by Dennis Crouch
In re Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) (MonolithicEnBancPetition)
Back in 2021, Bel Power sued Monolithic for patent infringement in Waco Texas. 21-cv-00655. Monolithic did not want to be a defendant before Judge Albright and so moved to dismiss/transfer:
- to dismiss/transfer the case for improper venue, 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), and alternatively
- to transfer the case on convenience grounds. 28 USC 1404(a).
Judge Albright denied both motions and Monolithic immediately petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus. In September 2022, that petition was denied with a 2-1 decision. Judges Chen and Stark joined together in a per curiam majority opinion and Judge Lourie wrote in dissent. Dennis Crouch, Remote Work and Patent Venue, Patently-O (Sept 30, 2022).
Now Monolithic has asked the Federal Circuit to reconsider its case en banc., focusing on the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)’s requirement of a “regular and established place of business” in today’s remote-work and global-shipping world. Here, Monolithic has several employees who work in the district for the purpose of serving customers in the district. This includes both sales and engineering. And, at least according to Judge Abright this is not a ‘work-wherever-you-want’ situation. Rather, Monolithic wants some boots on the ground in Austin and other WDTX. locations to serve their clients in those locations. In that regard, Judge Albright concluded that Monolithic maintains a continuous physical presence within the district by replacing the local employees that leave/move. There is an expectation that those folks will keep MPS stored property in WDTX as well, both for sales and service. In its en banc petition, Monolithic cites a long line of cases going back 100+ years that employee homes don’t count.
Proper venue is rarely a big deal these days in Federal Litigation. Congress amended the venue statutes so that, in most cases, venue rises and falls with personal jurisdiction. But, patent law is different. In the late 1800s Congress created a special venue statute for patent cases that has stuck despite changes in the general law. A US corporate defendant can be sued either:
- In the state of incorporation; or
- In a district where the defendant (a) “has committed acts of infringement” and (b) “has a regular and established place of business.”
28 U.S.C. 1400(b). When a lawsuit is filed based upon improper venue, the district court will need to either dismiss the action or transfer the case to a district having proper venue. Here, Monolithic argues that venue is improper because it lacks “a regular and established place of business” within the Western District of Texas. Meanwhile, the case is proceeding before Judge Albright. Claim construction is complete and discovery is ongoing. Trial is set for May 12, 2023.
One thing I’ll note is that in 2020, Monolithic filed two different patent infringement lawsuits in Waco as plaintiff. 22-cv-00320; 20-cv-00876. But, there is no “good for the gander” principle for proper venue. The statute has no clause indicating that suing a third party does not generally serve as an admission of proper venue. (I believe it should serve as an admission that venue is likely convenient under 1404(a)). What it does do, however, is make Monolithic an unsympathetic mandamus petitioner.
Patents at issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,936,999, 6,949,916, 7,000,125, 7,049,798, 7,080,265, and 7,456,617. The primary accused product is a power management bus (MPM3695) used on integrated circuits.
= = =
Both parties have a team of lawyers, but it appears that Bell Power is primarily represented by Brian Sodikoff’s team at Katten Muchin. Morrison & Foerster’s Deanne Maynard is representing Monolithic at the Federal Circuit. MoFo is also at the district court, along with attorneys from Perkins Coie.
Hmm,
Not another “Far Right” eh?
link to youtu.be
(after all, it’s against the Far Left, so what else could it be?)
“I would welcome Russell Brand to the QAnon cult, but let’s be honest: he’s been embodying their extremist mentality for years. It’s just that his narcissism finally overtook his drive to help others and I’m sad about it.”
You are really fond of ducks, aren’t you?
Of course you would welcome him so.
He is odd indeed, but I am not surprised (in the least) that you jump to the Malcolm-like one bucketing.
This is after all not patent law, so you haven’t bothered actually thinking about the What was being said, and the Who saying it was enough for you.
Which is — again — my point.
Maybe breaking this up will get past the filter …
so you haven’t bothered actually thinking about the What was being said, and the Who saying it was enough for you
The “Who” always informs my opinion. For example, if Tucker Carlson said that the sun rises in the east, I would get out my compass and double check. Russell Brand may have a reputation for being an “independent” thinker, being an independent thinker is not necessary a logical thinker.
Joe Rogan, James Lyndsay, Russell Brand. You know the names as you (and your ilk) have cited to them. What do they have in common (beyond the last two being interviewed by Rogan at one point)? They have all figured out that right-wing conspiracy theories sell. Look at Tucker Carlson and the Donald. What was the Donald’s first big conspiracy theory: Obama wasn’t born in this country and his birth certificate was a fake. What are the other ones being bandied about recently? There is the Great Replacement Theory. The “One World Government.” So many things about COVID. The “grooming” of children. January 6th was a “false flag” operation. I could go on and on. Interestingly enough, the people listed above all peddle multiple ones of these theories. Why? Because they sell.
It appears only your first piece of the broken up attempt made it through.
Unfortunately yes. I cited to a publisher’s description of “Race Marxism” by James Lindsay. I suspect that it contained the offending language.
What I then wrote was that no liberal I know believes in what Lindsay describes as CRT. Rather, anti-CRT laws are intended to limit discussions of CRT, which they intend to include discussions about racism and sexism. As such, anyone who talks about racism/sexism is automatically “one-bucketed” as someone espousing CRT.
I also quoted the anti-CRT bill that was signed into law in Texas which also required teachers to give deference to both sides when talking about current events. As such, if one was talking about the Charlottesville march, both sides would have to be given deference — kind of like “very fine people on both sides.”
There was substantially more to my post than that, but let’s see if this makes it through.
Did not get through the filter.
Recognizing that now that this has aged to page two, and not likely to grab your attention for further discussion. I will simply place here a link to a more recent thread that debunks your salacious breadcrumb about Dr. James Lindsay:
https:
//patentlyo.com/patent/2022/12/uspto-grants-2022.html#comment-833757
(and by the way, the fact of the matter is that “because they sell” is only more of your logical fallacies, as you seek to wholesale ignore the realities that give rise to many of the things that you would call “conspiracy theory” – a word to advice to you on that (the Royal You): if You do not like the assertions of ‘conspiracy theory,’ STOP making advancing items that support the ‘conspiracy theories.’
In other words, MANY (but certainly not al) of what you list as dismissible do in fact have real life basis to them and should NOT be so dismissed as you would do.
That you seek to dismiss them (and that you align with the Liberal Left so mindlessly, so Lemming-like), begs the question as to what are You selling (and buying). You are quick to denigrate anything outside of the Liberal Left (going on and on doing so), but you constantly avoid the actual merits and background of what Dr. Lindsay puts on the table for discussion.
For example, the assertion that “ As such, anyone who talks about racism/sexism is automatically “one-bucketed” as someone espousing CRT.” is patently false.
Your premise for this: “ no liberal I know believes in what Lindsay describes as CRT.” is a logical fallacy, in that you ground your rejection of what Dr. Lindsay provides (and what is provided is an objective fact) based on your feelings. Your assertion than on merely limiting discussions of CRT is without merit – and does not accord with what Dr. Lindsay provides (specifically, in the Motte and Bailey approach used by the Far Left).
