New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[Dill]

(09-18-2023, 11:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, never meant to "call you out" or anything of that sort. Since you raised the point, I will rise mine with it though. I for one, even while certainly limited in my comprehension, understood pretty well what SSF was addressing. He made his initial points, then kept expanding on it, gave further examples of what he meant (that the law he mentioned turned out to be more of an initial proposal is slightly unfortunate, but I don't mind that), also shared events from his personal experience, all to paint a pretty clear picture about his grievances with liberal politics and policies.

One can agree or disagree, more often I'd do the latter, not in this case though; but that's not so relevant. It's just, you still asking for clarification instead of addressing the well explained points heads on can have the appearances of deflection, aka rather talk about the correct terminology than the issues behind it because the issues behind it might make the liberal side look not so great. If that is indeed so, I don't know. I just tried to get a direct opinion on the topic at hand out of you. But all of that was not meant to be critizism. I'm literally debating cow farts in this thread now, so it's not like I'm any kind of role model for staying on topic.

To the first bolded--SSF started this thread, I thought, to address a violation of constitutional principle. He talked about that some, and fascism. Then in his post #44 he made some sweeping generalizations about "the left" and how the right tends to defend organic society. I could have let that pass, but wanted to know what "awful" policies against "rule of law" he thought Dems were responsible for. When I asked, I did not know that he did not know the difference between "rule of law" and "law and order." Now I do. I can't find anything before that which looks like shared events from personal experience or the like. Or I don't know what you are counting as "well explained points" before that.

When I corrected the conflation, he just doubled down on it. Still does. Like it's no more than the difference between "bachelor" and "unmarried man."  So it's not like he knew perfectly well what rule of law is and just confused terms. I have asked quite reasonable questions of him on quite reasonable grounds, so from my side "deflection" is refusing to answer simple, determinative questions like--Is there law and order in Iran and NK? If there is, and there's no difference, then there must be rule of law there too.

At a time when U.S. democracy is under threat because people don't seem to get, or care, about the basic distinction between "rule by law and rule by men," I don't want to let it go if someone seems appears not to get or care about it. If you still think responding to the double down just looks like deflection, then I guess the conflation, which can no longer be regarded as accidental, doesn't bother you. Skip that and get to law a regulating employer-employee relations, since that's what SSF "intended." He's offered personal grievances and other examples--and adds he will never vote Dem again, presumably because he wants what I would call law and order solutions. Don't see how that makes "the liberal side" look "not so great."