressing particularly like a man or woman, you can tell sex.

"I can always tell" continues to be groundless arrogance.

I was asking questions directly to you because I didn't know. For me, a situation where I can't save money to own a place is not a tenable situation and would get out of it if it was me. That's regardless of location, that's just a standard for me.

Except you weren't just asking, were you? You refused to accept my response, and insisted for several pages that my situation and choices were wrong.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Lol, I'm talking normal human interactions? You're the one insisting on using this fictional film as evidence for a discussion of real-world interactions.

So, since you're acknowledging anyone who actually knows him would refer to him as Daniel, you're tacitly acknowledging that the sole reason people would use female pronouns is the deception.



So what? It's also desired by many cis women. Should those women also be referred to with masculine pronouns?



"I can always tell" continues to be groundless arrogance.



Except you weren't just asking, were you? You refused to accept my response, and insisted for several pages that my situation and choices were wrong.

Not deception, appearance. The deception literally doesn't matter in the discussion.

Much more transwomen than ciswomen.

It's not, it's just being a human being that notices things a normal human notices.

Are you gonna admit that people can use pronouns and not be ascribing identity onto someone yet? Pronouns are based on what you are (by the majority), and not what you identify as.

Because that would not be an acceptable situation for me. I'm sure you have options in the UK for owning a place, you just don't like those options.

 

[Ag3ma]

Are you gonna admit that people can use pronouns and not be ascribing identity onto someone yet?

I expect he's not going to admit that, probably because you're fundamentally saying something about someone's identity when you use a pronoun in relation to them. It amazes me you can think otherwose.

Pronouns are based on what you are (by the majority), and not what you identify as.

So really the basis of your argument here is that the majority have the right to impose their collective will on the individual.

 

[Silvanus]

Not deception, appearance. The deception literally doesn't matter in the discussion.

Yet you acknowledged that as soon as they found out about the deception, the other characters went back to referring to him as Daniel, regardless of his appearance.

Much more transwomen than ciswomen.

Blah blah, irrelevant loose correlation.

It's not, it's just being a human being that notices things a normal human notices.

Uh-huh, and a lot of the time you simply won't actually notice anything different. You have ungrounded confidence in your ability to "tell". You cannot always "tell".

Because that would not be an acceptable situation for me. I'm sure you have options in the UK for owning a place, you just don't like those options.

Then why were you passing judgement on other people, who aren't you?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I expect he's not going to admit that, probably because you're fundamentally saying something about someone's identity when you use a pronoun in relation to them. It amazes me you can think otherwose.



So really the basis of your argument here is that the majority have the right to impose their collective will on the individual.

I guess the better wording is if you use pronouns based on sex, you can't misgender them.

Using a pronoun is now imposing your will on someone, really? It's a fucking pronoun...

Yet you acknowledged that as soon as they found out about the deception, the other characters went back to referring to him as Daniel, regardless of his appearance.



Blah blah, irrelevant loose correlation.



Uh-huh, and a lot of the time you simply won't actually notice anything different. You have ungrounded confidence in your ability to "tell". You cannot always "tell".



Then why were you passing judgement on other people, who aren't you?

Because it's then a costume to them.

Humans can tell a lot. Hence why people notice stuff like micro expressions. You think people don't notice much bigger things that are the differences between the sexes?

What I asked Agema, how can one misgender someone with a pronoun that they are using based on sex?

How many times have I said FOR ME, that's an untenable situation?

 

[Silvanus]

Because it's then a costume to them.

Yep. As soon as they know about the deception, the appearance no longer matters.

Humans can tell a lot. Hence why people notice stuff like micro expressions. You think people don't notice much bigger things that are the differences between the sexes?

I think people notice plenty of things that loosely correlate with sex, and when the overall impact strongly points in one direction, they make an assumption. Often its correct. Occasionally it's not. And you'd be arrogant to think you can always tell-- you simply can't. Visual cues are not a perfect system.

How many times have I said FOR ME, that's an untenable situation?

You said it a bunch of times. And a bunch of times you also passed judgement on other people, who aren't you, and refused to acknowledge that your priorities weren't shared.

 

[CastletonSnob]

Ronnie D might be dropping out of the presidential race.

Ron DeSantis suspends his presidential bid and endorses Trump

The move comes two days before the primary in the state, where he was projected to fall behind both former President Donald Trump and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Ag3ma]

In a rare on-topic diversion for this thread:

Ron DeSantis drops out of Republican presidential race

Hard-right Florida governor at one point thought to be future of party ends campaign to be GOP nominee

www.theguardian.com

So long Ron. The once next great hope of the Republicans, cruelly exposed by a presidential campaign to be a petty, irascible, and most of all dislikable guy that people just didn't much want to vote for. Even long after the steam had run out, his campaign continued trundling along the tracks through mere momentum until eventually the misery was ended.