It most definitely is NOT a “the Right do not want to give deference to both sides,” as it is simply not allowing something very much incorrect to be ‘graced’ with the ‘deference’ of being allowed to be misconstrued as being correct. Dr. Lindsay’s latest short summary is very much on point to this attempted logical fallacy:
https:
//open.spotify.com/episode/4HY2xbdD5Q10AM2yq42ab6?si=oQWWsYvgRk6BjqCxZm09nQ
You also err in that you (again) seem to label liberal as BEING THE SAME AS LIBERAL LEFT.
It just is not so. This is nothing more than your own “Sprint Left” at action. People such as Joe Rogan and Dr. Lindsay are traditional liberals and your own relative degree of being far more Left does NOT turn them into Right Wing people.
By the way, see post 6 below that previously distinguished Left and Liberal (very much in a NON-one bucket sense).
Also, since multiple links are provided, simply copy and remove the line break.
link to open.spotify.com
Distinguishing between Classic Liberal and Liberal Left
When it comes to politics, even patent-reasonable people seem to go off their rocker.
Take Wt, who below employs logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
Stop being so polarized — destructing the Liberal Left position does NOT necessitate (what to your mind is the polar opposite) of my being Trumpian.
I need not defend positions that I have never taken, just because YOU have a meltdown when faced with the absurdity of the Liberal Left.
Anon writes: quack, quack, quack, quack
I’m detecting a duck here.
Keep on spouting your catchphrases and being wrong.
Show me the “catchphrase” above.
Show me the error above.
Yeah, that’s what I thought — you and the “see a quack everywhere” should feel free to actually engage your cognitive abilities (even in the realm of politics).
When people constantly say that you are a duck … odds are pretty good that you are a duck. You may not want to identify as a duck but you are one nonetheless.
LOL- when those saying it have a non-substantive reason for saying it (mainly because I have taken them to task), the CONTEXT of the accusation informs the situation, and those capable of thinking fully recognizing the accusation of duck is just that: an accusation.
“Liberal Left” is both a catchphrase for you (you’ve used it NINE times alone in these comments), and incorrect, as the position WT, myself, and others have taken is not a position held only by liberals.
It’s not the only error you’ve made in the comments here (like saying there was only one casualty on January 6…that’s demonstrably incorrect).
Liberal Left is a descriptive phrase, well recognized in political ideology. It IS descriptive of the position taken, and it IS that position to which the use is directed.
As such, it is not a catchphrase.
As for casualty, let me clarify: fatality.
catchphrase
noun
catch·phrase ˈkach-ˌfrāz ˈkech-
1
: a word or expression that is used repeatedly and conveniently to represent or characterize a person, group, idea, or point of view
Idi ot
Hi Marty,
It’s been awhile since you showed your face.
In fact, was this the last: link to patentlyo.com ?
Q-Anon writes: Liberal Left is a descriptive phrase, well recognized in political ideology. It IS descriptive of the position taken, and it IS that position to which the use is directed.
Translation: quack, quack, quack.
No one here uses the verbiage of MAGA as much as you do (with the exception of perhaps PatentMom, but she(?) is an infrequent poster). Again, you talk like a duck. You might as well identify as one.
Except I am not — and you do not get to impute arguments and positions that I have not expressed as holding to me just because you want to or you think it convenient to do so.
Again — it is you that is attempting some polarized view and doing so just because the position of the Liberal Left is being deconstructed.
You are employing a logical fallacy.
Still.
you do not get to impute arguments and positions that I have not expressed as holding to me just because you want to or you think it convenient to do so
Of course I get to. When you walk, talk, and act like a duck, I’m going to call you a duck. The only insights I have into your inner beliefs is your outward expressions to the world.
When someone acts like [X] but says “I’m not an [X],” most people are going to judge that someone on how they act — not how they self-identify.
BTW, convenience has nothing to do with my descriptions of you. It is equally convenient for me to describe you as a duck versus Woke. What I find amusing (which is why I even bothered to respond) is that you have repeatedly denied being a duck yet fail to recognize the implications of WHY you have had to repeatedly deny that association. You’ve had to repeatedly make these denials because what you quack is indistinguishable from on duck and you’ve been called out on it many times.
Again — it is you that is attempting some polarized view and doing so just because the position of the Liberal Left is being deconstructed.
Notwithstanding that I don’t know what this quack-salad means, you are still quacking like a duck.
Logical fallacy or not, if Q-Anon acts, walks, and talks like a duck, I’m going to call him a duck.
As I wrote elsewhere, I haven’t heard anyone talk like you who isn’t a duck. If you want to be treated like an exception to the general rule, then act like the exception. So far, you haven’t.
More fallacies from you in your attempts to have me own positions that I simply have not ascribed to.
This is not looking good for you.
The key for you to get out of your hole is to stop digging. Doing more of the same is just not going to work.
This is not looking good for you.
Yeah … you and all of your supporters are really making it hard on me.
LOL
… and yet another logical fallacy….
“supporters” are a non sequitor here.
Why in the world would you think supporters are necessary?
Keep digging.
Hitting a George Carlin filter…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 8, 2022 at 12:08 pm
Liberal Left is a descriptive phrase, well recognized in political ideology. It IS descriptive of the position taken, and it IS that position to which the use is directed.
As such, it is not a catchphrase.
As for casualty, let me clarify: fa ta1 ity.
and casualty (fa ta1 ity) was not above.
On the other hand, your errors are replete – including you doing what you accuse me of.
and now hitting a count filter…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 8, 2022 at 12:12 pm
and casualty (fa ta1 ity) was not above.
On the other hand, your errors are replete – including you doing what you accuse me of.
Cry more.
after you…
I’m not the one who’s repeatedly wrong here.
A) Trump said he wanted to terminate the Constitution because of massive fraud and be reinstated as POTUS. Given the number of times he’s claimed fraud and said he should be reinstated, this is not hyperbole. Especially when Kari Lake and Paul Gosar are out there saying they agree with Trump.
B) It’s not some liberal claim that Trump wants to shred the Constitution based on his statement. There are plenty of reasonable conservatives who took his words by their plain meaning.
C) There was more than one casualty on January 6.
WanderingThrough is right. You sure speak the language of MAGA a lot for someone who claims not to be a Trump supporter.
Yes, you are the one repeatedly wrong.
A) you are imbibing the Liberal Left OMB-TDS with no recognition of hyperbole or bombast. (If you have issues with others, take it up with them – like your “see a duck everywhere” friend, you do not get to impute arguments to me based on your desires to see an “either/or” situation.
B) you are wrong and it IS a Liberal Left thing. Further, my comments here as to how Liberal Left types shut down their cognitive faculties is also true — and both of these are true whether or not some others may “agree” with the Liberal Left. Pay attention and use your mind.
C) No, there was not (the one officer so asserted to have been a casualty was — in fact — determined to have perished regardless of the Jan 6 event.
And Wt is wrong. He (and you) seem to want to fall to the tropes of those stick figure cartoons of “Hard Sprint Left” and “Push the Central Guy down and then whine that he is “Far Right.”
Catchphrases and wrongness. Par for the course.
Translation of IamI:
Wah.
I already dealt with your assertions. Do you have anything else?
Basic (for Wt):
link to law.cornell.edu
(with a reminder to Wt to be consistent vis a vis branch name and call outs of components of that branch).
Also, I was waiting for marty to throw out another mindless quip, or for IamI to fess up to his intended “put-down” that
F
A
I
L
S
… but it is now clear that neither are up to it.
