Yeah it’s alarming how much HN users are willing to support corruption so long as it’s their preferred candidate doing it. Really is all just tribalism to most posters in this thread so far
You think a supreme court judge, who was once the candidate's lawyer, ignoring his own court's precedents, to try and help said candidate, is in the same conceptual space as your mom being confused?
His mom isn't confused. They didn't have juice last week, they do now. Somebody went and got some in the mean time: i.e, circumstances changed.
Not to understand this obvious intent, or not to see how the same could apply to the Brazilian election is a sign of either being confused yourself, or... Something worse.
Really, honestly: That post of yours from a couple of years ago that someone linked to in this thread — you should take that advice.
I think I was confused by this mom analogy. From my perspective, it came out of nowhere. Made the wrong inference. I apologize if I offended. I was focused on possible conflicts of interest, there were none in the analogy.
Can we simply disagree without these nasty insinuations of mental illness and bad faith?
Yeah, OK, the mental illness bit may have been a bit OTT. (But you had brought that history up yourself earlier.) The bad faith part, though: Not to get the obvious analogy certainly felt that way to me. I still have trouble seeing how one couldn't, in good faith, get something so obvious.
But anyway... So, now that we're all on the same page about how circumstances can change from one point in time to another — do you feel up to admitting that your argument about "They did it one way then and another now!" is bogus, and retracting it?
___
[Edited: Changed erroneous "one" to "on".]
[Sigh, edited again: Changed erroneous "form" to "from".]
[–] cowlevel 4 days ago
[–] matheusmoreira 4 days ago
[–] cowlevel 4 days ago
[–] Rapzid 4 days ago
[–] matheusmoreira 4 days ago
[–] CRConrad 3 days ago
Not to understand this obvious intent, or not to see how the same could apply to the Brazilian election is a sign of either being confused yourself, or... Something worse.
Really, honestly: That post of yours from a couple of years ago that someone linked to in this thread — you should take that advice.
[–] matheusmoreira 3 days ago
Can we simply disagree without these nasty insinuations of mental illness and bad faith?
[–] CRConrad 1 day ago
But anyway... So, now that we're all on the same page about how circumstances can change from one point in time to another — do you feel up to admitting that your argument about "They did it one way then and another now!" is bogus, and retracting it?
___
[Edited: Changed erroneous "one" to "on".]
[Sigh, edited again: Changed erroneous "form" to "from".]
[–] cowlevel 4 days ago