Of course, there now also remains the (very, very slim) possibility that Nikki Haley may be able to raise a credible campaign against Trump.

 

[CastletonSnob]

DeSantis might be pro-life, but his campaign was an abortion.

 

[Bedinsis]

What are the odds that the Supreme Court concludes that the states that took Trump off the ballot had a right to do so, and one or some of the states Trump needs to win follow suit?

 

[meiam]

So De Santi is gone, but he'd pretty young so I doubt he won't try again, probably in 4 year realistically speaking.

What are the odds that the Supreme Court concludes that the states that took Trump off the ballot had a right to do so, and one or some of the states Trump needs to win follow suit?

0%, you can look up Bush V Gore to see how insanely far republican justice are willing to go to make sure their guy win, although it would be funny if they do it in a way that essentially let Biden legally do whatever he want and he immediately order Trump put in jail.

 

[Ag3ma]

What are the odds that the Supreme Court concludes that the states that took Trump off the ballot had a right to do so, and one or some of the states Trump needs to win follow suit?

Zero.

With this sort of ruling, essentially SCOTUS just make shit up. Someone's got to call it, and it ends up in their in-tray, so they have to. Sure, they'll rig up some legal blather to make it look reasoned, but really they're just doing whatever the hell they please. Although admittedly, Trump has not been actually found guilty of insurrection (by court or impeachment), and they've got an extremely good reason to demand conviction as a precondition for a state to remove him from the ballot.

There are then two factors that kick in. Firstly, SCOTUS hate having to interfere with this sort of political decision, so they're inherently going to try to kick it away to democratic will: if Americans don't want Trump, they can vote against him. Secondly, they are 6-3 in favour of the right wing and will be particularly disinclined to hamper a right-wing candidate.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yep. As soon as they know about the deception, the appearance no longer matters.



I think people notice plenty of things that loosely correlate with sex, and when the overall impact strongly points in one direction, they make an assumption. Often its correct. Occasionally it's not. And you'd be arrogant to think you can always tell-- you simply can't. Visual cues are not a perfect system.



You said it a bunch of times. And a bunch of times you also passed judgement on other people, who aren't you, and refused to acknowledge that your priorities weren't shared.

I never said it was 100% accurate, I said that's how people use pronouns.

Since you conveniently edited it out. How could one misgender someone with a pronoun if they use the pronoun based on sex?

If there are ways to not rent a place and own a place instead, people should stop complaining about rent being too high.

Zero.

With this sort of ruling, essentially SCOTUS just make shit up. Someone's got to call it, and it ends up in their in-tray, so they have to. Sure, they'll rig up some legal blather to make it look reasoned, but really they're just doing whatever the hell they please. Although admittedly, Trump has not been actually found guilty of insurrection (by court or impeachment), and they've got an extremely good reason to demand conviction as a precondition for a state to remove him from the ballot.

There are then two factors that kick in. Firstly, SCOTUS hate having to interfere with this sort of political decision, so they're inherently going to try to kick it away to democratic will: if Americans don't want Trump, they can vote against him. Secondly, they are 6-3 in favour of the right wing and will be particularly disinclined to hamper a right-wing candidate.

They are taking Trump off the ballot based on a federal law, thus the states don't have power to do that. Why would SCOTUS have to "make shit up". Trump hasn't been found guilty of insurrection so how are you gonna remove him from the ballot for allegations?

 

[Silvanus]

I never said it was 100% accurate, I said that's how people use pronouns.

And you then chose an example which goes against your own argument. If you're happy to drop that example, so am I!

Since you conveniently edited it out. How could one misgender someone with a pronoun if they use the pronoun based on sex?

Well, you'll notice that the term is applied to the subject, not the speaker.

If there are ways to not rent a place and own a place instead, people should stop complaining about rent being too high.

Ah, so you were indeed passing judgement on people in a country you don't live in. Glad we've cleared that up! So, it was just hypocrisy to moan about other forumites commenting about cities they didn't live in, wasn't it?

They are taking Trump off the ballot based on a federal law, thus the states don't have power to do that.

This makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about in terms of legal interpretation. That isn't how it works. States have the power to implement constitutional rules. They're actually required to.

 

[Ag3ma]

They are taking Trump off the ballot based on a federal law, thus the states don't have power to do that. Why would SCOTUS have to "make shit up". Trump hasn't been found guilty of insurrection so how are you gonna remove him from the ballot for allegations?

Let me explain this to you, although I think that's pretty weird considering it's the law of your country and not mine. The federal government has jurisdiction over certain things, and the states have jurisdiction over others. Hence that whole "states rights" argument which has rolled along for decades-centuries, essentially a tussle over where the boundary between state and federal jurisdiction lay. However, irrespective of that, both federal and state laws must abide by the Constitution.

