I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Steophan

If people are so unconcerned with voting that they can't even be bothered to pick up free ID, then we're all better off without their opinion, frankly.

You have had it explained repeatedly and in detail how the ID requirement is not a trivlal matter for a substantial part of the population. You remain free to continue to blithely dismiss fact, of course - but then other posters are free to blithely dismiss you. Which, you may note, is already what is happening.

Now, do you know what Jim Crow was? Or, rather, is?

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You have had it explained repeatedly and in detail how the ID requirement is not a trivlal matter for a substantial part of the population.

You keep saying this as if it is an established fact rather than your opinion. Not everyone of the 10% without IDs has multiple jobs, or has difficulty getting the necessary supporting documents, or lives 100's of miles away from registries and would find these conditions a hindrance.
What is left is a small number of people who have many months, if not years to resolve these issues. Not the definition of 'substantial' by any measure.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

It's self evident. If you make it harder, some people are just going to throw up their hands and say, "Screw it. It's not worth the effort." Apathy.

Evidence was cited on page one that voter ID does not increase voter confidence.

You are right though about it will make voting more important. With less voters voting, each vote is worth more. It's our position that's the Republican's whole goal, and not keeping out illegal voters.

And it's my position that you're wrong. It's my further position that the evidence cited never asked the right questions, as I carefully showed.

Gee, I wonder which of our positions will actually take root as established law and policy? I sure hope it's mine.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Uzi

Not everyone of the 10% without IDs has multiple jobs, or has difficulty getting the necessary supporting documents, or lives 100's of miles away from registries and would find these conditions a hindrance.

Nor did anyone but you use the word "everyone", or suggest anything that would imply it. IOW, you have just lied, as supporters of your view must.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And it's my position that you're wrong. It's my further position that the evidence cited never asked the right questions, as I carefully showed.

Gee, I wonder which of our positions will actually take root as established law and policy? I sure hope it's mine.

Allow me to translate for the Bricker impared:

"I won! I won! I won! I know we're trying to keep poor people from voting! I don't care, because I'm not poor! I won! I won! I won!"

It's difficult to get the nuance sometimes because of the way the spotted-Bricker struts. But that is fairly accurate.

[Blkshp]

Aren't the nonprofits and volunteer networks in place that currently help people to register and get to the polls on election day going to be used to make sure as many people as possible who need help getting ID's do get them where it's now required? I would certainly be willing to give somebody a ride to get an ID at their convenience. Heck, depending on the week I might even be able to front them the cost. I guess I understand the complaints against the ID requirement, but I'd think now that these laws have been passed somebody would be working on a solution as opposed just bemoaning the law.

[ElvisL1ves]

Look up ACORN sometime.
As for working on a solution, stopping these laws is a pretty effective one, don'tcha think?

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

The same reasoning was made for the poll tax and the requirement to own land to vote.

Really? People argued that no one was prevented from voting by those measures? I'm not saying the views of poor people or minorities are irrelevant, but that people who can't be bothered to take minimal, reasonable steps to get ID would appear to not value their own vote particularly highly, and so there's no reason I should either.

And so they have to expend resources they need in other areas of the election to compensate for additional barriers.

If the ID is only used for voting, this would be a valid point. However, people need ID in everyday life, and if this gets them to obtain it, it will be a long term benefit - and not for the Republicans.

And by the way, the failing to do anything is a result of Republican expressed goal of getting rid of Obama and their declaration that the only compromise acceptable to their side would be when Democrats agree on Republican agenda. The result is that the GOP is willing to harm the country in the short term so that their longer term political goals can be achieved.

That's the platform they stood on, and they have a mandate from the voters to do that. It's obviously counter-productive in the long term, but most politicians don't look to the long term - and neither do most voters, for that matter.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You have had it explained repeatedly and in detail how the ID requirement is not a trivlal matter for a substantial part of the population. You remain free to continue to blithely dismiss fact, of course - but then other posters are free to blithely dismiss you. Which, you may note, is already what is happening.

People have claimed it's not trivial. No-one's yet explained how travelling to the nearest city once every few years to pick up something for free is an intolerable burden on anyone.

Now, do you know what Jim Crow was? Or, rather, is?

