(10-27-2023 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (10-26-2023 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Correct. There is *nothing* anywhere that says 'how, what, why not' that Gaetz put any iota of anything into this. I dont think I have ever claimed to have such facts. If I have please point them out.
First, you have demanded evidence from me... You're still doing it...
First -- I have asked you for evidence of a plan. Not demanded as you note.
Second -- You will note that the above isnt a 'demand' for evidence, nor even a request for 'evidence of a plan'. It simply says "I agree with you my stance has no direct proof or nor direct evidence. I have never claimed that there was, aside from a complete dearth of *any* information to support any Gaetz plan. If I am mistaken about that, please tell me where."
I am sorry if you misconstrue that above. Those requests are distinctly different and for distinctly different things.
Third --- When an opinion is denoted as 'facile' (i.e. thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant) -- why yes, I will ask that person denoting that opinion as (thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant) what they have to back up their contrary take on things. I dont think that a horrible thing to do, mind you. Nor anything to generate an animus in that ask. And, my comment that requested such backing contained none of the superfluous 'facile' comments, nor any asides whatsoever.
Quote: and I've provided it. The absolute best evidence that he had a plan is that the end result clearly moved his way. We got a LESS moderate speaker... one it seems MORE in line with Goetz.... not a MORE moderate speaker.
There is a distinct difference between a *goal* of an action and it’s outcome, and a plan of how to deal with the immediate aftermath in pursuit of that goal. A very distinct difference.
Your statement above is 'the end goal was reached, ergo there was a detailed plan for the immediate aftermath.' That doesnt sound like any evidence of a plan for the immediate aftermath, just a recitation of the end goal with or without a plan for the immediate aftermath.
Quote:If your belief is that he simply threw a bomb without thinking about what would happen, then (only because you have repeatedly insisted on the same of me) show proof of that. And no, a lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of a thing.
I told you above there are *zero* substantive facts as to a ‘no plan’, just as there are *zero* substantive facts to a plan in the immediate wake of the bomb, in this instance.
The sheer pandemonium with zero substantive action by Gaetz et al is something indicative to me.
Further, there is inherent logical fallacy to your query above — it is fundamentally logically impossible to ‘prove’ a negative. The *only* manner one can *prove* a ‘no plan’ is via express statement by Gaetz. I haven’t seen that. Have you?
Quote:Quote:I It might be noted that a path of 'no plan' doesnt tend to have a pile of facts surroubnding it -- asking for facts around a 'no plan' is akin to asking for proof of a negative..
How convenient for you then... You can levy a charge and never have to defend it... but then you demand proof of any other opinion...
Stating my opinion is 'levying a charge'?
As for convenience -- that is simply the factual situation above. I cannot prove a negative. Most anyone cannot. But that is now what you seemingly require of me.
As for evidence of the issue -- the surroundings of the chaos lead me to believe that Gaetz had *no* plan *other* than throwing the bomb. And the very large lack of notes that have accompanied the rest of the circus seem absent and lacking in total with regard to the supposed 'Gaetz plan'. If I heard of some there, I wouldnt have the opinion that I do.
It boils down to you having an unsupported opinion, and me having an opinion based on the lack of what are typically well reported inside moves, as I noted in my last post. Which all in all is fairly unsupported in all honesty. I would note that both positions as such are 'facile' in your rendering of the subject.
I am sorry that this situation boils down to '[me] levying a charge and somehow constructing a situation that I dont have to answer'. Im merely noting the issue, and the stuff around the issue. I havent 'constructed' anything, nor do I have a personal vestment in its outcome. If you can denote credible evidence of such a plan, Ill listen. Merely reciting the success of the end goal is pretty light on evidence scale, as is family history, of that intermediate plan in my book.
Quote:and then ignore it when it is given.
No, I habent "ignored" it. I have looked at it, considered it, and found them non-persuasive.
There is a very strong difference between 'ignoring' and 'simply not giving the evidence enough credence to convince'. A very distinct difference.
And yes, your evidence of 'family history' and the (incorrect) invocation of 'res ipsa loquitor' (that is the fact of a leader and power change is ipso facto evidence of a plan beyond simply throwing the bomb) simply doesnt convince me.
That is a far cry from the 'ignore it' comment you choose to ascribe that as you do above, mind you.
