If DeSantis wins

[Silvanus]

For like the millionth time, I didn't say sex = appearance, I said said people use appearance to figure out sex.

You said that at times. At other times you said that you base pronouns on appearance, even when they don't match sex. At other other times you said appearance can always reliably tell you someone's sex. You've said a variety of things, often inconsistent, sometimes contradictory.

The question of if the 14th amendment bars Trump from being president is a federal question, not a state question. Once the feds determine the answer, states have to apply that ruling.

The Constitution protects the states' rights to determine their own rules for nominating electors. If/when the Supreme Court rules on something, their interpretation takes precedence-- but an issue has to be appealed to them before that can happen. Before that, it can get ruled on by state Court.

Beastie Boys wouldn't be charged for anything if people actually started fighting for their right to party.

Probably because that was a completely different situation, and a pointless hypothetical.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

How much worse does it need to be than a mob storming the Capitol during the election of the president, having been whipped up by a deliberate campaign of lies?

BLM was much worse but it doesn't get brought up nearly as much as January 6th.

You said that at times. At other times you said that you base pronouns on appearance, even when they don't match sex. At other other times you said appearance can always reliably tell you someone's sex. You've said a variety of things, often inconsistent, sometimes contradictory.



The Constitution protects the states' rights to determine their own rules for nominating electors. If/when the Supreme Court rules on something, their interpretation takes precedence-- but an issue has to be appealed to them before that can happen. Before that, it can get ruled on by state Court.



Probably because that was a completely different situation, and a pointless hypothetical.

We just keep going over the same fucking things over and over because you don't remember what I said. It's literally the clip from The Muppets, that's all there's is to it.

Something in the constitution is a federal ruling.

Telling people to fight for something doesn't mean you're telling people to literally fight.

 

[Ag3ma]

BLM was much worse.

Worse in what way?

 

[Silvanus]

We just keep going over the same fucking things over and over because you don't remember what I said.

You've changed what you're arguing dozens of times. One minute it's based on sex, absolutely, no compromise. The next minute it's based on appearance, even if appearance is at odds with biological sex. Then the next next minute you're saying that appearance is how people judge sex and its mega reliable so therefore they're the same position.

Something in the constitution is a federal ruling.

What do you mean a federal ruling? It applies at the federal level, if that's what you mean, but States implement their own interpretations, unless it gets appealed to a federal court.

Telling people to fight for something doesn't mean you're telling people to literally fight.

Nope. But sitting idly by while you know for a fact they're fighting literally, in your name, is implicit approval-- especially as others beg you to discourage them and you refuse.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Worse in what way?

Amount of violence.

You've changed what you're arguing dozens of times. One minute it's based on sex, absolutely, no compromise. The next minute it's based on appearance, even if appearance is at odds with biological sex. Then the next next minute you're saying that appearance is how people judge sex and its mega reliable so therefore they're the same position.



What do you mean a federal ruling? It applies at the federal level, if that's what you mean, but States implement their own interpretations, unless it gets appealed to a federal court.



Nope. But sitting idly by while you know for a fact they're fighting literally, in your name, is implicit approval-- especially as others beg you to discourage them and you refuse.

OMG, people use pronouns based on sex, which they base that off appearance. How is that hard to understand? You act like there's no physical attributes that directly relate to sex and that isn't true. You can determine sex with at least 99% accuracy based on appearance unless someone is actually trying to deceive you.

Questioning how to interpret something in the constitution is a federal ruling. You can't have different interpretations among states of a federal law. States can determine their own rules for elections that aren't tied to a federal law. You were wrong, just admit it.

Name a case where that's actually happened and been the ruling.

 

[Ag3ma]

Amount of violence.

And is that the only metric that needs to be assessed?

 

[Silvanus]

OMG, people use pronouns based on sex, which they base that off appearance. How is that hard to understand?

It's not. I don't fail to understand your position. I'm pointing out how inconsistent you've been with it, as well as how easy it is to be wrong.