I know what it was. If you can show me a single law in the US that allows a white person to do something a black person cannot, I'll agree they still exist. Of course, they don't, and even if you dislike these current laws, comparing them to Jim Crow is ridiculous hyperbole, and frankly offensive to all those who suffered under those laws.

Originally Posted by Blkshp

Aren't the nonprofits and volunteer networks in place that currently help people to register and get to the polls on election day going to be used to make sure as many people as possible who need help getting ID's do get them where it's now required? I would certainly be willing to give somebody a ride to get an ID at their convenience. Heck, depending on the week I might even be able to front them the cost. I guess I understand the complaints against the ID requirement, but I'd think now that these laws have been passed somebody would be working on a solution as opposed just bemoaning the law.

I've asked a couple of times why this isn't happening, and not received much of an answer.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Look up ACORN sometime.

You mean the organisation convicted of multiple counts of voter registration fraud? I'm not sure what they have to do with driving someone across town to get their ID.

As for working on a solution, stopping these laws is a pretty effective one, don'tcha think?

No. That you think so shows you don't understand politics. It is, fundamentally, a power game. Ideals may have their place, but if you don't play the game, and play it to win, you will never be in a position to act on your ideals.

The Republicans made their play, and it's been found that these laws are within the rules of the game - the Constitution - and the Democrats have to work with them.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Steophan

You mean the organisation convicted of multiple counts of voter registration fraud? I'm not sure what they have to do with driving someone across town to get their ID.

Would you mind explaining exactly what you think they did? Even Bricker could only point to one thing, the Nevada branch put a bonus for a certain number of sigs. Which was against Nevada law.

That was almost surely because of ignorance, since they didn't try to hide it.

That said, how many people do you think voted fraudulently because of Acorn?

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Look up ACORN sometime.
As for working on a solution, stopping these laws is a pretty effective one, don'tcha think?

For those that haven't been passed, maybe. But I thought the concern was that some people won't have IDs when election time comes not that asking for an ID is pernicious in itself.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Really? People argued that no one was prevented from voting by those measures? I'm not saying the views of poor people or minorities are irrelevant, but that people who can't be bothered to take minimal, reasonable steps to get ID would appear to not value their own vote particularly highly, and so there's no reason I should either.

They argued that no legitimate voter was prevented. If you don't care enough to save for the poll tax, you don't really care about your vote. Minimal and reasonable is relative. I'd argue that the existing process works fine. Now if you could show me that a ton of *voting fraud* was going on, you might have a case for *expanding* goverment bureaucracy.

If the ID is only used for voting, this would be a valid point. However, people need ID in everyday life, and if this gets them to obtain it, it will be a long term benefit - and not for the Republicans.

Actually, plenty of people get by without it. Obviously.

That's the platform they stood on, and they have a mandate from the voters to do that. It's obviously counter-productive in the long term, but most politicians don't look to the long term - and neither do most voters, for that matter.

They're gaming the system and I believe the SC will find that it's just a disguised poll tax.

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

Aren't the nonprofits and volunteer networks in place that currently help people to register and get to the polls on election day going to be used to make sure as many people as possible who need help getting ID's do get them where it's now required? I would certainly be willing to give somebody a ride to get an ID at their convenience. Heck, depending on the week I might even be able to front them the cost. I guess I understand the complaints against the ID requirement, but I'd think now that these laws have been passed somebody would be working on a solution as opposed just bemoaning the law.

Here in sunny Florida if you help people to register but are late turning in the forms to the proper authorities you are subject to fines and/or jail time. You have a mere two days to do it, by the way.

Think about that: if you were determined to insist on voter ID, but you also were willing to make sure that people who wanted to get an ID could do so (with the proper help) and with minimal red tape, why would you add this rider to the bill in question? What possible purpose does it serve other than to throw up roadblocks for any such attempt? Any wingnuts here care to answer that, or will you all just go on spewing your endless bogus justifications?

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

Here in sunny Florida if you help people to register but are late turning in the forms to the proper authorities you are subject to fines and/or jail time. You have a mere two days to do it, by the way.