Elsewhere (below) IamI used the word “buzzword” and it was clear he carried its negative connotation (from Meriam: the meaning of BUZZWORD is an important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen.)
I have corrected him.
That he now attempts “catchphrase” to carry the same negative connotation is simply wrong of him.
On multiple fronts.
He did not say he wanted to terminate the Constitution. He was referring to election fraud and to terminating rules, regulations, and articles addressing elections, even those in the Constitution. As I have noted to others, many dems have called for “the abolishment of the electoral college.” Including Hillary Clinton after she lost. Why is it only bad if Trump does it?
Regardless, fraud vitiates everything. Dems have admitted fraud occurs, but claim not enough to swing an election. One has to be willfully blind to ignore the irregularities in 2020 (several states stopping counting in the middle of the night, counting going on for days, PA mixing mail-in ballots obtained after election day with those obtained by election day despite a Supreme Court admonishment to the contrary, a glitch in Michigan that took votes away from Trump, and on and on).
I was a poll watcher in 2020 and 2022, and saw dems allow a man who was required to show ID (per the poll book to prove he lived in the precinct) to rely upon a credit card as ID. Do any of your credit cards include an address? They also tried to give a person who had been called to come in and cure their mail-in ballot (also illegal) by provisionally voting in person, a non-provisional ballot. The machine count had more votes than actual voters twice in the precinct I was watching in 2022. They gave people who were supposed to get provisional ballots, non-provisional ballots but put them in provisional envelopes. What do you think happened after they were opened? My state has thousands of precincts. Just a few of these “mistakes” at each precinct can change an election.
But let’s focus on 2022. Almost half of the precincts in Maricopa County in AZ had machine issues on election day. Machines which worked just fine the night before, per the election workers. People were given the option of waiting, putting their ballot in a magic slot to be counted off-site at a later time, to go to another precinct (which did not work because they were signed in to the first one still), or to leave. 70% of the voters on election day were Republican. Which party was affected more by the machine issues? How is this NOT disenfranchisement?
How is this NOT disenfranchisement?
The whataboutism is strong in this one. First, no one has alleged that either the machine issues were intentional.
Second, if you want to talk about disenfranchising, let’s talk about all the Republic efforts to purge voter rolls. What about the efforts to reduce early voting, reduce polling locations at historically Democrat-leaning precincts (thereby drastically increase wait times at the remaining locations), eliminating election day registration to name just a few of the literally hundreds of attempts across the country by Republicans to make it harder to vote.
More fallacies from Wt (albeit, his post is not 100% fallacy)
Let’s take it point by point:
“First, no one has alleged that either the machine issues were intentional.”
1) Objectively false.
“Second, if you want to talk about disenfranchising, let’s talk about all the Republic efforts to…
purge voter rolls.
2a) There is no disenfranchising with purging voter rolls as this is something that BOTH should be done and reduces improper voting, thus making each actual proper vote MORE enfranchised.
reduce early voting,
2b) mixed bag, as some early voting (days/weeks and associated mail-ins) are rightfully associated with fraud and improper voting, AND some “Republic” efforts are not nearly as extensive as intimated by Wt. There may well be some points here of over-the-top Republic efforts (which of course can be contrasted with those of past Democrat efforts as reflected in existing voter controls in states such as New Jersey (watch for the Wt standing in the shards of the former glass house effect).
reduce polling locations at historically Democrat-leaning precincts (thereby drastically increase wait times at the remaining locations),
2c) This does smack of improper action.
eliminating election day registration
2d) This has zero to do with disenfranchisement and is 100 percent acceptable as a means to combat voter fraud and making each actual proper vote MORE enfranchised. “Same day” simply is not a reasonable accommodation and does not provide enough time for validation to ensure the votes are proper.
“to name just a few of the literally hundreds of attempts across the country by Republicans to make it harder to vote.”
Unlike Wt, I can recognize bombast and hyperbole, but nonetheless, he confuses his assertion of “harder” with the actual (mostly) aims of simply assuring proper voting.
But my entirely reasonable – and very centric – view will be painted as ‘Trumpian” by those hard sprinting left.
I don’t have multiple sock-puppets (like Q-Anon), so I’ll try to limit my comments.
There is no disenfranchising with purging voter rolls as this is something that BOTH should be done and reduces improper voting.
A voter who infrequently votes but gets purged is not disenfranchised? Sounds like quack-logic to me. And as for all that “improper voting” out there — it is the quack-boogeyman arising from the depths. Seriously.
I didn’t get into the voter ID laws and the laws that purge registrations if a name is misspelled — all of which were intended to suppress votes.
can be contrasted with those of past Democrat efforts as reflected in existing voter controls in states such as New Jersey
Ah yes. The classic Q-Anon tactic — throw out a breadcrumb of something and build it up as some grand rebuttal. I’m not familiar with the New Jersey voter laws. Perhaps you would explain your bread crumb.
with the actual (mostly) aims of simply assuring proper voting.
LOL. With a comment like that, you’ve all but assured yourself a prime spot on the GQP-bandwagon. Alleged improper voting is the fig leaf used to disenfranchise voters.
There may have been a time where I thought you were dipping a toe into the GQP. However, it appears you have jumped in headfirst.
This is in response to Wandering’s response.
Kari Lake filed a lawsuit referencing an expert who will testify that the machine issues could not occur unless they were intentional.
The machine issues occurred in republican heavy districts. You accuse repubs of closing polling places. If that is based upon something nefarious, it is wrong. I would like to see a source. But, dems are just more devious — claim machine issues at the republican polling places or, as occurred in Luzerne County PA, run out of ballots by 9 am in the morning.
Election day registration is ridiculous. No time to verify current residency.
Voter rolls need to be cleaned of people who died and moved. From what I have read, such persons cannot be removed unless notice is sent and they also have not voted in 2 federal election cycles. Do you have a source supporting your allegation that a person can be removed on the basis of not voting alone?
I am more concerned about ballots being “found” after election day. AZ added 25,000 votes two days after election day. I wonder what the repub/dem ratio was. Lake only lost by around 17,000 votes. This “finding” started, to my memory, with Al Franken, and the mysterious ballots being found in cars. Do you support adding ballots after election day?
Kari Lake filed a lawsuit referencing an expert who will testify that the machine issues could not occur unless they were intentional.
The same expert that Lake relied upon in her failed suit to stop the use of accessible voting and electronic tabulation machines? The same guy who got a star speaking role at Mike Lindel’s Moment of Truth Summit? This one has a lot of credibility.
Aside from wanting the court to declare Lake the winner, she wants the approximately 300,000 provisional votes struck. You want to talk about disenfranchising voters?
If that is based upon something nefarious, it is wrong. I would like to see a source.
What kind of source are you looking for? You want some Republican admitting that they are closing polling places because an area is heavily Democratic. In Georgia, since the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Action of 1965, the voter rolls have increased by 2 million people yet the number of polling places has dropped 10%.
Election day registration is ridiculous. No time to verify current residency.
LOL. Do you think they send someone out to check whether they actually live someplace. Voter registration typically involves a form of photo ID, copy of some current document (e.g., utility bill, bank statement, government check) that shows the voter’s name and address, and that’s it. In Florida, for example, if you have never voted in Florida and you don’t have a Florida ID, you can be registered with an ID that shows your name and photo (e.g., student ID, neighbor association ID) along with a copy of some current document that shows your name and address (e.g., utility bill, bank statement, etc.). You aren’t applying for top secret clearance, which requires a FBI check.