Questioning how to interpret something in the constitution is a federal ruling. You can't have different interpretations among states of a federal law. States can determine their own rules for elections that aren't tied to a federal law. You were wrong, just admit it.

Bud, the exclusion of Trump from the primaries is a perfect example of States interpreting a constitutional provision differently.

The ban on insurrectionists is in the constitution. Right? It applies nationally.

And yet, two states interpreted it in such a way as to exclude Trump, and another state interpreted it in such a way as to include him. Constitutional provision. Interpreted differently in different states. Until its ruled on at a federal level, i.e. after being appealed up.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And is that the only metric that needs to be assessed?

It's probably the most important metric.

It's not. I don't fail to understand your position. I'm pointing out how inconsistent you've been with it, as well as how easy it is to be wrong.



Bud, the exclusion of Trump from the primaries is a perfect example of States interpreting a constitutional provision differently.

The ban on insurrectionists is in the constitution. Right? It applies nationally.

And yet, two states interpreted it in such a way as to exclude Trump, and another state interpreted it in such a way as to include him. Constitutional provision. Interpreted differently in different states. Until its ruled on at a federal level, i.e. after being appealed up.

If I've been inconsistent, it's because I've had to repeat it a million times. And you can't "ascribe identity onto someone" or misgender someone with a pronoun if you're using the definition based on sex. You keep claiming the opposite. It's actually pretty hard to be wrong.

And you can't do that, which is why the Maine case was put on hold pending the SCOTUS decision on the Colorado case because they can't decide it. All states will have to abide by the same ruling in the end.

 

[Silvanus]

If I've been inconsistent, it's because I've had to repeat it a million times.

You haven't "had to repeat" anything. You've just shifted and jumped and contradicted yourself in the face of mild Questioning.

And you can't do that, which is why the Maine case was put on hold pending the SCOTUS decision on the Colorado case because they can't decide it. All states will have to abide by the same ruling in the end.

But they literally did do that. They have to abide by a Supreme Court ruling if/when it gets appealed up there. If something doesn't get appealed up there? The States carry on.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You haven't "had to repeat" anything. You've just shifted and jumped and contradicted yourself in the face of mild Questioning.



But they literally did do that. They have to abide by a Supreme Court ruling if/when it gets appealed up there. If something doesn't get appealed up there? The States carry on.

Nope (How long ago did I post The Muppets clip? What have I changed since then?). Can you admit if you use pronouns by sex, then you can't "ascribe identity onto someone" or misgender someone? Funny how you cut that out.

Just because that is part of the process doesn't mean states have final say. Hence why the Maine case was put on hold and the judge didn't even give a ruling because it would be pointless.

 

[Ag3ma]

It's probably the most important metric.

Western countries operate (or should do) with the concept of "Rule of Law".

Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.

States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.
...
But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

Trump expressed a clear motivation to encourage or pressurise Pence and/or Congress into refusing to certify the votes and the election, backed up with a pile of lies. That's what the Jan 6th march was all about. I would not be bothered if all they had done was march and wave placards, because I believe in a right to political expression and protest. But for them to storm the Capitol and disrupt the vote (even if only for a few hours) is a whole different issue.

This is not just general civil disorder. People might get unhappy, go out and trash stuff, and whilst this is often illegal it does not fundamentally assault the structures of law and governance themselves. Jan 6th did. It was an attack on democratic process and Rule of Law: the use of violence - even if relatively weak - to overturn or interfere with an election on the basis of flagrant lies. This is where "insurrection" becomes a plausible accusation in my mind. It should be taken extremely seriously, because if not, why shouldn't anyone try it next time around, or the time after that? Someone fired a bullet at your head, it's not made okay just because they missed, and you certainly don't give them another loaded gun. Those rioters absolutely deserve to have the book thrown at them, because they could have pushed the USA into a democratic and Constitutional crisis.

 

[Silvanus]

Nope (How long ago did I post The Muppets clip? What have I changed since then?).