Think about that: if you were determined to insist on voter ID, but you also were willing to make sure that people who wanted to get an ID could do so (with the proper help) and with minimal red tape, why would you add this rider to the bill in question? What possible purpose does it serve other than to throw up roadblocks for any such attempt? Any wingnuts here care to answer that, or will you all just go on spewing your endless bogus justifications?

Fine, so you get the registrations and turn them in, and find out if the people have ID, if they don't you let them know how to get it and offer them a ride to do so if they can't manage it on their own. Crying over spilt milk doesn't address the issue - how to get people the ID they need to vote if they need assistance. If you make sure that everybody that needs an ID has one and can vote, then you have eliminated the actual impact, plus having a better chance of winning the elections necessary to ultimately amend or repeal the law.

[John DiFool]

Why a time limit then? Your verbiage doesn't address my main point, at all (which as this thread has amply demonstrated, is typical).

[elucidator]

Old joke, from the Dark Days:

Tricky Dicky
Better start shakin'
Today's pig
Tomorrow's bacon
- Burma Shave

For it is written that whatsoever shall go around, therefore shall it come around. Verily.

See the wall? See the Handwriting? Can you read? Let me help....

The Pubbies have lain down a marker, the lengths they are willing to go to ensure their grasp on power. And this is a good one, crystalline cynicism draped in a gauzy neligee of civic virtue. But sooner or later, its the other guy's turn.

The beauty part is that the Dems won't even have to reverse the laws, won't have to rescind anything. Simply institute a civic virtue campaign of their own, get out the voter registration drives. ACORN in another form, train people in registration rules, no matter how absurdly draconian they may be. Set up procedures to proactively provide whatever documentation is necessary to whomsoever requests it. In the vast majority of cases, it will be easy-peasy, damn near everyone leaves some sort of data trail behind them in life.

Get out there and register the poor, the minorities, the students, and supply them with rock-solid and undeniable voter id. Make it as easy as falling off a log. And all in the name of civic virtue! Will that "unfairly" advantage the Dems? Well, sure it will, but we've already crossed that Rubik's Con, totally legal and constitutional, we have expert opinion on that. Gander sauce for the geese, big time and downtown. The public will support it, in much the same way they support voter id laws. Hell, you can pitch it as furthering the cause of voter id laws! And remember! The Dems didn't start this fight, this two cock is entirely of their own making.

I'm a radical lefty, and I've lost a lot of battles, pick myself up, dust myself off, and get back in the game. And so it goes. But usually, when I lose, it doesn't have such an abundance of silver lining as this one does. The Pubbies are like the old joke about the guy who jumps off the tall building, and, on the way down, passing floors, is heard to say "Well, so far, so good!"

Heck, in those states where the Dems already have the advantage, they can proceed right away, who's gonna be opposed to voter registration? I'm sure some attempt will be made, some pious bloviations will be issued, but it can proceed.

So, Bricker et. al., this might very well work, and you might snatch a temporary, if sordid and corrupt, victory. So come on down for your happy dance, and crow about the "will of the people". Well, some of the people, at any rate.

Gloat while you can, the sand is flowing through the hourglass, and the mills are turning slowly, slowly, but they grind exceeding fine. Sow the shit, reap the shitstorm. Verily.

[elucidator]

Well, John Di, who knows what they might get up to, if they had some extra time! Heck, they might.....well, they could...never mind, there's all kinds of sneaky things they could do if they had extra time! The fact that I can't think of any right off the top of my head, doesn't mean they don't exist! In fact, the very fact that I cannot is excellent evidence for the fact, much the same way that a lack of prosecutions for voter fraud proves voter fraud! If you don't have evidence, a lack of evidence is just as good! Hell, maybe better!

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Nor did anyone but you use the word "everyone", or suggest anything that would imply it. IOW, you have just lied, as supporters of your view must.

For a guy who likes to throw around the words 'liar' and 'lied' as much as you it would make sense that you actually read what I wrote and understood that I broke down the whole of the group into the subset of people who will actually be really affected, IMO. There was no lie in there, nor was there any way someone with an ounce of honesty in them would say I meant anything other than what I said.
So, what word would you use to describe someone who claims a 'substantial' portion of the population will be hindered or inconvenienced when it is anything but? Come on you can do it. You've used the word enough to describe others. Hypocrite.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Uzi

...So, what word would you use to describe someone who claims a 'substantial' portion of the population will be hindered or inconvenienced when it is anything but? Come on you can do it. You've used the word enough to describe others. Hypocrite.

