2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Susan Sarandon: Trump Might Be Better for America Than Hillary Clinton [View all]Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)But you, who really needs to go to law school before you start trying to play a lawyer on the web, are the one who needs to learn about proximate cause.
Here's an easy way to look at it (and I tried to get you to look it up yourself by using the phrase earlier).
If you can plug an occurrence, let's call it "X," into this sentence:
"But for "X," "Y"
and the sentence remains true, then "X" is a proximate cause.
Let's try this here.
Say "Y" is "Gore would not have lost by 600 votes"
IF you were to say that "X" was: "70,000 potential Gore voters voting for Nader instead" let's see how that works:
"But for 70,000 potential Gore voters voting for Nader instead, Gore would not have lost by 600 votes."
Because 70,000 is more than 600, the sentence is true. Therefore Nader's candidacy was ONE proximate cause of Gore's loss.
Let's try that for the DNC/DLC refusing to stop the felon purge (which, as I explained before, was simply a matter of not trying). "X" would then be: "the DNC/DLC not stopping Florida from denying thousands of eligible PoC voters with felony conviction their right to vote" Let's see how that works:
"But for the DNC/DLC not stopping Florida from denying thousands of eligible PoC voters with felony conviction their right to vote, Gore would not have lost by 600 votes."
Because thousands is more than 600, the sentence is true. Therefore the DNC/DLC's pandering to suburbanites' "Willie Horton" fears is ALSO a proximate cause of Gore's loss.
In addition, because Gore would have won REGARDLESS OF THE MARGIN, both are equally responsible for his defeat.
Now, go play with someone who doesn't know any better.
School's out here.