If they’re “blocked,” on grounds that are similar to a fear of voodo? Yes.
That’s the beauty of America, baby.
You are free to believe that about me; I’m free to believe it about you. Who cares?
Meanwhile, the actual laws endure. America.
I never accuse someone of wanting to overthrow democracy for merely calling a law “bad.” It’s when they start saying the law should be erased without involvement from the legislature or the courts that I suggest they’re not too fond of democracy.
When has that happened? Genuine curiosity, and I mean really happened, not just you saying some variant on “well, if you believe that, you must also believe…”
You can hardly doubt his sincerity when you stop and remember the way he renounced, denounced, and condemned that nebulous number of Republicans who really *were *trying stack the deck. Blistering! For a moment there, I thought he might lose his icy self-control and issue a “Tsk! Tsk!”.
Someone blatantly saying that they want to overthrow democracy?
Or someone saying, “You can’t pass a law like this unless the permissible votes prevented are less than the false votes prevented!”
There’s a lot of that.
And when I ask, “What’s your proposed system?” I think only MaxtheVool has actually answered me. Because everyone else knows that what they’re saying is: they eant their desired approach to win out over the legislature’s but can’t admit to literally short-circuiting the democratic process.
And that reflects a desire to overthrow democracy? Examples, please. It looks more like “you can’t do that” to mean “you shouldn’t do that” or “you can’t do that and be a good/ethical/moral person”.
Maybe only Max answered your question because he was humouring you. It’s a stupid question, after all.
“Can’t” is not the same as “ought not to”. They ought not to have done so, that is why we are Pitting them.
Of course they can, they can because no one can stop them. That’s what you’re gloating about, right?
And if you seriously entertain the notion that we object to this because we hope to undermine and distort democracy…you’re losing your grip.
I think you should cut your losses and admit you mischaracterized what people are saying here. Or, quote a specific post. This thread is about 10,000 pages long*-- there should be plenty if it’s happening at all.
*exaggeration
I think I shouldn’t because I haven’t.
I can quote plenty of specific posts saying, “You can’t…”
I certainly acknowledge that no one has been daring enough to say, “Yes, I want to rule the land with an iron fist.”
But if someone says, “You can’t pass this law unless it stops more illegal votes than the legal ones it suppresses,” and I ask what their proposed system is to actually pass laws, then, and they dodge and weave and refuse to answer, then the natural consequence of their reasoning is obviously exactly what they intend.
Yes. Except plenty of your troops aren’t saying “ought not to,” and ARE saying “can’t.”
I agree they’re not the same. But I fully expect a chorus of voices to arise insisting that they are the same.
And I expect you’ll be one of them. And because you’re you, you won’t even blink at contradicting yourself.
Why not just do it then, instead of saying you can do it. Few of us want to go back and read this thread…
So you’re insisting on literal accuracy, parsing “can’t” v. “shouldn’t”?
Then you invalidate your argument by using words like “troops” unless you can demonstrate posters here are members of a cavalry unit. Since you’re wrong about that, what else are you wrong about, any why should we assume you are right about anything?
In my eyes such language is clearly figurative, in the “you can’t just let someone wait at the airport without a ride home!” sense – “you can’t” meaning “you shouldn’t”.
I don’t think you do your argument any service by misconstruing this sort of figurative language for an advocacy of rule-by-fiat.
It is a common figure of speech to say “You can’t…” in place of “You should not”. This shit is just plain silly.
“One thing I know - you can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor.”
-obscure pop-culture reference
Shit, that ain’t much, I heard that in one of these Pit threads some guy was suggesting that all liberal/lefties are big admirers of Stalin! Probably just a disturbin’ legend, nobody is that fucking thick…
Bricker’s descriptions of liberals are so cartoonish, I have to figure almost everyone here is disqualified from being one. I know I am.
I only pop into this thread every now and again more for its humor value than anything else, but have people actually posted “you can’t…”? I don’t recall seeing any. But I do agree that it would be unusual for all but a few nut cases who post here to literally mean “you can’t…” in this context.
Anyway, you can’t just go around accusing people of stuff without actually giving proof!
SNL. 1980-something.