Kinda depends, doesn't it, on your definition of "substantial"? How many need be "hindered or inconvenienced" before you get bothered by it? Lead pipe cinch, the people this is happening to think they are substantial, that they count. So, they're wrong about that?

What number of them may we safely ignore, without doing violence to our principles? Ten? A hundred? Ten thousand? At what point would you cease to shrug it off, because it has crept over the mark into "substantial"?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Uzi

So, what word would you use to describe someone who claims a 'substantial' portion of the population will be hindered or inconvenienced when it is anything but?

The choice of the word "everyone" was yours, liar.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Kinda depends, doesn't it, on your definition of "substantial"?

Don't look at me. It was tweedledum below who's definition of 'substantial' was anywhere between 0 and 10% of the population. Any rational person would deem 'substantial' as being more than 1 in 10.

Would I be correct if I said that a substantial portion of the population have IDs? What if I then said a substantial portion of the population don't have IDs?

I'm called a liar because he uses definitions so loosely? I might not agree with you in some things (and you'd be surprised at how much I actually do agree with you), but I'm not going to call you a liar because of it.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The choice of the word "everyone" was yours, liar.

I said 'not everyone', Knothead. As it 'not everyone in the group'. I don't know how you find 'liar' in that. I think it is a tactic on your part to piss people off so they don't question you on your assertions.

[elucidator]

...Any rational person would deem 'substantial' as being more than 1 in 10.

I have the pleasure to regard myself as a rational person, and to my reckoning, one in ten is quite substantial. For instance, that is (roughly) approximate to the number of black Americans.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I have the pleasure to regard myself as a rational person, and to my reckoning, one in ten is quite substantial.

Two statements here. It appears that the latter one puts the former one into doubt.

For instance, that is (roughly) approximate to the number of black Americans.

Yes, I know. You see black people, I see people whose skin color happens to be black. You see poor people, I see people who happen to be poor. A subtle, but important distinction that seems to be close to the heart of our disagreement.
I've never been black (that I know of), but I've been poor. Being poor wouldn't stop me from getting an ID. I don't know why it should stop anyone else in the same situation. I am assuming that having the adjective of 'black' being applied to a person wouldn't prevent them from doing simple tasks, either.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Uzi

Being poor wouldn't stop me from getting an ID. I don't know why it should stop anyone else in the same situation. I am assuming that having the adjective of 'black' being applied to a person wouldn't prevent them from doing simple tasks, either.

Really? You're sure that if picking up that ID required $30 bucks in supporting ID and processing fees to get that "free" ID, it wouldn't matter at all if you were poor? The kind of poor that has to decide *which* bills to pay and how far to stretch the food budget, keeping in mind you have kids to feed?

I find that amazing.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Uzi

Don't look at me. It was tweedledum below who's definition of 'substantial' was anywhere between 0 and 10% of the population. Any rational person would deem 'substantial' as being more than 1 in 10.

I've not followed the whole thread, so please forgive me for barging in, but it does seem worth remarking that thinkers of your ilk have a different definition of "substantial" than most rationalists have. In another thread (though I disremember the actual word which might not have been "substantial") another right-winger disagreed that a substantial number of Americans lacked health insurance: it was only 17%.

But maybe I don't know what you're arguing about. Disenfranchise 10% of Americans at random and it's likely to have no effect. Disenfranchise a substantial number the way the GOP is doing it and it's likely to have a big effect.

Right? Wrong? Decline to comment?



(ETA: I really am curious, but lack the motivation to peruse this thread -- there are better sites for those who find right-wing hypocrisy amusing. So my question to rationalist Dopers with the patience to play here: Have any of the hypocrites here admitted to their hypocrisy?)

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by septimus

But maybe I don't know what you're arguing about. Disenfranchise 10% of Americans at random and it's likely to have no effect.

Hey, Elvisheadupyourass! No one claimed the whole 10% would be disenfranchised, huh?