Do you have a source supporting your allegation that a person can be removed on the basis of not voting alone?
When Ohio posted their list of voters that they were going to purge (235,000 names), it was discovered that 20% of those were in error. About 40,000 people who shouldn’t have been purged were going to get purged – including 20,000 from Franklin County – a Democratic stronghold.
AZ added 25,000 votes two days after election day.
Couldn’t find that claim on the internet. Found something similar for 2020 involving 18K votes as well as a (legitimate) explanation. Unless you have something more specific, I cannot comment.
Do you support adding ballots after election day?
Were the votes legitimately cast per the rules of whatever state? Were they properly received? Counting votes takes time. There were some California races that weren’t called for over a week (if not longer) after election day. Like Kari Lake, you need to back your assertions up with something more than naked allegations.
“Aside from wanting the court to declare Lake the winner, she wants the approximately 300,000 provisional votes struck. You want to talk about disenfranchising voters?”
She is alleging no chain of custody, and signature mismatches. How do you know they are real voters if there is no chain of custody? Should obvious fraudulent signatures be allowed?
“What kind of source are you looking for? You want some Republican admitting that they are closing polling places because an area is heavily Democratic. In Georgia, since the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Action of 1965, the voter rolls have increased by 2 million people yet the number of polling places has dropped 10%.” So, no, you have no evidence. And, how many blacks vote by mail-in now? Black voter turnout soared in the 2021 special election. So, looks like no one was disenfranchised.
“LOL. Do you think they send someone out to check whether they actually live someplace. Voter registration typically involves a form of photo ID, copy of some current document (e.g., utility bill, bank statement, government check) that shows the voter’s name and address, and that’s it. In Florida, for example, if you have never voted in Florida and you don’t have a Florida ID, you can be registered with an ID that shows your name and photo (e.g., student ID, neighbor association ID) along with a copy of some current document that shows your name and address (e.g., utility bill, bank statement, etc.). You aren’t applying for top secret clearance, which requires a FBI check.” Documents can be forged. Forcing a registration to be completed early prevents fraud. Notably, most of the states with same-day registration are democrat strongholds. You have to be a citizen to vote in federal elections. How is that confirmed on the spot?
“When Ohio posted their list of voters that they were going to purge (235,000 names), it was discovered that 20% of those were in error. About 40,000 people who shouldn’t have been purged were going to get purged – including 20,000 from Franklin County – a Democratic stronghold.” So, no, you have no proof that someone can be removed on the basis of not voting alone. And, the voters were not purged without notice. Try harder.
“Couldn’t find that claim on the internet. Found something similar for 2020 involving 18K votes as well as a (legitimate) explanation. Unless you have something more specific, I cannot comment.” There is no legitimate reason to add votes after election day. None. It allows for fraud. But, thanks for providing proof of my point. They did the same thing. BTW, the claim is made in Kari Lake’s lawsuit. Did you search in Google per chance? Run a search in Bing. Also, NONE of the major MSM is reporting, as usual. If the MSM does not report something, did it occur? Are you aware of the censorship that went on at Twitter that Musk is exposing? Probably not. MSM is not reporting that either. They like their audience like mushrooms.
“Were the votes legitimately cast per the rules of whatever state? Were they properly received? Counting votes takes time. There were some California races that weren’t called for over a week (if not longer) after election day. Like Kari Lake, you need to back your assertions up with something more than naked allegations.” Well, that is what Kari’s lawsuit seeks to find out. Let’s see the evidence showing that those ballots were received before the close of the polls. If you cannot prove that, the fault lies with the ones trying to count them. Too easy for fraud to occur. People have plenty of time to get their ballots in. There is no excuse. If a polling place keeps playing the “oops, we found these ballots that someone set over there” game, they need to be fired at a minimum, indicted if purposeful.
She is alleging no chain of custody, and signature mismatches. How do you know they are real voters if there is no chain of custody? Should obvious fraudulent signatures be allowed?
Arizona has been running elections for how long now and she throws out an allegation of no chain of custody – in order to disenfranchise 300,000 voters. Why go small and disenfranchise 30 or 300 voters when you can get 300,000 voters. As to “obvious fraudulent signatures,” what makes them obviously fraudulent? I’ve had an opportunity to sign my name to LOTS of things. There are my times when my signatures are very different from one to the other. Does that make them fraudulent?
So, no, you have no evidence. And, how many blacks vote by mail-in now? Black voter turnout soared in the 2021 special election. So, looks like no one was disenfranchised.
BTW — black voters do not tend to vote by mail. If you read the literature, you would know that. Also, if you read the news you would encounter stories of black voters being forced to wait in line of 3, 4, 5, hours to vote and long waits does cause voters to not stand in line (thereby disenfranchising them). This is far more inconveniencing than the printer issues in Arizona.
Documents can be forged. Forcing a registration to be completed early prevents fraud. Notably, most of the states with same-day registration are democrat strongholds. You have to be a citizen to vote in federal elections. How is that confirmed on the spot?
The spin in strong with you. Who is going to go through the time and effort to forge the documents needed for voter registration? Moreover, it is not like anyone in voter registration is checking these documents for anything other than that they have the right name and address. It takes but seconds to confirm someone is eligible to vote.
So, no, you have no proof that someone can be removed on the basis of not voting alone. And, the voters were not purged without notice. Try harder
These voters were people who HAD voted in recent elections and had not received notice. Let’s disenfranchise 10s of thousands of voters in the off chance that you might stop a handful of illegal votes being cast. If the actions to prevent fraud were commensurate with the amount of fraud, you might have a good argument. However, it isn’t even remotely close. Making it harder to vote disenfranchises 10,000x more voters than it does prevent fraudulent voters.
Did you search in Google per chance? Run a search in Bing. Also, NONE of the major MSM is reporting, as usual. If the MSM does not report something, did it occur? Are you aware of the censorship that went on at Twitter that Musk is exposing? Probably not. MSM is not reporting that either. They like their audience like mushrooms.
I saw some right wing rags that that repeated Lake’s allegations. Where is the reporting of this from Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN? Of course, Arizona Republics can hire Cyber Ninja again. However, my recollection is that despite all of the allegations of fraud in the 2020 elections, there review actually found more votes for Biden and less for Trump.
Well, that is what Kari’s lawsuit seeks to find out.
Lawsuits require well-pled allegations of fact – not speculation. That is the real reason for 12b6 motions to dismiss (which is improperly used in a patent context).
Too easy for fraud to occur.
It is too easy to allege fraud, which is why Republican sore losers keep doing. At the same time, disparaging the democratic system we live in and the many people who work very hard to ensure free and fair elections. This is right out of the Russian playbook – they can use all of these allegations of fraud as evidence that the US is not a shining beacon of democracy but a fraud that is all talk. I see you are doing the work of the Russians.
Not sure if you are this uninformed, biased, or it is cognitive dissonance. So, not going to engage you after this. You stooped to the “you are a Russian spy” argument. Seriously?
First, we are a constitutional republic. We are not a democracy.
Second, you claim disenfranchisement for black voters in GA, yet ignore that they voted in greater numbers in 2021. You claim standing in line for hours is disenfranchisement, yet ignore that, in Maricopa County, where over 50 percent of the precincts had issues with machines on election day, people stood in line for hours. You dismiss it as printer issues. How can you be this uninformed?