Since you posted that irrelevant clip from an entertainment show, you've switched several times between "pronouns = sex, regardless of appearance, and besides they always match" and "pronouns = appearance, even when sex is different".

Can you admit if you use pronouns by sex, then you can't "ascribe identity onto someone" or misgender someone? Funny how you cut that out.

Because I've already answered it. But to reiterate: if you "use pronouns by sex", you're still determining that someone else's sex takes precedence over their gender. Pronouns are unavoidably linked to identity, so you're making a statement about which you consider more important, and applying it to someone else.

Just because that is part of the process doesn't mean states have final say. Hence why the Maine case was put on hold and the judge didn't even give a ruling because it would be pointless.

Uh-huh. And if something doesn't get appealed to the SCOTUS (as most things don't), then what happens? The state's ruling rests-- even if its on a federal or constitutional matter, and even if it differs from what other states have ruled.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Western countries operate (or should do) with the concept of "Rule of Law".



Trump expressed a clear motivation to encourage or pressurise Pence and/or Congress into refusing to certify the votes and the election, backed up with a pile of lies. That's what the Jan 6th march was all about. I would not be bothered if all they had done was march and wave placards, because I believe in a right to political expression and protest. But for them to storm the Capitol and disrupt the vote (even if only for a few hours) is a whole different issue.

This is not just general civil disorder. People might get unhappy, go out and trash stuff, and whilst this is often illegal it does not fundamentally assault the structures of law and governance themselves. Jan 6th did. It was an attack on democratic process and Rule of Law: the use of violence - even if relatively weak - to overturn or interfere with an election on the basis of flagrant lies. This is where "insurrection" becomes a plausible accusation in my mind. It should be taken extremely seriously, because if not, why shouldn't anyone try it next time around, or the time after that? Someone fired a bullet at your head, it's not made okay just because they missed, and you certainly don't give them another loaded gun. Those rioters absolutely deserve to have the book thrown at them, because they could have pushed the USA into a democratic and Constitutional crisis.

You're joking or just trolling at this point, right?

Because if you have to pick one event (BLM or Jan 6th) that was far worse according to the following, it was definitely BLM and it's not even close.
"The rule of law is the foundation for healthy communities of justice, opportunity, and peace."

So CHAZ/CHOP is the foundation for healthy communities of justice, opportunity, and peace?

Isn't Trump describing a legit way to go about challenging the election? Or at least what he thought was one.

Since you posted that irrelevant clip from an entertainment show, you've switched several times between "pronouns = sex, regardless of appearance, and besides they always match" and "pronouns = appearance, even when sex is different".



Because I've already answered it. But to reiterate: if you "use pronouns by sex", you're still determining that someone else's sex takes precedence over their gender. Pronouns are unavoidably linked to identity, so you're making a statement about which you consider more important, and applying it to someone else.



Uh-huh. And if something doesn't get appealed to the SCOTUS (as most things don't), then what happens? The state's ruling rests-- even if its on a federal or constitutional matter, and even if it differs from what other states have ruled.

I think you're getting things mixed up. Pronouns can be sex regardless of appearance per the definition. But I described how people do pronouns (based on sex but use appearance to determine), which is The Muppets clip.

Why does it matter what someone prioritizes? Why does sex taking precedence over gender or gender taking precedence over sex matter? I can say the same thing to someone who puts gender over sex in precedence. It's a fucking pronoun at the end of the day.

If it doesn't go higher that means there's already precedence for it and no reason to make a new ruling.

 

[Silvanus]

I think you're getting things mixed up. Pronouns can be sex regardless of appearance per the definition. But I described how people do pronouns (based on sex but use appearance to determine), which is The Muppets clip.

I'm not getting mixed up. Its not my fault you're arguing in favour of two contradictory standards at different times.

Why does it matter what someone prioritizes? Why does sex taking precedence over gender or gender taking precedence over sex matter? I can say the same thing to someone who puts gender over sex in precedence. It's a fucking pronoun at the end of the day.