States have the right to set their own electoral systems. Hence for instance why they all have different laws governing elections. However, state law is still bound by the Constitution, the 14th Amendment of which states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

So no, they are not taking Trump off the ballot under federal law.

* * *

The 14th A. does not describe in detail what insurrection is, or what level of proof is required. Essentially, there are three: impeachment amounts to "because Congress says so", criminal law requires beyond reasonable doubt, and civil law requires a preponderance of evidence (i.e. "51%").

The initial judicial hearing in Colorado examined the evidence from both sides and concluded that - at least to a civil law standard - Trump engaged in insurrection. So, actually, he has been found "guilty" (albeit not to a criminal standard) in Colorado. However the court then declined to bar him from the ballot because it was not clear that the 14th Amendment applied to the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court then disagreed by saying that they saw no good reason the 14th Amendment did not apply to the presidency, and therefore Trump should be barred considering the lower court found him responsible for insurrection.

When I say that SCOTUS can make shit up, they absolutely can and do. You have recently been complaining that Roe v. Wade was magicked up out of nowhere, basically arguing they can do this yourself. Another ruling I might draw your attention to is Bush v. Gore (2000): as is noted by many, the legal basis for ending the recount was as feeble and arbitrary as it gets - in fact the ruling specifically denied it should set precedent for other cases, which could be interpreted as the majority admitting that their reasoning was unsound. You can also check out all sorts of other areas where SCOTUS has at times simply overturned previous rulings (where Roe v. Wade again comes up). The simple fact any SCOTUS ruling is overturned tells us that SCOTUS can justify pretty much anything if they feel like it. There's no hard rule, no perfect interpretation. Nine people sit down one day and decide whatever the hell they please, and if a majority have certain ideological leanings, they will enforce their ideology on the whole nation, dressed up with some pretty paragraphs of legal waffle to make it look reasoned. At least, until a majority with other ideology comes along a few decades later.

SCOTUS certainly have reasonable grounds to set a good precedent for the evidential standard required to decide whether someone committed insurrection, and a criminal standard (thus overruling Colorado's supreme court) is very reasonable. They could, if they like, insist on impeachment before a presidential candidate is barred and find grounds to argue it. They could also just say states can decide this for themselves by their own internal processes (which might include civil standard), and provide reason. They could agree with the initial ruling that the 14th A. does not apply to the POTUS, or alternative agree with the CO supreme court that it does, and both could be perfectly easily reasoned. They can do absolutely fucking anything and make it stick. That's what any countries law amounts to in the end: the opinions of the people on the highest court in the land. If they are biased, corrupt, incompetent it doesn't really matter: that's your nation's law.

 

[tstorm823]

The initial judicial hearing in Colorado examined the evidence from both sides and concluded that - at least to a civil law standard - Trump engaged in insurrection.

My one complaint about your explanations here is that you're not properly cynical about this. Concluded based on evidence? I don't think so. The conclusion was predetermined, regardless of evidence or outcome.

 

[Ag3ma]

My one complaint about your explanations here is that you're not properly cynical about this. Concluded based on evidence? I don't think so. The conclusion was predetermined, regardless of evidence or outcome.

If you want to talk about evidence, then you should also provide evidence to demonstrate that the judge was biased - which is, after all, an extraordinarily serious and defamatory accusation. Otherwise, I think it would be better to respect their decision as supportable with respect to the arguments presented before them in court.

I would also note that the "cynicism" you continually demand we show those that oppose Trump is something you don't ask of Trump himself: remarkable given we have decades of evidence of repeated dishonesty and fraud.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And you then chose an example which goes against your own argument. If you're happy to drop that example, so am I!



Well, you'll notice that the term is applied to the subject, not the speaker.



Ah, so you were indeed passing judgement on people in a country you don't live in. Glad we've cleared that up! So, it was just hypocrisy to moan about other forumites commenting about cities they didn't live in, wasn't it?



This makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about in terms of legal interpretation. That isn't how it works. States have the power to implement constitutional rules. They're actually required to.

It doesn't... It's like saying a guy dressed up as Harley Quinn for Halloween and his friends still called him 'he' and that disproves everything, that's asinine.

What are you talking about whether you use pronouns based on sex or gender, it's applied to the same thing. You can't misgender if you use sex for pronouns.

Anyone that is complaining about something where there's a way around said thing, you shouldn't be complaining then.

And the rule of something in the constitution is decided by a federal court. Trump will be on the ballot in every state (or no state) because it will be decided federally.

Let me explain this to you, although I think that's pretty weird considering it's the law of your country and not mine. The federal government has jurisdiction over certain things, and the states have jurisdiction over others. Hence that whole "states rights" argument which has rolled along for decades-centuries, essentially a tussle over where the boundary between state and federal jurisdiction lay. However, irrespective of that, both federal and state laws must abide by the Constitution.