Third, your Ohio example does not prove that people can get removed on the basis of not voting alone. It proves that mistakes can be made, and that they published the list before purging.
Fourth, if mistakes can be made, and disenfranchisement can occur with long lines, as you admit, why are you still claiming elections are free and fair?
Fifth, a phone bill or electric bill can easily have the name changed for proof of residence. Especially now that bills are sent electronically. It would be very simple for people to do this. In an election won by fewer than 18,000 votes, only 2-3 people voting extra per precinct is necessary. We have almost 10,000 precincts in my state.
Finally, Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams claimed for years that their elections were stolen from them. Are they Russian spies? The democrats investigated Trump for 3 years for alleged collusion with Russia for the 2016 election. Are they sore losers? Seriously, WT, you have some major cognitive dissonance going on. Or did you forget the Russian collusion hoax? “It is too easy to allege fraud, which is why Republican sore losers keep doing. At the same time, disparaging the democratic system we live in and the many people who work very hard to ensure free and fair elections. This is right out of the Russian playbook – they can use all of these allegations of fraud as evidence that the US is not a shining beacon of democracy but a fraud that is all talk. I see you are doing the work of the Russians.”
Replete with logical fallacies (this guy just does not understand how deep that hole (he is in) is.
“I don’t have multiple s0ck-puppets (like Q-Anon), ”
You misuse the term s0ck-puppets, and your selected choice of moniker for me only emphasizes my point that you are of the Hard Sprint Left crowd, as no position that I have taken is – in itself – a QAnon position.
You mistake the fact that a spectrum of people may agree with me – and some in that spectrum may be far to the right – as what I say to be (and whether I am ) “Far Right.”
It just isn’t so.
That’s like saying that everyone who does not agree with H itler’s Final Solution is (and Must Be) Far Left.
“so I’ll try to limit my comments.”
Too late (much, much too late).
You are setting multiple logical fallacies as to what purging of voter rolls entail. Purging that is done properly does in fact reduce improper voting.
This is a plain fact, and no amount of attempted spin from you can change that.
I never stated “A voter who infrequently votes but gets purged is not disenfranchised?”
So your “Sounds like quack-logic to me. ” is only YOU playing with yourself.
To my comment of “can be contrasted with those of past Democrat efforts as reflected in existing voter controls in states such as New Jersey”
YOU play the logical fallacy of accusing this to be some type of “Ah yes. The classic Q-Anon tactic”
— throw out a breadcrumb of something and build it up as some grand rebuttal. I’m not familiar with the New Jersey voter laws. Perhaps you would explain your bread crumb.
HUGE difference between my breadcrumbs and yours. Yours amount to (empty) salacious attacks completely off-topic to the substance and hinge entirely on ad hominem. Mine are fact-based and on point, leading you to recognize the veracity of what I say because YOU end up with facts that you simply dismiss out of hand if someone else were to tell them to you. Do a very minor review of the level of voter protection measures in states that are typified as “D” states (throw in Delaware – Biden’s enclave) and compare the things that you are lobbing at the “R’s”).
To my comment of “with the actual (mostly) aims of simply assuring proper voting.”
You yet again Hard Sprint left – as if this “MUST BE” the polar opposite.
It is not.
“Alleged improper voting is the fig leaf used to disenfranchise voters.”
That is YOUR feelings. Do not confuse your feelings with the position that I have actually stated. They are not the same.
I should not have to ask that of you, but it seems that not only must I, I must continuously do so, because you avoid the content with a fervor of one who is ashamed to be wrong (but knows at their logical core that they are).
It is NOT an “insult” – as you wield the term – that Lindsay uses the term woke. Again, had you actually listened to his content, this (and other such things that you deign to be “tag lines”) are real subjects OF the Far Left that he has substantive issues with. His podcasts do not mischaracterize these positions, but instead do a deep and learned dive into their core.
As for your (attempted) denigrations of Lindsay, ALL of it is rubbish. Maybe instead of searching out labels and ad hominem, you actually pay attention to content. Your ‘breadcrumb’ is pure pe veristy.
As to more of YOUR feelings (with the not-so-subtle attempt to pin them on me), your…
“I suspect that Lindsay appeals to those who thought they were liberal (when white males still retained most of their historical power) but got uncomfortable when the tables were turned on them and the power that they long enjoyed were starting to slip away. These grievances over lost power have manifested itself into a ha_te of all things liberal when it comes to identity politics.”
… could not be further off the mark. You seem to imply (I will give you the opportunity to clarify) that identity politics is a neutral or a good thing. Or, that such is simply a standard of a “true liberal.”
Neither is true.
Perhaps your first error is ASSuming “those who thought they were lliberal” somehow not being the [“true’] Liberal that YOU are (AFTER, you have Hard Sprinted Left).
This again only validates my point against you.
As to the use of the term “radicalized,” yes, Lindsay DOES use that term and if you actually paid attention he explains the rather select meaning of that term. But – and it should be needless to say – just because that is how HE characterizes himself, does NOT mean that I have that same viewpoint.
Your ‘grand pronouncement of “I’m not going to get into the specific’s of Lindsay’s philosophy — he is a duck and he has been fêted by ducks. That you also sing his praises also puts you firmly in the duck camp.” is both simply false and utterly lazy of you in that you mistake that which do not like for some (polarized) “enemy” view.
As to “I’m sorry, you aren’t some forlorn liberal who has been left behind in what you’ve described as a sprint to the left. ” – this is just more malarkey from you (and shows that you simply have not listened). Hard Sprint to the Left is an Elon Musk remark (not Lindsay). I have NEVER claimed to be a forlorn liberal who has been ‘left behind.’ Your spin makes it seem that a “True Liberal” must embrace that sprint left, else be “forlorn” and “left behind.”
It just aint so.
As to, “Like Lindsay has admitted himself, you have been radicalized and quack the same quacks as the rest of the ducks.” – this is just more logical fallacy.
It should give you pause that your expression resembles Malcolm’s One-bucket approach – as he denigrates ANYTHING he does not like as belonging to the same bucket, you do the same (in your polarized view) with ‘ducks.”
The problem is that – to you – anything outside of your poli-philo closed view is seen as the same. ALL of your comments here merely reinforce how correct I have been on your tendencies outside of patent law.
PM,
He has done nothing more than mouth the Liberal Left talking points (including — as you point out — entirely debunked points that incriminate that same Liberal Left).
He has shown zero actual cognitive processing. Given as when he discusses substantive patent law, that he shows thinking, this Sheeple tendency of his is quite sad.
First, we are a constitutional republic. We are not a democracy.
LOL. That’s a popular comment for the right – let’s downplay the “democracy” aspect of our government. We, as a country, used to embrace that we were a “democracy” regardless of the political persuasion. What happened? The answer is that the right has pretty much given up on winning a majority of voters, and the demographics are getting worse and worse.
Second, you claim disenfranchisement for black voters in GA, yet ignore that they voted in greater numbers in 2021.
That’s a nice logical fallacy. One does not preclude the other.
in Maricopa County, where over 50 percent of the precincts had issues with machines on election day, people stood in line for hours.
The number was actually 60 out of 223 vote centers (not 50%) that had issues. BTW, elections in Maricopa County are run by a Republican-controlled board of supervisors and recorder’s office. As for the waiting in line, why would they have to do that? The printer problem only stopped their ballot from being read by the tabulator. And voters had the option of putting their ballot into a secure box that would get counted elsewhere. Here is a quote for you:
By midday, nearly half of the 232 voting centers countywide reported no wait at all, and 210 of the centers reported a wait of a half hour or less. The Anthem location had a wait of about an hour.