People tend to take matters of their own identity quite seriously. If you don't care, then why not go for the approach less likely to piss people off-- go by what they want to be called.

If it doesn't go higher that means there's already precedence for it and no reason to make a new ruling.

Uhrm, no, not necessarily. Have you any idea how many constitutional or federal questions haven't been settled by the Supreme Court, just because they hasn't been appealed up there? They're innumerable. States are left to their own devices quite a lot.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm not getting mixed up. Its not my fault you're arguing in favour of two contradictory standards at different times.



People tend to take matters of their own identity quite seriously. If you don't care, then why not go for the approach less likely to piss people off-- go by what they want to be called.



Uhrm, no, not necessarily. Have you any idea how many constitutional or federal questions haven't been settled by the Supreme Court, just because they hasn't been appealed up there? They're innumerable. States are left to their own devices quite a lot.

I'm not. I told you how people do pronouns several times. You just don't like that it doesn't perfectly align with the definition.

If you're using sex, then you can't misgender or "ascribe identity onto someone" that you keep complaining about.

Because most cases are same/similar enough to have previous precedent and that is applied.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm not. I told you how people do pronouns several times. You just don't like that it doesn't perfectly align with the definition.

Lol, no. I've pointed out that there are definitions that allow for both sex and gender identity, which goes against your prior insistence that one was more correct because it was "the definition". It was I who pointed out how appearance doesn't directly correspond to sex as well-- after you insisted that it did.

If you're using sex, then you can't misgender or "ascribe identity onto someone" that you keep complaining about.

Repetition isn't an argument.

Because most cases are same/similar enough to have previous precedent and that is applied.

It's not, though. This is categorically untrue. Countless federal and constitutional issues are interpreted differently by the states.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Lol, no. I've pointed out that there are definitions that allow for both sex and gender identity, which goes against your prior insistence that one was more correct because it was "the definition". It was I who pointed out how appearance doesn't directly correspond to sex as well-- after you insisted that it did.



Repetition isn't an argument.



It's not, though. This is categorically untrue. Countless federal and constitutional issues are interpreted differently by the states.

That's moot because you can't use both definitions at the same time anyway. Appearance does in 99+% of the time.

But you're simply not ascribing identity if you use pronouns based on sex. That's an objective fact you keep trying to wiggle your way out of.

No they're not. Or if they are then the lawyers are rather dumb to not appeal.

 

[Ag3ma]

You're joking or just trolling at this point, right?

Rule of Law is not so much what is a crime and what is not, it's that the processes that underpin the state should be fair, transparent, those involved are accountable, and that institutions should be built to encourage, develop and protect these principles. So things like all are equal before the law, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, no-one is above the law, etc. Obviously, democratic processes fall under similar concepts.

I am going to bring in Hitler because it's a very good example - with no intentions of comparison to modern day. Hitler became dictator of Germany through a legal route, exploiting a loophole in the German Constitution of the era. Also, it was peaceful (in the narrow process itself, although there was plenty of wider political violence). But utterly ruinous to the Rule of Law in Germany, because Hitler was then completely unconstrained, and the transparency, accountability and fairness in Germany disappeared. Similar can be seen in places like Russia, Poland and Hungary, where all manner of institutions - political, judicial, media - have been subverted to the whims of the ruling party in the last decade or two. All legal, all "peaceful".

The George Floyd protests carried out direct action, which was sometimes illegal, to advance a political agenda. But this was not directly threatening or interfering in the right of governmental institutions to do their duty, or the processes by which they did so. They were more violent than all the above examples, but far less harmful to good democracy and good law.

And that's the frame in which I would look at Jan 6th, because this was an absolutely fundamental attack on a governmental institution and process, with no adequate justification. The potential threat to democratic process from the Capitol riot (and wider attacks on the election) were greater than from the George Floyd protests.

Isn't Trump describing a legit way to go about challenging the election? Or at least what he thought was one.

If Trump thought murdering everyone who opposed his rule was a legitimate way to remain president, would you also excuse him if he had tried that? (I would hope not.)