States have the right to set their own electoral systems. Hence for instance why they all have different laws governing elections. However, state law is still bound by the Constitution, the 14th Amendment of which states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

So no, they are not taking Trump off the ballot under federal law.

* * *

The 14th A. does not describe in detail what insurrection is, or what level of proof is required. Essentially, there are three: impeachment amounts to "because Congress says so", criminal law requires beyond reasonable doubt, and civil law requires a preponderance of evidence (i.e. "51%").

The initial judicial hearing in Colorado examined the evidence from both sides and concluded that - at least to a civil law standard - Trump engaged in insurrection. So, actually, he has been found "guilty" (albeit not to a criminal standard) in Colorado. However the court then declined to bar him from the ballot because it was not clear that the 14th Amendment applied to the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court then disagreed by saying that they saw no good reason the 14th Amendment did not apply to the presidency, and therefore Trump should be barred considering the lower court found him responsible for insurrection.

When I say that SCOTUS can make shit up, they absolutely can and do. You have recently been complaining that Roe v. Wade was magicked up out of nowhere, basically arguing they can do this yourself. Another ruling I might draw your attention to is Bush v. Gore (2000): as is noted by many, the legal basis for ending the recount was as feeble and arbitrary as it gets - in fact the ruling specifically denied it should set precedent for other cases, which could be interpreted as the majority admitting that their reasoning was unsound. You can also check out all sorts of other areas where SCOTUS has at times simply overturned previous rulings (where Roe v. Wade again comes up). The simple fact any SCOTUS ruling is overturned tells us that SCOTUS can justify pretty much anything if they feel like it. There's no hard rule, no perfect interpretation. Nine people sit down one day and decide whatever the hell they please, and if a majority have certain ideological leanings, they will enforce their ideology on the whole nation, dressed up with some pretty paragraphs of legal waffle to make it look reasoned. At least, until a majority with other ideology comes along a few decades later.

SCOTUS certainly have reasonable grounds to set a good precedent for the evidential standard required to decide whether someone committed insurrection, and a criminal standard (thus overruling Colorado's supreme court) is very reasonable. They could, if they like, insist on impeachment before a presidential candidate is barred and find grounds to argue it. They could also just say states can decide this for themselves by their own internal processes (which might include civil standard), and provide reason. They could agree with the initial ruling that the 14th A. does not apply to the POTUS, or alternative agree with the CO supreme court that it does, and both could be perfectly easily reasoned. They can do absolutely fucking anything and make it stick. That's what any countries law amounts to in the end: the opinions of the people on the highest court in the land. If they are biased, corrupt, incompetent it doesn't really matter: that's your nation's law.

I know about state rights and all that. It's not a state's right to take someone off the ballot because they think it's against the constitution, which needs to be figured out by a federal court. How is the constitutional not federal law? And if states had the power to do such things with their own unique interpretations, then red states would remove democrats and blue states would remove republicans from the ballots, it would be a shit show.

I didn't say that SCOTUS doesn't make up shit at times. I said there's no reason why they'd have to make up shit if they want Trump on the ballot. There's no reason to remove him from the ballot so they don't have to make up anything. You are all acting like because SCOTUS is conservative leaning, they will make up shit to keep Trump on the ballot. But they don't have to make up anything to have Trump on the ballot, it's pretty basic that someone alleged of doing something shouldn't be punished until convicted (regardless of what it is). Because if you start punishing people just alleged of doing something, then that leads down a path nobody wants to walk down.

 

[Silvanus]

It doesn't... It's like saying a guy dressed up as Harley Quinn for Halloween and his friends still called him 'he' and that disproves everything, that's asinine.

It certainly shows that they're not just judging by appearance. Their knowledge of the person's actual traits matters more.

What are you talking about whether you use pronouns based on sex or gender, it's applied to the same thing. You can't misgender if you use sex for pronouns.

I understand the argument you're going for. But unfortunately, language requires mutual understanding. We cannot simply assume others know we're disregarding gender.

Anyone that is complaining about something where there's a way around said thing, you shouldn't be complaining then.

Lol ok. If I get mugged, I'll keep that in mind before going to the police. Why moan? I've got other options, like just making all the money back again!

And the rule of something in the constitution is decided by a federal court. Trump will be on the ballot in every state (or no state) because it will be decided federally.

You really don't understand your own country's legal framework, do you? Firstly, states have significant freedom to determine their own electoral rules. That too is guaranteed constitutionally. If the Supreme Court were to rule, they could easily rule that states may make their own determinations.

There are rationales available for the justices to do whatever they want. It doesn't depend on actual legal weight. It depends on what they personally want.