3 ms·

My opinion of Ken Paxton might be different had he not attempted to overturn the results of the presidential election. Is this suit just as frivolous?

sanxiyn 6y ago
If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.
  - nr2x 6y ago
    Read the actual complaint, the level of knowledge you’d need to fabricate that would be unimaginable.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      I read what I could and didn't find it overly persuasive. Obviously there must be evidence underlying these claims, but in the absence of that evidence a lot of it reads like one of those LSAT questions where you are supposed to spot the faulty logic. For example it just asserts that Google made it so everyone had to use their exchange and service, in almost those exact words ("had to") but there's nothing prior to that in the filing that supports this statement.
- KirinDave 6y ago
  The issue here is that: 1. It's very clear that his office has no qualms with filing cases that include untrue statements. 2. It's also the case that this group of claimants is strongly associated with a government official who is very angry at companies and has been trying to attack a communications law from every angle he has. One cannot help but wonder at the timing of all this. It may very well be true. Sadly, we have to be skeptical now.
1MoreThing 6y ago
This is the downside of having an AG who has been indicted on criminal charges for thee last 6 years. How much can you trust the guy?
s3r3nity 6y ago
Ad hominem attacks don't have any impact on validity of the underlying argument. Facts are still facts.

sanxiyn 6y ago

If allegations are true, it doesn't seem to be frivolous.

jeffbee 6y ago
That's the problem. I'm keen to see some evidence. The Texas vs. Democracy case had a 70-page filing, of which literally every aspect was obviously false. That filing makes me look at this heavily redacted filing and think "this is all made up". Maybe it's not, but it's the rational reaction.
- nr2x 6y ago
  Read the actual complaint, the level of knowledge you’d need to fabricate that would be unimaginable.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    I read what I could and didn't find it overly persuasive. Obviously there must be evidence underlying these claims, but in the absence of that evidence a lot of it reads like one of those LSAT questions where you are supposed to spot the faulty logic. For example it just asserts that Google made it so everyone had to use their exchange and service, in almost those exact words ("had to") but there's nothing prior to that in the filing that supports this statement.
KirinDave 6y ago
The issue here is that: 1. It's very clear that his office has no qualms with filing cases that include untrue statements. 2. It's also the case that this group of claimants is strongly associated with a government official who is very angry at companies and has been trying to attack a communications law from every angle he has. One cannot help but wonder at the timing of all this. It may very well be true. Sadly, we have to be skeptical now.

1MoreThing 6y ago

This is the downside of having an AG who has been indicted on criminal charges for thee last 6 years. How much can you trust the guy?

s3r3nity 6y ago

Ad hominem attacks don't have any impact on validity of the underlying argument. Facts are still facts.