[CrackMonkey] Lindsey Graham

[Mike Goldman]

Rick Moen wrote:

> > Consent for the PROCESS, certainly.  Look, nobody is FORCING people to
> > vote.  So if you do it, you have willingly accepted the rules.
>
> The word "so", in the above, seems to imply causation.  Yet, it's
> non-obvious how your conclusion follows from your premises.

It's nearly tautological.  Voluntary participation :: acceptance.
Non-acceptance :: rejection.

> You may have intended to express your ending sentence as a personal
> opinion, but it's framed in the form of a logical deduction.

De gustibus non disputandum.  I'm not expressing an opinion, but a conclusion.

> > It's like, when someone offers you a deal, and you accept the
> > benefits, you acquire the obligation.
>
> Supplementing that unsupported assertion with an analogy doesn't help
> much.

Not actually an analogy, but a translation into plain language.

> > You CAN complain, no matter what, but whether you have proper STANDING to
> > complain depends again on what you are complaining about.
>
> "Standing" is an undefined term, in this context.  (It has a defined
> meaning in legal contexts.)

Standing: To adhere to fixed principles; to maintain moral
        rectitude; to keep from falling into error or vice.