The law includes the concept of what a reasonable person might believe. There was no significant evidence electoral fraud swung the result, not from states (some of whose officials had told Trump as much directly), not from the FBI, numerous investigations, court cases, not the DoJ and Trump's own Attorney General. There was no reasonable basis to believe the election was fraudulent. States were not requesting their election results be re-certified. There was no credible argument from "top Constitutional experts" that the VP could just refuse the whole process: you can't just grab the opinion of one guy, call him a leading scholar and claim justification.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Rule of Law is not so much what is a crime and what is not, it's that the processes that underpin the state should be fair, transparent, those involved are accountable, and that institutions should be built to encourage, develop and protect these principles. So things like all are equal before the law, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, no-one is above the law, etc. Obviously, democratic processes fall under similar concepts.

I am going to bring in Hitler because it's a very good example - with no intentions of comparison to modern day. Hitler became dictator of Germany through a legal route, exploiting a loophole in the German Constitution of the era. Also, it was peaceful (in the narrow process itself, although there was plenty of wider political violence). But utterly ruinous to the Rule of Law in Germany, because Hitler was then completely unconstrained, and the transparency, accountability and fairness in Germany disappeared. Similar can be seen in places like Russia, Poland and Hungary, where all manner of institutions - political, judicial, media - have been subverted to the whims of the ruling party in the last decade or two. All legal, all "peaceful".

The George Floyd protests carried out direct action, which was sometimes illegal, to advance a political agenda. But this was not directly threatening or interfering in the right of governmental institutions to do their duty, or the processes by which they did so. They were more violent than all the above examples, but far less harmful to good democracy and good law.

And that's the frame in which I would look at Jan 6th, because this was an absolutely fundamental attack on a governmental institution and process, with no adequate justification. The potential threat to democratic process from the Capitol riot (and wider attacks on the election) were greater than from the George Floyd protests.



If Trump thought murdering everyone who opposed his rule was a legitimate way to remain president, would you also excuse him if he had tried that? (I would hope not.)

The law includes the concept of what a reasonable person might believe. There was no significant evidence electoral fraud swung the result, not from states (some of whose officials had told Trump as much directly), not from the FBI, numerous investigations, court cases, not the DoJ and Trump's own Attorney General. There was no reasonable basis to believe the election was fraudulent. States were not requesting their election results be re-certified. There was no credible argument from "top Constitutional experts" that the VP could just refuse the whole process: you can't just grab the opinion of one guy, call him a leading scholar and claim justification.

The BLM protesters took over public buildings/institutions... If the BLM protesters actually got what they wanted, that would be in direct opposition to the "Rule of Law". And BLM got far closer to that than the Jan 6th protesters ever got. You guys act like democracy was in danger over Jan 6th, which is beyond ridiculous. The democrats are still saying this coming election that democracy will be over if Trump gets elected, it's so ridiculous. Trump's already been president and nothing major happened.

Trump was going by the legal way to change the election results, was he not (in what you quoted)? Murdering is obviously not lawful or legitimate. There was also no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion but the democrats and media were on that horse for like 3 years. Just because people didn't mob the Capitol because of that doesn't make what Trump did worse.

 

[Ag3ma]

The BLM protesters took over public buildings/institutions... If the BLM protesters actually got what they wanted, that would be in direct opposition to the "Rule of Law".

Tell you what. You go and read up a bit more on what Rule of Law means - there are plenty of internet resources - and then maybe you come back and compose a new argument.

Trump was going by the legal way to change the election results

The rioters who invaded the Capitol in pursuit of his aims were definitely not following legal means, were they?

Although judging by the series of cases currently laid out against him, I don't think Trump was remotely picky about whether his schemes to overturn the election were legal or not.

There was also no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion

Completely and absolutely wrong. There was plentiful evidence of suspicious communications between Trump and his team and Russians. That's why there was a such an issue. The evidence was not deemed sufficient to pursue a case against him.