A mighty battle-of-the-lawyers is coming over "voter fraud," etc.

And I mean, on Election Day. And before and after, of course.

I expect this election is going to be close enough in a lot of states for the lawyers to really matter, like they didn’t in 2008. If you don’t have a dog in this fight, get ready to pop some corn, it’s going to be quite a spectacle.

Apparently this is Bricker’s opinion:

I know this isn’t hyperbole because he says:

It’s not hyperbole.

But it was directed at one person. The “you” is used in its definite sense, not its indefinite sense.

That one person needed “illegal” votes? Why would a single person need illegal votes? That doesn’t make any sense.

Also:

A different poster, no less. Why would he “know” that?

For my part, I don’t know that losing illegal votes hurts the Democrats. I don’t even know that there are enough illegal votes cast to show statistically or to swing any election anywhere in America now or at any time in the past. And neither does Bricker.

Thank you,

This is the problem with these measures. They’re causing real harm over an unquantified threat, that wouldn’t necessarily be stopped anyway.

All they can do is pull numbers out of their ass that they made up. Made up numbers are not the not the thing to steal a fundamental right over. IF Republicans were interested in prevent fraud without hurting vulnerable voters they would institute a program to help those folks get an ID without undue burden.

Why haven’t they?

Because then those folks might get an ID without undue burden.

Well at least one Republican is willing to admit what it is really about.

When I heard Turzai’s comments, my head exploded since there is a fine tradition of Republican legislators using their their taxpayer-paid staff and taxpayer-paid state-owned equipment and office space to conduct their political campaign. Some are doing actual prison time over it, and others may still be facing charges.

Things are about to get real interesting here in the Keystone State.

My guess would be his peace of mind. Or maybe liberal guilt. I don’t know, and I agree it doesn’t make any sense. I can’t really explain in this forum.

And you don’t know how few people both don’t have an idea and can’t reasonably get an ID. But there, you’re willing to speculate.

Yes, fine tradition.

Hey, by the way, do happen to have Rod Blagojevich’s current mailing address? I wanted to drop him a card and see how he’s doing. Also William Jefferson – wonder what’s up with him? You haven’t heard any juicy cell block gossip, have you?

Jim Traficant? Frank Ballance? I think Frankie might be out now. Mel Reynolds? Walter Tucker? Barbara Rose Collins? Austin Murphy?

Is it possible that the fine traditions of lawbreaking are not limited to, or even overrepresented by, Republicans?

No response to my post Bricker?

  1. What does “don’t have an idea” mean in that first sentence?

  2. False equivalence, of course.

  3. If you want to change things, e.g., institute voter-ID requirements, the burden is, of course, on you, not on the defenders of the status quo, to prove the necessity. You have never yet done that in any thread here. Postulating that ineligibles might be voting and getting away with it and we’d never know is not any form of proof of the necessity, is it? You’re a lawyer, you should know that.

  4. Your statement Tao’s quoted in post #5 is speculation and a whole lot worse.

Just like you’re willing to speculate that voter ID is actually needed to combat a fraud that does not actually happen in anything remotely close to a statistically significant sense? Throwing government money at problems that don’t exist is supposed to be the strawman for liberals, right?

Oh, they will borrow it if they need to, they can be very open-minded when it comes to bending the truth.