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

Really? You're sure that if picking up that ID required $30 bucks in supporting ID and processing fees to get that "free" ID, it wouldn't matter at all if you were poor? The kind of poor that has to decide *which* bills to pay and how far to stretch the food budget, keeping in mind you have kids to feed?

And 6 jobs. You gotta add the 6 jobs into the mix to make it believable. Better if the person was a black-hispanic to get the scenario really juicy.

I've been there minus the kids. Most people have the necessary documentation, or can attain it easily enough. Dare I say a 'substantial' portion should have little problem. The $30 is also relatively easy as well because they have months, if not years, to raise it!

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

The beauty part is that the Dems won't even have to reverse the laws, won't have to rescind anything. Simply institute a civic virtue campaign of their own, get out the voter registration drives. ACORN in another form, train people in registration rules, no matter how absurdly draconian they may be. Set up procedures to proactively provide whatever documentation is necessary to whomsoever requests it. In the vast majority of cases, it will be easy-peasy, damn near everyone leaves some sort of data trail behind them in life.

Get out there and register the poor, the minorities, the students, and supply them with rock-solid and undeniable voter id. Make it as easy as falling off a log. And all in the name of civic virtue! Will that "unfairly" advantage the Dems? Well, sure it will, but we've already crossed that Rubik's Con, totally legal and constitutional, we have expert opinion on that. Gander sauce for the geese, big time and downtown. The public will support it, in much the same way they support voter id laws. Hell, you can pitch it as furthering the cause of voter id laws! And remember! The Dems didn't start this fight, this two cock is entirely of their own making.

Interesting. So if I read this correctly, by your standards, ACORN was "unfairly" advantaging the Democrats when they were active?

Weird. The only way I could see that ACORN was unfairly giving the Democrats an advantage was by making voter registration fraud easy. But as long as they switched tactics and started correctly registering voters, acting within the law, then I would say any advantage to the Democrats is well-deserved.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Uzi

Hey, Elvisheadupyourass! No one claimed the whole 10% would be disenfranchised, huh?

Nor did I. Relevance? Zero.

Originally Posted by septimus

I've not followed the whole thread,...
Disenfranchise a substantial number the way the GOP is doing it and it's likely to have a big effect.

Right? Wrong? Decline to comment?

So, yours is "Decline to comment ... [except for mindless name-calling]"?

I guess Uzi is easy to classify....

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Uzi

DoAny rational person would deem 'substantial' as being more than 1 in 10.

Remarkable. Especially in a conversation where zero is sufficient basis for enacting a law, and for your enthusiastically defending it.

I said 'not everyone', Knothead. As it 'not everyone in the group'.

As if anyone had said otherwise!

You have substantially misstated the view you are disparaging, no matter how carefully it is expressed to you, by a puerile use of the strawman fallacy. So would you rather plead to thickness than lying? The evidence could be read that way too, actually.

[septimus]

Let me clarify my questions for this thread. I'm not interested in opinions of whether voter ID laws are good or bad, right or wrong. I'm not interested in opinions about whether niggers too lazy to get ID should be allowed to vote. I simply want to hear opinions on whether the following statements are true or false:

• The voter ID laws being proposed in places like Pennsylvania will lead to higher Republican vote proportions.
• Republican legislators espousing these laws are doing so to get that higher Republican result.

Some of you, secretly, want to answer as

Originally Posted by Honest Republican

Of course we're delighted to do whatever it takes to remove Socialist Islamist nigger-loving homophilic baby killers from office, and return the country to the good white-skinned Job Creating homo haters who made our country great.

I have far more respect for Honest Republican than the lying Scum I see denying the obvious in this thread.

I don't have time to read 1800 posts but I recall only one answer to my question. It was by the Chief Asshole, Brick himself, and it was just a non-answering joke, the sort of snarky gibberish a sophomore would make, trying to impress a stupid freshman.

Any Repubs willing to answer? I'm not holding my breath....

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by septimus

Nor did I.

Disenfranchise 10% of Americans at random and it's likely to have no effect

You did right there. 10% of Americans will be disenfranchised.

Relevance? Zero.

I was called a liar for not actually doing what you did here. You actually said that all 10% would be disenfranchised, where I said that only a portion of them could potentially be.