I find your rationales of: a) family history, and b) they got more power as wholly unpersuasive. Much as you find mine of 'zero facts in any record' unpersuasive from your end. I am not calling you 'ignorant' or that you are 'ignoring' that which I and 93 put forward in the manner that you seem to want to label the equivalent. If you wish to find those rationales unpersuasive --- you have every right to do so. I dont understand why finding your rationales unpersuasive is deemed 'ignoring' the rationales, or exactly how someone not deeming your rationales persuasive make them ignorant.
Quote:Cute.
I would appreciate a level of non-personal asides or comments. I haven’t made any in this interaction. There are even more in this post I am responding to, as well as some in others.
Quote:Quote:Quote:but it doesn't stop you from speaking as if you do.
I suppose that comment is equally as applicable to both of us here.
Not really. I've clearly stated that this is my opinion and that I can't prove it... and I've clearly presented evidence that he had a plan...
I have done exactly the same Ham. I’ve presented the singular fact that, contrary to every little move subsequent that detailed precisely or through other means the machinations internal to every move —- there is none as to what, or even whether, the plan by Gaetz was after his motion.
My opinion. My rationale. But it seems to really create antagonism from you.
Previously I proffered this: "You have an (strident) opinion. I have an opinion. That seems to say it all, does it not?".
Apparently it does not.
Quote: the reason for my belief... with the most obvious being that he wanted someone else to begin with... but didn't have the power to make that happen.... someone more 'right'... he saw an opportunity to oust the current guy and took it, and his people were nominated and someone more 'right' was installed. Ipsa Loquitur, right?
The term is 'res ipsa loquitor'. And it really is not applicable in this matter. Even in a colloquial sense.
Again a goal of replacement doesn’t mean at all he had any plan for the aftermath. Those are distinctly different. I think you on one hand, and 93 and I on the other, are talking about two distinctly different 'plans'.
At one level, the bomb throw was part of a plan 'to gain more power'. That I agree with. That is what I now seemingly understand as your take on this.
The level that I am speaking of, and I believe 93 is opining on, is that for the immediate aftermath of the bomb throw, there was *zero* plan by Gaetz. Just a hope that more power would ensue. I would hope you would agree with me (us) that "hop[ing]" for a result is not a well thought out plan to *achieve" those results.
That is if the 'plan' is:
Step 1: throw bomb
Step 2: doesnt matter what
Step 3: gain power
It seems pretty well underthought. And that seems to me at least to what happened. For the record: my opinion. Based on zero action in the aftermath from Gaetz, and zero reported action by Gaetz, and zero reports of *any* sort that go into the nub of what Gaetz and 7 dwarves thought out on gaining power subsequent to the bomb throw. Given the fairly in depth information that can be gleaned from a whole host of parties and events that follow -- I find that silence to be worthy of consideration.
You dont.
Since *you* decided to call the stance of 'no plan' based on no apparent evidence of a plan "facile" -- I simply asked you why you thought that. In return there was : a) they got power in the end; 2) Gaetz's family; and a few others that I didnt find to really be meaty.
Again -- you have an opinion. I have an opinion. Maybe thats that.
Quote:How in your mind is that not proof of at least a basic plan? He wanted more and didn't get it... he threw in a hornet's nest and got more. As I've repeatedly said.. we may or may not like his plan, but there obviously was a plan to get 'more' from the start (2022) that failed and he found a way to get more in 2023.
Again — the issue isn’t a generalized plan for ‘more power’. The issue is was there *any* plan for the specific time after the bomb throw. I’ll grant him kudos for gaining more power, but he (in my mind) simply threw the bomb with a generalized goal with zero plan for the immediate aftermath.
Quote:Quote:My bad -- I didnt notice the 'family' in the 'family history' proffer of proof. I dont think a family history as to the issue of his having a plan *here* and *now* is really germane to anything.
That's a pretty big miss... and I find it funny that you don't think someone with a history of planning in the political arena has anything to do with something this significant in the political arena. Let's just say that I'm 100% convinced that if he had similarly blown something up in his past and it had backfire on him, I am confident that you would be presenting that as evidence that he is a 'loose cannon'. The guy is clearly trying to make a name for himself. It is obvious by his demeanor and actions and has been for a good while now, despite only being in his 40's.... plus he followed his father in this arena. Proof of nothing, but certainly doesn't suggest someone who quite literally blows up his party without thinking about the repercussions.... which is essentially what you guys have claimed.