Seriously, you need to avoid Charlie Kirk as your source of facts. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good rant.
It proves that mistakes can be made, and that they published the list before purging.
A LOT of mistakes were made. And to what end? How many improper votes was this purging supported to prevent? By Republican logic, it is better to disenfranchise 10,000 voters than to let one improper vote occur.
Fourth, if mistakes can be made, and disenfranchisement can occur with long lines, as you admit, why are you still claiming elections are free and fair?
Ahh … the talking points of our anti-democratic enemies. Do you really appreciate what agenda you are pushing and for whom?
Fifth, a phone bill or electric bill can easily have the name changed for proof of residence. Especially now that bills are sent electronically. It would be very simple for people to do this. In an election won by fewer than 18,000 votes, only 2-3 people voting extra per precinct is necessary. We have almost 10,000 precincts in my state.
Seriously, the conspiracist mentality is strong with you. First, no one really knows what the vote margin is going to be beforehand. So 18,000 may actually be 180,000. Second, how do you find 10,000 or 100,000 people to commit felonies in a single state or in dozens of states? How much do you have to pay those people to commit a felony? Third, how do you commit such extremely, large scale fraud without any record of it — particularly when documents need to be forced? The logistics behind doing this is huge. To get 18,000 votes, you might have to approach 2 times or 3 times as many people. Even if they approached just 1% who were secretly planning on voting for conservatives, that would mean potentially 300-500 snitches. How many of those came forward?
Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams claimed for years that their elections were stolen from them. Are they Russian spies?
How many lawsuits did they file? How many insurrections did they incite? How many calls to Secretary of States did they make to “find” extra votes? Clinton conceded on November 9, 2016 (just after midnight) – saying of Trump “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.” BTW, there can be a difference between being a spy and an asset. An asset can be a “fellow traveler” who is not necessarily under the control of a particular foreign country.
Or did you forget the Russian collusion hoax?
Ah yes, the “hoax” in name only – after William Barr whitewashed the Mueller Report, which found numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Interestingly enough, despite William Barr’s total allegiance to Trump (did you read his resignation letter), you do realize that even Barr didn’t think the 2020 election was rigged?
“destructing the Liberal Left position does NOT necessitate (what to your mind is the polar opposite) of my being Trumpian.”
That’s not how the leftist mind works anon. You’re either with them in their project for utopia or agin them.
“That’s not how the leftist mind works anon. You’re either with them in their project for utopia or agin them”
Oh, do not doubt that I know — very well — how the ‘leftist mind’ works.
I have no real delusion of changing their minds, but post to show their nonsense for those who ARE willing to actually engage their minds.
Both of the ones trumpeting the Liberal Left (‘agin me [sic]) are very much both hard sprint(ing) left and pushing the guy in the middle down and whining how Far Right that person is.
Those willing to actually think know full well that there IS a spectrum, and that the Malcolm-like “one-bucketing” is a sign of lunacy (and utter lay ze ness).
I have routinely provided non-Trump views and even links, notably Dr. James Lindsay (a liberal that was against Trump, but saw the W0RSE path of the Liberal Left).
Lindsay is a liberal in the classic sense (only slightly left of center in the Non-Sprint-Left sense). In the link below, he distinguishes between the classic liberal and the Liberal Left.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0c1MWbWOZ4YXyCJNsDMrit?si=hnQJaiApRXmw_6QNeQVoMw&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp
This one is a shorter one of his, and worth listening all the way through.
Lindsay is a liberal in the classic sense (only slightly left of center in the Non-Sprint-Left sense). In the link below, he distinguishes between the classic liberal and the Liberal Left.
LOL.
This isn’t the first time you’ve cited Lindsay. He is a darling of the right. And he self-identifies as a conservative. He said so on The Charlie Kirk Show on June 18th. Anyone who hits the interview circuit with likes of Glen Beck, Ezra Levant, Douglas Blair, Sebastian Gorka, and Taylor Trandahl to peddle his books can hardly be considered “Liberal”– regardless of the flavor. Dan Bongino was also singing his praises.
Like you, Lindsay’s favorite insult is to call someone “woke.” He’s also big on CRT and “Race Marxism.” He’s also fond of “Woke Marxism” — a term clearly intended to be catnip for the far right if there ever was. Lindsay’s tag line on twitter is “defeating the groomers.” That’s a line out of the Q-Anon playbook if I ever heard one. The interesting thing about that tag line is how it relates to Lindsay’s relationship with Nicki Clyne. This one is a breadcrumb for you.
I suspect that Lindsay appeals to those who thought they were liberal (when white males still retained most of their historical power) but got uncomfortable when the tables were turned on them and the power that they long enjoyed were starting to slip away. These grievances over lost power have manifested itself into a ha_te of all things liberal when it comes to identity politics.
As a white, hetero male, I am also not happy with how things have changed not in our (collective) benefit. However, I am not going to be radicalized over it (being “radicalized” is Lindsay’s word — not mine).
I’m not going to get into the specific’s of Lindsay’s philosophy — he is a duck and he has been fêted by ducks. That you also sing his praises also puts you firmly in the duck camp. I’m sorry, you aren’t some forlorn liberal who has been left behind in what you’ve described as a sprint to the left. Like Lindsay has admitted himself, you have been radicalized and quack the same quacks as the rest of the ducks.
Anon went the James Lindsay route again? Oh dear.
Anon went the James Lindsay route again? Oh dear.
I know. Really scary.
What is scary is how you absolutely refuse to talk substance and instead only want to use labels and ad hominem (while clinging to your bubble views).
Purging that is done properly does in fact reduce improper voting.
Your evidence for this is? And how much improper voting does it reduce versus the number of people who were improperly purged. That is the real issue.
Seriously, as I was reading (and eventually skimming) the rest of your comments, I found the same old Anon feinting and dodging. You write a lot but say so very little.
is both simply false and utterly lazy of you in that you mistake that which do not like for some (polarized) “enemy” view.
Dude. I spent more than a fair amount of effort researching Lyndsay. He is a darling of the far right. if you cannot see that, you are beyond salvage.
Your spin makes it seem that a “True Liberal” must embrace that sprint left, else be “forlorn” and “left behind.”
You ASSume that that there has been a sprint left. What do Democrats (as a proxy for a “True Liberal”) care about? I would say that the biggest ones include: gun control, education, environment (including renewables), equal rights, equal opportunity, voting rights, health care, death penalty, reproductive rights, worker’s rights (part of equal rights and also including worker safety and minimum wages). I’m excluding foreign policy here. Where among those issues has there been a “sprint left” as compared to what the Democrats have traditionally stood for? What have been the change in those positions that constitutes your sprint left?
resembles Malcolm’s One-bucket approach
Deny your affiliation all you want. If I was to encounter your political writings elsewhere (without your name attached), I would immediately peg you as a duck. Mind you, I would not say the same about the vast majority of other posters here. Your embracing of James Lindsay was the cincher for me. I’m putting you in the same bucket as Lindsay – and in doing so, the duck label is perfunctory.
What is scary is how you absolutely refuse to talk substance and instead only want to use labels and ad hominem (while clinging to your bubble views).