So, yours is "Decline to comment ... [except for mindless name-calling]"?

You must be a teacher? You see someone reacting and you assume they must be the sole guilty party. Go back and read the thread and you'll see where the name calling really started.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Interesting. So if I read this correctly, by your standards, ACORN was "unfairly" advantaging the Democrats when they were active?

Weird. The only way I could see that ACORN was unfairly giving the Democrats an advantage was by making voter registration fraud easy. But as long as they switched tactics and started correctly registering voters, acting within the law, then I would say any advantage to the Democrats is well-deserved.

I took his statements to mean that if we make it ridiculously easy to register poor and minority voters, it will advantage Dems because of the general party preferences of those groups. Fraud didn't even enter my mind.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Remarkable. Especially in a conversation where zero is sufficient basis for enacting a law, and for your enthusiastically defending it.

I'm defending it because proving who you are before you get to vote makes sense. That is why most other countries do it. That is why most of the people in your own country support it.

As if anyone had said otherwise!

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Uzi, I've explained how it's entirely possible for someone to be essentially unable to get voter ID despite being able-bodied and moderately intelligent. I've explained how 10% of the population not having ID in this day and age should really be cause to think "huh, why is that happening?".

It's pretty much implied right there in bold.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

by a puerile use of the strawman fallacy.

Pffl. You wouldn't know a strawman if he jumped down off of a pole and started singing, "If you only had a brain".

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Uzi

I'm defending it because proving who you are before you get to vote makes sense.

Even if there's zero evidence that it's a problem? And a helluva lot of evidence that your "solution" causes other problems, on a far larger scale? And that it wouldn't address your stated problem even if it were in place? That's what "makes sense" to you? After having it all spoonfed to you?

OK, maybe you're both a liar and thick.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

I took his statements to mean that if we make it ridiculously easy to register poor and minority voters, it will advantage Dems because of the general party preferences of those groups. Fraud didn't even enter my mind.

'luc' put quotes around "unfairly" because he was deriding those who consider more democracy less fair.

But I'm "sure" no equivocation was intended by Bricker when he "logically assumed" elucidator was weirdly championing fraud as the source of the advantage to Democrats.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Uzi

You actually said that all 10% would be disenfranchised...

Bullshit! Mine was an out-of-context hypothetical used solely as a basis to discuss your use of the word "substantial." Try reading for comprehension.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Go back and read the thread and you'll see where the name calling really started.

All my recent posts make clear that I have a single interest in this thread: Learning whether any of you hypocrites have the shred of honesty needed to answer my questions. You keep babbling irrelevancies. Care to answer the questions?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Uzi

Yes, I know. You see black people, I see people whose skin color happens to be black. You see poor people, I see people who happen to be poor. A subtle, but important distinction that seems to be close to the heart of our disagreement.

Well, it is endearing that the right wing is adopting situational rhetoric. It's no longer an integral element of poorness that it indicates their status as a helot, that if they'd only accept, life would be better for everyone. No, in fact, we can all strive to be rich and white.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

I took his statements to mean that if we make it ridiculously easy to register poor and minority voters, it will advantage Dems because of the general party preferences of those groups. Fraud didn't even enter my mind.

That would be an example, then, of fairly advantaging the Democrats.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by septimus

• The voter ID laws being proposed in places like Pennsylvania will lead to higher Republican vote proportions.
• Republican legislators espousing these laws are doing so to get that higher Republican result.

You first:

Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.

Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN's efforts did so to get that higher Dmeocratic result.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

You first:

Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.

Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN's efforts did so to get that higher Dmeocratic result.

If anyone needed any evidence that Bricker is a completely partisan twat, here it is.

He equates a get out the vote effort by an advocacy group with making it harder for minorities and the poor to vote.

It's 8:30 A.M. on a Monday and already you're looking like a piece of shit. Pace yourself man!

[ElvisL1ves]

nm, better said by the ninja.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Uzi

And 6 jobs. You gotta add the 6 jobs into the mix to make it believable. Better if the person was a black-hispanic to get the scenario really juicy.

