|
Post by Peregrine on Aug 29, 2024 5:50:04 GMT -5
Don’t forget though, as AG we should give his legal opinion the benefit of the doubt. Oh? Why do you say that?
It's a thinly-veiled complaint about my comments in the gun control thread about how the only objection they could come up with to the AG's interpretation of a specific Texas law is "he's bad therefore he must be wrong".
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 435
|
Post by skyth on Aug 29, 2024 6:10:03 GMT -5
More of a case of he blatantly misinterprets things for partisan reasons so can't be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 29, 2024 8:04:23 GMT -5
It's a thinly-veiled complaint about my comments in the gun control thread about how the only objection they could come up with to the AG's interpretation of a specific Texas law is "he's bad therefore he must be wrong".
You brought Paxton up as an appeal to authority. I'm not going to dig in to the rest of the arguments because it's beside the point; you never actually explained Paxton's interpretation or why his support mattered to your argument beyond "he's an expert at Texas law". You made a shitty argument and now people are poking fun at you for it. Just own it and move on, it's not like the rest of your argument hinges on what Paxton believes anyway.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Aug 29, 2024 14:25:22 GMT -5
A quick video break down by Kornacki about NC and why it is in play this season for President.
Georgia is a similar story.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Aug 29, 2024 20:33:19 GMT -5
You brought Paxton up as an appeal to authority. I'm not going to dig in to the rest of the arguments because it's beside the point; you never actually explained Paxton's interpretation or why his support mattered to your argument beyond "he's an expert at Texas law". You made a shitty argument and now people are poking fun at you for it. Just own it and move on, it's not like the rest of your argument hinges on what Paxton believes anyway. Citing an authority is only a fallacy if the "authority" is not a credible source for information. Citing the Texas AG's position on a Texas law is absolutely a relevant authority to refer to. It isn't absolute proof and merely being AG doesn't make that opinion beyond question but nobody in that thread managed any counter-argument beyond "I don't like his politics".
Also, I explained the argument, you just didn't bother to read it apparently: Texas law specifically prohibits banning guns on state property and the most qualified source anyone in the discussion has referenced believes that law applies to the particular instance of a gun ban on state-owned property.
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Aug 30, 2024 2:13:59 GMT -5
You brought Paxton up as an appeal to authority. I'm not going to dig in to the rest of the arguments because it's beside the point; you never actually explained Paxton's interpretation or why his support mattered to your argument beyond "he's an expert at Texas law". You made a shitty argument and now people are poking fun at you for it. Just own it and move on, it's not like the rest of your argument hinges on what Paxton believes anyway. Citing an authority is only a fallacy if the "authority" is not a credible source for information. Citing the Texas AG's position on a Texas law is absolutely a relevant authority to refer to. It isn't absolute proof and merely being AG doesn't make that opinion beyond question but nobody in that thread managed any counter-argument beyond "I don't like his politics".
Also, I explained the argument, you just didn't bother to read it apparently: Texas law specifically prohibits banning guns on state property and the most qualified source anyone in the discussion has referenced believes that law applies to the particular instance of a gun ban on state-owned property.
Texas does not allow you to carry guns into the state owned courthouses.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Aug 30, 2024 3:52:31 GMT -5
Texas does not allow you to carry guns into the state owned courthouses. The law specifically lists certain places where guns can be banned. Courthouses are on the list, fairs are not.
But if you want to continue this discussion please take it back to the appropriate thread instead of continuing your attempt to derail this one.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Aug 30, 2024 4:17:18 GMT -5
A quick video break down by Kornacki about NC and why it is in play this season for President. Georgia is a similar story. Some additional comments since I used to live in NC:
1) Not only is NC a relatively purple (but heavily gerrymandered) state there is a significant minority in the republican party that is very much pro-business above all. They're the voters who tossed out the republican governor who signed the bathroom bill after it led to cancelled events and a lot of businesses losing money. And they're why the raving lunatic candidate for governor won the primary but is failing badly in the general election. A democrat may not be what they want ideologically but a stable and predictable democrat is better for business than an unstable lunatic who might give them better tax cuts or might do a bunch of culture war nonsense that costs them money. And I suspect a similar thing may be happening with Trump as it becomes more and more clear just how unstable he is and how unreliable that makes him as a pro-business puppet.
2) That raving lunatic running for governor is potentially a big factor in driving turnout. The MAGA cult is turning out no matter what but I expect there are going to be a lot of center and left aligned voters who, between the presidential and governor races, are going to be highly motivated to get out and vote this year. And as we saw with Obama high turnout for democrats can flip NC blue.