The projecting is (extremely) strong in this one. What “substance” do you want to talk about? I’m game for anything. Name the topic. Name your position. Support your position. And let’s discuss.
I am
definitely
expecting you to
name one
topic
in particular
that
you really
prefer to discuss
over
lots of other
interesting
topics that might
interest to others but you
care to
select this.
You are so insistent on proving my point, and wanting to dig ever more furiously.
When I provide a clearly cogent view as to reduction of improper voting by means of purging rolls of voters who should not be there. You want … “evidence?”
The evidence is between your ears, should you choose to engage that organ.
Your “this is the real issue” further proves my point (not yours), as if we simply take for granted your (erroneous 20% claim – which, by the way, YOU asserted without proof), then that necessarily means that 80% were properly purged.
That 80% certainly disenfranchises ALL legitimate votes – on both sides of any voted issue and that is simply a larger point. – And that on your own asserted without evidence statement.
As to, “Seriously, as I was reading (and eventually skimming) the rest of your comments, I found the same old Anon feinting and dodging. You write a lot but say so very little.”
You again prove my point, as YOUR merely wanting to be glib and dismissive is full of the logical fallacies that I have stated that you engage in. You choose to skim shows that you already have your mind made up (which is the point of my providing an on point breadcrumb (and contrasting with your merely salacious innuendo).
As to your assertion of,”Dude. I spent more than a fair amount of effort researching Lyndsay. He is a darling of the far right. if you cannot see that, you are beyond salvage.”
You YET AGAIN fall to the logical fallacy of labeling who may also like Lindsay – as opposed to my (repeated) points to you to engage the substance of what Lindsay speaks of. Your efforts are NOT to understanding the substance, but merely to escape using your mind to understand ANY of the substance. As I also noted (you may have “skimmed over it in your hurry to accuse me of something that is not true) the spectrum view of those that oppose H1t ler’s Final Solution (with OUT placing ALL of those people in a Far Left bucket).
Bottom line in regards to Lindsay is that the substance of what he says is rock solid – no matter WHO else might like what he says and no matter WHO else might not.
“You ASSume that that there has been a sprint left. What do Democrats (as a proxy for a “True Liberal”) care about?”
No such assumption – for the reasons (and facts) already provided (that you do NOT engage with). Further, your attempt to “proxy” Democrat as “True Liberal” is false.
The Hard Sprint Left includes extremism in positions of “gun control, education, environment (including renewables), equal rights, equal opportunity, {read that as the identity politics, Wokism and Equity as opposed to Equality extremes];
As to, “What have been the change in those positions that constitutes your sprint left?” – you engage the logical fallacy of accusing these as being MY Sprint Left. They are not mine and are recognized in the factual dissertations of a genuine Liberal that you simply have not bothered with.
Do not ask me (fallacious) questions, the (proper) answers to which I have already provided.
As to your “ Deny your affiliation all you want.” in response to my noting of YOUR “resembles Malcolm’s One-bucket approach” you commit the logical fallacy of attributing cause and correlation.
You simply do NOT get to so lump my views with those that I have not espoused in order to skip the content of the views that I have provided.
YOU are the one that your own accusation of “The projecting is (extremely) strong in this one.” fits — as I firstnoted (with the Iron Rule of Woke Projection — massive factual details available to you on that, should you really care to do more than play ad hominem label games).
Your statement of “What “substance” do you want to talk about? I’m game for anything. Name the topic. Name your position. Support your position. And let’s discuss.” is false – and clearly so – from the number, length and yes banality of repeated logical fallacies that you embrace in YOUR non-patent law postings.
As to,
“I am
definitely
expecting you to
name one
topic
in particular
that
you really
prefer to discuss
over
lots of other
interesting
topics that might
interest to others but you
care to
select this.”
Maybe pick one of the ones that I have (already) provided. Do some real thinking (not your logical fallacy of seeking confirmation bias through ad hominem labelling and one-bucketing).
When I provide a clearly cogent view as to reduction of improper voting by means of purging rolls of voters who should not be there. You want … “evidence?”
I’m not interested in your feelings. I want facts. I want evidence. What evidence do you have that purging voters prevents improper votes? Moreover, does the amount of improper voting outweigh the amount of people being disenfranchised? Do you have anything to submit on your behalf? Or are we relying upon your say so?
then that necessarily means that 80% were properly purged
So what? How many of those 80% tried to vote? I have 10 year old files on my computer that I could purge and could properly purge. Them being on my computer doesn’t hurt anything. However, if did a purge and realized that 20% of what I purge I really needed, that would be a serious problem.
You again prove my point, as YOUR merely wanting to be glib and dismissive is full of the logical fallacies that I have stated that you engage in.
What point? That’s the issue … you rarely have a point other than your opinion is wrong. You argue for the sake of arguing. The problem is that you are NOT arguing about the issues. Rather you are arguing about me. Mind you, you don’t just do this to me. You do it to everyone.
as opposed to my (repeated) points to you to engage the substance of what Lindsay speaks of
What is the substance of what Lindsay speaks that you want me to engage in? The fact that anybody who disagrees with him is a groomer? CRT, for example, is an obscure theory that no one outside a handful of college professors really cared about — yet the right has made its elimination its cause célèbre to drive (white) voter engagement. Lindsay picked up on this and is feeding the right-wing ecosphere with catnip about the evils of CRT. He is a grievance machine.
Bottom line in regards to Lindsay is that the substance of what he says is rock solid
Rock solid? This is why you are a duck – through and through. Lindsay figured out catering to the right’s grievances is a good way to make money.
No such assumption – for the reasons (and facts) already provided (that you do NOT engage with).
Is there a sprint left or not? What has made people sprint left? What is your evidence as to a spring left?
You simply do NOT get to so lump my views with those that I have not espoused in order to skip the content of the views that I have provided.
Content. LOL. What content? You write the same sh it day after day. You talk about liberals and sprinting left but your details are quite sparse. BTW, you’ve espoused Lindsay so you get lumped in with that quacker.
massive factual details available to you on that, should you really care to do more than play ad hominem label games
What are these massive factual details? I know you. Maybe better than you know you. After 10+ years of reading your stuff, you don’t do details. You do general allegations, cryptic comments, and self-referential statements.
Maybe pick one of the ones that I have (already) provided
Let’s talk foreign policy then. Where has the sprint left been in foreign policy? How have the Democrats sprinted left on gun policy? How have the Democrats sprinted left on reproductive rights?
Criminy, in pieces then to get around the George Carlin filter…
To my comment of, “Maybe pick one of the ones that I have (already) provided” you immediately go off the rails with multiple logical fallacies and reply with, “Let’s talk foreign policy then. Where has the sprint left been in foreign policy?”
Was foreign policy one that I have already provided?
Pay attention son.
You then continue to go off the rails with your attempt to insert general Democrat instead of the actual Far Left fringe of the Democrat party: “How have the Democrats…”
This is pure logical fallacy in your (repeated) choice to cast Democrats as the party at the point of discussion of Sprint Left. I just got done telling you this was a false choice, and you make the same mistake again. This is your insistence on a false premise, from which you refuse to understand the basis of the Far Left. I have repeatedly provided you factual dissertations on those very aspects of Far Left, but you insist on clenching tight your eyes to the objective content because you do not like the person or who else likes the objective content that has been provided.
As I have repeatedly asked, stop with your ad hominim, and instead deal with the objective content.