I've been there minus the kids. Most people have the necessary documentation, or can attain it easily enough. Dare I say a 'substantial' portion should have little problem. The $30 is also relatively easy as well because they have months, if not years, to raise it!

We're not talking most people. We're talking about the poor that often do not.

Thank you for confirming *poll tax*.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

If anyone needed any evidence that Bricker is a completely partisan twat, here it is.

He equates a get out the vote effort by an advocacy group with making it harder for minorities and the poor to vote.

It's 8:30 A.M. on a Monday and already you're looking like a piece of shit. Pace yourself man!

So the answers to my questions are....?

(For review, here they are again, yes or no to

Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.

Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN's efforts did so to get that higher Dmeocratic result.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So the answers to my questions are....?

(For review, here they are again, yes or no to

Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.

Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN's efforts did so to get that higher Dmeocratic result.

You don't think ridiculing your stances answered your questions well enough? If you reread my post, you may, just may, be able to glean my position in regards to your post.

You might just be broken. I think you're so twisted and vile that you assume everyone else bleeds corruption and disdain when cut.

But that's neither here nor there. How was the weekend? Spend some time on the boat laughing at poor people?

[ElvisL1ves]

Don't bother; he'll never answer your questions, or any follow-ups either. Not that it's necessary.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You don't think ridiculing your stances answered your questions well enough? If you reread my post, you may, just may, be able to glean my position in regards to your post.

You might just be broken. I think you're so twisted and vile that you assume everyone else bleeds corruption and disdain when cut.

But that's neither here nor there. How was the weekend? Spend some time on the boat laughing at poor people?

Inferences, you can easily deny.

I'd like a direct answer:

Yes, or no: Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.

Yes, or no: Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN's efforts did so to get that higher Democratic result.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

....Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.

Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN's efforts did so to get that higher Dmeocratic result.

To the first, yes, but only slightly, as ACORN never had the resources to go full out and balls to the wall. If they had, the Republicans would have killed it a lot sooner. It was only as demographics got tighter than anybody really noticed ACORN, or cared. A very similar dynamic inspired the current debacle. This effort was conceived to trim Democrat voting, which could only be effective in such districts where the vote was expected to be very close. How many Americans had ever even heard of ACORN until the Breitbart/O'Keefe slanders?

(As a strategy to trim voter rolls, it was smart, subtle, and modest. I think things only got out of hand because the Republican leadership is no longer in charge of the asylum. They could have done it and gotten clean away with it if they hadn't overplayed their hand. But I digress....)

I only knew about ACORN because I worked for a foundation that funded them. And even I thought of them in patronizing and condescending terms, as I shamefacedly admit.

As for the second, you are forgetting that not everybody with a "D" appended to their names is even remotely progressive. A lot of Democrats along the centrist-Blue Dead Dog divide were happy enough to ignore ACORN, last thing they wanted was a challenge from their left. And, as well, perfectly happy see it dead. A conservative Democrat in a fairly secure seat would be first in line to stick the knife in.

Keep in mind, Bricker, when we talk that I am a radical lefty, not a Democrat. I vote for Democrats because I have a bound duty to choose, so I do the best I can.

ETA: Were you reaching for another Perry Mason moment here, when the witness breaks down on the stand and blubberingly confesses that yes! yes! it was a partisan effort!

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Bricker

You first:

Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.

Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN's efforts did so to get that higher Dmeocratic result.

ACORN is a private organization that helped people register. You support governments that hinder people from voting. You call yourself a lawyer and couldn't figure that difference out by yourself?
What a joke you've turned into.

But ... I'll admit I'm happy when those voting for rational leaders get an edge over those who support the filthy politicians you admire.

There. Your turn.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by septimus

ACORN is a private organization that helped people register. You support governments that hinder people from voting. You call yourself a lawyer and couldn't figure that difference out by yourself?
What a joke you've turned into.

But ... I'll admit I'm happy when those voting for rational leaders get an edge over those who support the filthy politicians you admire.

There. Your turn.

"There?" What "there?"

You've highlighted some distinctions you seem to feel are important between my questions and yours, and indicated you're happy when your politicians win.

But you haven't answered my questions.

Just to review:

Yes, or no: Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.

Yes, or no: Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN's efforts did so to get that higher Democratic result.