3) Growth is definitely a factor. The Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area is growing as fast as they can build new houses and office buildings and those new arrivals skew, if not blue, at least center-right and not MAGA. Meanwhile the rural red areas full of bible belt conservatives and MAGA signs everywhere are stagnant at best. I don't know if it's going to be enough of a shift to swing NC in 2024, especially if the raving lunatic factor wasn't there, but there's a reason the state republican party is so desperately fighting to protect their gerrymandering. In the longer term future NC is very likely going to become a blue state.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 30, 2024 6:06:45 GMT -5
You brought Paxton up as an appeal to authority. I'm not going to dig in to the rest of the arguments because it's beside the point; you never actually explained Paxton's interpretation or why his support mattered to your argument beyond "he's an expert at Texas law". You made a shitty argument and now people are poking fun at you for it. Just own it and move on, it's not like the rest of your argument hinges on what Paxton believes anyway. Citing an authority is only a fallacy if the "authority" is not a credible source for information.
Nonsense. Deductively it's always a fallacy because the argument should stand on its own merits regardless of who made it. Inductively it's only not a fallacy if the authority in question is recognized as a valid authority on both sides of the argument. If you're going to assert that you're using Paxton inductively you can't then complain when people point out that he's corrupt as fuck.
This is your argument. You haven't actually provided Paxton's reasoning, only asserted what his reasoning is and that his actions prove that he agrees with you and that, by virtue of him being an expert on Texas law, your argument is correct.
I'll stop the tangent, but you need to work on structuring your arguments better and actually support them properly. The fact that Texas explicitly bans guns on state-owned property stands on its own, the entire argument is weakened by trying to appeal to an authority who's widely seen as a corrupt piece of shit who doesn't give two hoots about the law.
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Aug 30, 2024 6:13:57 GMT -5
The MAGA cult is turning out no matter what I've seen this claim in various places by various people, but does anyone have anything to back it up? MAGA cultists are very committed to the ideology and would always vote Trump if turning up, but does that make them immune to normal human factors affecting voting motivation? Does campaign momentum or apathy or complacency not affect them? I can see arguments for why it wouldn't, but is there any evidence to back that up? I suppose we only have 2 real data points to go off, so might be difficult to judge until November.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Aug 30, 2024 8:07:27 GMT -5
Republicans, and especially Religious Right Republicans; have a long history of going to the polls at least since Reagan. They and older, white folks are the most consistent bloc of voters to turn-out. MAGA tends to fall along both of those axis points, and adds a few more. Therefore, they are very likely to turn-out now.
The real question that I am unsure about is if the MAGA cult has expanded, contracted, or stayed the same? In 2020 it had grown, but not by enough to win. Is it still growing for this election? Trump does tend to manage to turn out "new" voters as well. Will that still hold this election?
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Aug 30, 2024 10:42:47 GMT -5
What did you guys think of the CNN interview?
I thought it was a weird mix of softball questions and attempted-gotcha MAGA talking point questions. Kamala had some good answers and a lot of old-style politician non-answers that left her looking a bit more like a “typical politician” than a rockstar candidate, but even that is a positive in this age.
It also made CNN look even more like a clown car sellout network.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Aug 30, 2024 11:17:03 GMT -5
I read a recap and, well; it was a big nothing burger.
I find it hard to take questions about Harris and Walz "controversies" seriously when the other guy is a twice- impeached Felon and insurrectionist, who has been flip-flopping on every single policy like a fish on a dock. Meanwhile, "Weapons of War" and "IVF as opposed to other highly-technical treatment" is something, I as a voter; am supposed to take seriously? I am suppose to take seriously a candidate with a Biden-era, standard position on an actual issue like Housing or the Border, and a guy who thinks Woman, Man, Camera, TV is the height of cognition. I should really hold these two things as equals in my head? Huh. Okay, that is a take.
Really goes to show how, after a decade; the Media still has no idea how to handle Trump and his tactics, his low-level Cult, or his High-level Oligarch/Politico fans.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 30, 2024 11:26:59 GMT -5
I don't think the media doesn't know how to handle Trump. The media knows how to handle Trump, but handling Trump isn't profitable when you need as many eyeballs glued to the screen as possible. Trump is 'exciting', and left or right, that draws in the views, for different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Aug 30, 2024 12:17:52 GMT -5
The media is mostly complicit. Profit motive and consolidation of news ownership has really harmed our political discourse.
|
|