So then let’s return to the top of your latest misguided response:
To my: “When I provide a clearly cogent view as to reduction of improper voting by means of purging rolls of voters who should not be there. You want … “evidence?””
You quip, “I’m not interested in your feelings. I want facts. I want evidence. What evidence do you have that purging voters prevents improper votes? Moreover, does the amount of improper voting outweigh the amount of people being disenfranchised? Do you have anything to submit on your behalf? Or are we relying upon your say so?”
Which is absolutely hilarious, given how the rest of my statement builds off of your own non-evidenced assertions. You kind of missed that in your hurry to label what I wrote as “feelings.” What I wrote was not feelings. Instead I used your own assertion to point out the necessarily logical counterpoint (you felt that 20% were improper, which necessarily means that 80% WAS proper).
That you
F
A
I
L
To recognize this (self-immolating with a “ So what?” only shows that you have turned off your cognitive ability for this political topic – the very point of mine that you keep on reinforcing.
You do (or at least should) realize that the same aspect of “how many tried to vote” applies in the first instance to your un-evidenced claim of 20%. Your rebuttal is itself a logical fallacy. If you want to take an EVEN estimate of those actually voting, you should immediately recognize the higher likelihood of improper voting. As I pointed out (and you AGAIN miss), ANY improper vote disenfranchises ALL proper votes. Perhaps you were in too much of a hurry to claim (again) a lack of particularity on my part to (again) miss a point of particularity that you wanted to complain about.
Not the first time – and in fact, you keep on doing this on political topics (which, again, makes my point for me).
As to, “ The problem is that you are NOT arguing about the issues. Rather you are arguing about me. Mind you, you don’t just do this to me. You do it to everyone.”
This only comes across as a self-serving whine – and I do suspect that your rational mind IS beginning to pick up that I am correct in what I have been saying all along. And to correct you here, I and NOT delving to your intimated ad hominem about arguing about the person – I am arguing about the person’s STANCE. So no, your assertion “of what the problem is” is false. The problem is as I have identified – when it comes to discussions of political nature, you turn off your critical cognitive functioning.
As to, “What is the substance of what Lindsay speaks that you want me to engage in?” I have already provided to you that my breadcrumb (to a substantive matter – not a salacious supposed attribute) is provided because you have more than certainly shown the lack of accepting something said directly. SO while I COULD tell you directly, YOU would be far better off actually reading or listening through Lindsay’s work and recognizing the objective facts therein.
“The fact that anybody who disagrees with him is a groomer?”
This is a plainly false statement. It is NOT a matter of ‘disagreeing withhim’ that drives ANY ‘labeling’ as a groomer. This statement from you only shows that you have not yet chosen to actually read for substance, and instead insist (rather blindly) on NOT seeing that substance.
To your (badly errant) statement of, “CRT, for example, is an obscure theory that no one outside a handful of college professors really cared about — yet the right has made its elimination its cause célèbre to drive (white) voter engagement. Lindsay picked up on this and is feeding the right-wing ecosphere with catnip about the evi1s of CRT. He is a grievance machine.”
You also have not reached the substantive FACT that CRT is very much the driver of the Liberal Left.
The breadcrumbs on that point are a VERY short path – yet you refuse to engage your cognitive reasoning and instead react VERY emotionally to my calls for you to do so.
The level of effort you have expended in NOT engaging in a cognitive manner SHOULD tell you something.
As to your (also errant) assertion of, “This is why you are a duck – through and through. Lindsay figured out catering to the right’s grievances is a good way to make money.” you confuse and conflate a number of things, and dip into that Malcolm-like One-bucket yet again.
So before you blandly ask for evidence (again) already provided (that YOU clench tight your eyes in refusing to see). YOUR “you are a duck” is a mindless tactic – and stands in sharp contrast to your cognition on patent law matters. That you somehow refuse to grasp this is (again) part of YOUR problem.
“What are these massive factual details? I know you. Maybe better than you know you. After 10+ years of reading your stuff, you don’t do details. You do general allegations, cryptic comments, and self-referential statements.”
All false. I do details – as necessary, and as effective. And when dealing with someone (as 6 points out here: link to patentlyo.com the more Socratic method of giving you breadcrumbs for you to actually make the connection is simply a better way.
As to the assertion of “cryptic” and “self-referential” I have also several times in the past debunked such characterizations.
If you have been following for ten plus years, then you should also recall the Malcolm-like Bre’er Rabbit trick of having people repeat ad infinitum clearly stated positions in the hopes of catching one small error or inconsistency and jumping all over that (while leaving behind all the other points put on the table for discussion).
Given that YOU have not actually engaged on any of the substantive points (still) and (still again) want only to depend on your own ad hominym and label game (quack indeed), you fall to the Malcolm-side of rhetoric here.
I have the better position and I know that your cognitive side knows that.
Oh, the irony.
IamI,
You have not shown that you understand those words.
Was foreign policy one that I have already provided?
You wrote “Maybe pick one of the ones that I have (already provided.” The word “maybe” is permissive (e.g., “Maybe you should go to the store to pick up milk”). I went to the store and picked up soda. If you definitely wanted milk, then drop the maybe … or perhaps you could have named something, as I invited you to.
This is pure logical fallacy in your (repeated) choice to cast Democrats as the party at the point of discussion of Sprint Left.
Who are we talking about then? Like you are very apt to do, you discuss things yet don’t provide definitions that clearly delineate what you mean. For example, what is “woke” – you use it all the time, but I have no idea what you really mean by it. You talk about the “Sprint Left” – who does that actually encompass. You’ve declared me part of the “Hard Sprint Left crowd” – what “one bucket” are you placing me into?
As I have repeatedly asked, stop with your ad hominim, and instead deal with the objective content.
LOL. Ad hominim is a huge portion of what you write. Stop projecting.
What I wrote was not feelings
I asked for evidence. You provided none and continue to provide none. Hence, you failed.
ANY improper vote disenfranchises ALL proper votes.
One bad vote disenfranchises them all – is that your logic? I suspect the Chinese and Russians would fall in LOVE with that logic.
This only comes across as a self-serving whine
Didn’t you saying something about “stop with your ad hominem [sic]” attacks? Seriously, do you have any self-awareness? After reading your additional posts, I find nothing of substance there either.
Instead of addressing the actual points provided to you, you jump to the iron law of Woke projection with your misaimed accusations.
Perhaps it would be if you desist, as you clearly have no intent to engage.
From the Federal Circuit’s clerk’s office “Guide for Unrepresented Parties,” the
“Glossary of Terms” section:
“Per Curiam: Latin, meaning “for the court.” In appellate courts, often refers to an
unsigned opinion”
January 2022.
Right. And what is the point of an unsigned opinion with a dissent? The names of the panel judges are still listed. We still know who to credit for the opinion. Why bother with the “per curiam” designation in that circumstance?
Does not matter.
Fair enough.
6,
Greg’s nonsense continues (at 4.1, note the red “d” hidden in his post – second lines in the word “judges”).
That is a link to Liberal Left claptrap (as typical, full of half truths), to which — from the patent angle — one should consider the source:
https:
//www.niskanencenter.org/author/james-bessen/
At 4.1.1.1, Greg’s Liberal Left tendencies impale themselves.
Note that posting a full link — as itself — is always on the up and up.
Anyone care to guess why Greg has become so enamored with his ‘hidden hyperlinks?’