evince
Truthmatters
You complimented his argument by saying this phrase you fucking idiot
Not a fan Gerrymandering, but the Republicans really f’ed themselves.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
QP!
Verified User
Terry has a bullet list of all fallacies that he throws out but has no clue what they mean and i and others prove that constantly, embarrassing him.
In this case claiming my post is "reductio ad absurdum" actually makes no sense. Not even a little bit.
In no way is my posting a fact, that this same judge has already been over ruled by the Appellate court TWICE on aspects of this same issue not relevant to our discussions as to whether this current ruling by him, will stand or may be over turned.
Whether it is Terry and other magats speculation this will hold up or our speculation it will not, the past two rulings, in this very area are extremely relevant to our speculations. THey are not concrete proof but they are certainly are informative for speculation.
Terry claiming that posting that this judge has already been over ruled twice is such an "absurd thing to do that is leads to an extreme conclusion", just shows he has no clue what the fallacy means nor how to apply it. AGAIN.
QP!
Verified User
^^ add to the above that no one, and i mean NO ONE, on this forum cries "Activist judges" more than Terry and when he is challenged on that he quotes the one case of Judge Boasburg being over ruled by the appellate court in a single Trump case, while ignoring the mass numbers of one they win, but for Terry 'citing that appellate court over ruling is good evidence for his claim', while me citing 'two incidence of this Judge being over ruled on this same issue, with a 3rd incoming' is just absurd to consider. 
No shit that Richards is dead - yet you still claim that Trump forced her to engage in the absurd gerrymander your party depended on for 3 decades.
The Lobster would even make Richards blush.
Every time a JPP trumptard claims, "the vote was rigged" we have to drink. Right now, coffee will do!
“Activist judges” in the eye of the beholder. Our leaders in Washington love to scream about them at each other.^^ add to the above that no one, and i mean NO ONE, on this forum cries "Activist judges" more than Terry and when he is challenged on that he quotes the one case of Judge Boasburg being over ruled by the appellate court in a single Trump case, while ignoring the mass numbers of one they win, but for Terry 'citing that appellate court over ruling is good evidence for his claim', while me citing 'two incidence of this Judge being over ruled on this same issue, with a 3rd incoming' is just absurd to consider.
If we drank alcohol, everyone would end up like most JPP MAGAts.
Politicians picking their voters is not good for America.
Trump started this redistricting war and it's blowing up in his face as badly as his war with Iran.
You, being a drugged-out dumbass, are doubling down on stupid.
QP!
Verified User
i think Terry has convinced himself that it does not matter how stupid the things he pushes out are or how easily debunked they are or how exposed he is and that somehow just 'pushing them for Trump' is all that matters. He believes that noise and not quality arguments are all that matter.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
A reductio ad absurdum is when you try and argue ever smaller points in a debate. An example of this is being a "Grammar Nazi." Rather than address the actual material--often because you can't--you pick out flaws in the language used. Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of was is..." is a classic example.
Nit picking is another way to describe this. Something like responding that your opponent's argument doesn't work on odd numbered Tuesdays in months ending in N...
You have reduced the argument to an absurd level of minutia rather than focus on the Big Picture.
QP!
Verified User
that is not the proper definition...
In a discussion where two parties are SPECULATING and ARGUING over whether a Judge's stay of a proceeding is :
- 'indicative of bad process or law' (as you are arguing)
OR
- 'a ruling by a Judge that has yet to face appeal and we do not think will stand (my belief)
You trying to claim that citing that this SPECIFIC JUDGE has already ruled twice on this exact issue of referendums and in BOTH INSTANCES been over turned by the appellate court who found his rulings to be wrong, ... and you want to say that not only has no bearing but is absurd is reductionist to consider just shows how stupid you are.
In speculative discussions such as we are having a Judges history on certain issues (environment, Abortion, election law... etc) and whether he tends to get upheld or over ruled is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the speculation of whether he correct ruling will stand or fall. To say otherwise is, well... just stupid.
It's a phrase mostly coming from the Right even as they prove they are the biggest users of activist judges from the states like Virginia all the way to the Supreme Court.
The "You did it first" excuse is common among MAGAts to justify their immorality and anti-Americanism.
Texas has been redistricted four times since Richards was involved. Any gerrymandering she had was replaced four times over with Republican gerrymandering.