Ham, it is clear that you on one side and 93 and I are talking about different aspects. Ours is that there was nonspecific plan after the bomb throw to gain more power. Yours is that the overall plan was to gain more power. Very distinctly different. And I agree with you the general plan was to gain more power. But still have an opinion that there was zero plan on how to gain power aside from simply tossing the bomb.
Quote:Quote:Im offering no more than my opinion, Ham. I have proferred up zero factual basis -- because that usually normal 'chatter' that typically exists into background machinations doesnt seem to exist here. Just as you are offering your opinion.
Then why are you debating my opinion with no facts to support yours, and yet demanding proof from me?
You mean asking you for yours, right? And I am not the person wholly dismissing your opinion as explicitly "(thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant) ", right? So yes, when someone notes my opinion is (thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant), I would like to know their basis.
So I *asked* for yours. Notwithstanding your comment that I *demand* them. I would suggest when I explicitly call your opinions (thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant), I would not be surprised to get the same response from you for a basis.
Quote:You act like we're both just presenting our opinions... yet I have only recently (and in response) put the same burden on you that you have requested of me for many posts now. You've asked... I've answered and asked in return... and you have characterized my responses to your challenges to my opinion as making me strident?
Im not the person invoking 'facile', or 'laughable', or actually doing anything to make the issue personal Ham.
Quote:I guess in your world I should just say... Yeah, I disagree... and you would just drop it. Nothing in EITHER of our histories suggests that would ever happen... but I guess that isn't pertinent either, right?
See the above, Ham. If you want to inject 'our histories' into the current discussion, that is a 'you' action. I havent alluded to that at all, nor have I injected any type of rancor into this discussion. Nor have I made a comment about your 'methodologies' ('levying a charge while evilly constructing a situation to never be questioned.... cute.') as seemingly are important to you based on those issues being explicit in your return comment.
In fact I made that above comment about 'you having an opinion and my having an opinion, with that seems to say it all, does it not?' in an effort to short circuit that aspect wholly.
Quote:Quote:And might I add, there is a lot of channels out there that seemingly are placing the moniker of 'mindless bomb thrower' onto Gaetz. Far more items than channels telling this as someone having a set plan as you surmise.
You have an (strident) opinion. I have an opinion. That seems to say it all, does it not?
That is just so laughable.
My opinion is only strident because you have decided I must prove it to you. You have repeatedly implied that my opinion has no evidence to support it... even now.... I mean, other than the obvious actions and the obvious result, right?? Guy just got lucky.
I dont find evidence that they got a new Speaker horribly germane to the issue if they had a plan for the immediate aftermath -- that is the 'what do you do immediately after the bomb throw and before the end result'.
I simply ask you for your facts that back your comments, after you decided to label another opinion as facile. Not demanded as you note above, not that I decided that [you] must prove it.
You have said 'they got the result they wanted'. Yes, yes they did. It is still zero evidence of any plan for the immediate aftermath, mind you. No matter how many times you repeat it, or try and invoke 'res ipsa loquitor'.
Quote:I'd also note that even this comment itself... that 'the channels' are on your side is an attempt by you to claim something more than just your opinion... it is an opinion that 'the channels' share, and they don't share mine. You're clearly offering that up as evidence of SOMETHING. Maybe you just need more 'channels'?
Im offering up the fact that the inside machinations of the GOP and its factions were absolutely reported on during the time they were in the circus tent acting like some idiot clowns. You couldnt turn your head without seeing some description of interactions -- inside supposedly even closed door events.
And those types of notes are *still* occurring. And they even occurred almost in real time as to the Democratic response to Gaetz's motion, and the machinations in the D to the events.
SO yes, in these types of event -- reporting on the inside movements is quite common. Absolutely. There was actually reporting on the motions by Gaetz at least a half day before Gaetz threw the bomb, mind you.
The fact that there is *zero* on anything that Gaetz and his 7 dwarves did between the throwing the motion bomb and the outcome does seem to be an indication on any depth of the plan they had for immediately afterwards, let alone even having a plan for the aftermath aside from getting a more amenable Speaker for them. That is the step 2, between Step 1 'throwing the bomb' and Step 3 'gaining more power'.