New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[hollodero]

(09-19-2023, 12:52 PM)Dill Wrote: 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."

Well. You started the whole issue about rule of law versus law and order. It was in no way SSFs central singular point to make, yet you treat it as if it were. Reducing all the points made to this one particular aspect, that is far from a fair summation, and far from the most interesting one for pretty much everyone except you. Still, you now declare it front and center.
Then you also put parts of my response in quotation marks, like "the liberal side" looking "not so good", and treat these quotes as if they were a valid summation of my stance towards your particular points. That is just a misrepresentation. This was of course not in reference of SSF not voting for Democrats or law and order solutions or whatever else you brought up. What they actually referred to, of course, was that things like governors violating constitutional rights or over-leniency towards criminals in California and the negative effects these policies apparently have, topics like these might be not all that great for democrats. Because that's what the thread actually is about. In theory, that might actually be a discussion valuable for the left side to have. It also really is not a discussion that needs to turn to North Korea for invaluable insights.

Aside from that, I really do not delve into which particular things were raised and doubled down on by whom in which postings or what you would or would not let pass or whatever, that stuff doesn't matter to me. What I called "well explained points" were just that, points, or call it grievances, that I could understand and follow quite easily. Granted, I did not try to find as much fault with them as possible.