Bricker the troll

I’ve said a number of times, in this thread, that his arguing is done so completely as an advocate for his political party that he doesn’t even recognize that there’s any other way - or that there even is such a thing as any higher principle that should be respected and followed rather than weaseled around.

Isn’t a *normal *lawyer at least aware of the nature of the intellectual approach he’s using, even when working on a case for a client? To declare that he’s not a troll entails accusing him of amorality and a dishonesty so pervasive that he doesn’t even know what honesty is anymore. In that regard, accusing him of mere trolling is giving him the benefit of whatever doubt may still remain.

The prosecution rests.

Sorry if this was already answered. It does seem quite obvious.

The value, as I understand it, is to make sure nobody votes more than once. When you register, they have a chance to make sure you legally have the right to vote there. When you actually go vote, they can check your ID against the vetted registrations, as well as make sure you haven’t already voted.

Sure, a few fraudulent registrations doesn’t hurt anything, really, as they’ll likely be taken out. But the more you have, the more likely one will get through. And while one fraudulent vote probably won’t decide an election, enough could.

Heck, many claim that fraudulent (overseas) votes got GWB elected the first time…

ETA: And of course you’re not going to hear of voter fraud in states that don’t require registration. How the heck are they going to catch it?

Well, if the number of votes cast in any one state was 60,000,000 I’m pretty sure that they would realize there was a problem.

Considering that in 2004 there were precincts in Ohio with more votes counted than voters (I think there was 124% voter turnout in one part of my county!), and considering that the Republicans branded anyone questioning those results as a conspiracy theorist, I’d have to say no. They wouldn’t necessarily realize there as a problem, unless it got a Democrat elected.

And that’s one of the biggest reason I find the ACORN screaming so laughable. If people want me to believe they are concerned about the process and fairness, they’ll speak up even when it doesn’t benefit their team.

Right.

Just like the Democrats in 2000 in Florida, nobly standing up for the proposition that every vote should be counted.

Except when it came to military absentee ballots.

Oooooh. What the fuck does that prove?

That was “ballots postmarked after Election Day”, liar.

I don’t recall “the Democrats” trying to make that exception. (Even though, as Elvis points out, it had ample justification, as the right to vote after the election’s over has rarely been defended by either party.) Some Democrats did so, but it was hardly the consensus position among prominent Democrats. If anything, the consensus went the other way.

But your bit of snark had a nice ring of truthiness to it, and that’s probably the important thing, right?

So, to stay on topic with the OP,

We can either assume that Bricker was blissfully unaware of the nuance of the objections to the military ballot issue

or

he was posting this bit of snark (tip o the hat to RTFirefly) in order to deliberately get a rise out of people

(please refer back to thread title)

Hey, it’s fine with me if we say that going forward the election date is just a guideline and not a hard deadline. I can live with that.

Friend Bricker is simply trying to point out the hypocrisy of the left. A crucial issue that is often overlooked, sometimes for ten minutes at a stretch.

This thread has been Tu Quoqued by the Tu Quoquist!

I was a Republican in 2000, and one of the reasons (I had a lot) I left the party was the Republican handling of Florida voting.

We can keep the election open until the ‘right’ candidate is ahead, then call it done!

Worked for Medicare Part D…

Yes.

As well as acknowledging the hypocrisy of the right.

My point was to not bathe the Right in shimmering garb of purity, but to rebut the seeming inference that it’s the Left so clothed. Both sides “…want [people] to believe they are concerned about the process and fairness…” but don’t “… speak up even when it doesn’t benefit their team.”

Filibusters. Remember the New York Times’ ardent position about filibusters when the manuever inconvenienced the Democrats… and their equally ardent opposite position when the manuever hurt the Republicans?

States’ rights. The darling of the Right for a multitude of issues, with the Left saying it’s an outmoded concept… until the issue is assisted suicide or medical marijuana, at which point the Left suddenly discovers their deep and abiding concern and respect for a limited federal government and plenary police power at the state level, and the Right simultaneously finds the Commerce Clause should mean anything under the sun.

And, yes, vote-counting in Florida. Don’t even begin to suggest that the Democrats were studiously trying Only To Do The Right Thing, and the Republicans alone were attempting to craftily pervert the system. The Democrats leapt on military absentee ballots with no postmarks, disregarding the fact that military mail often had no postmarks. They were absolutely right under the letter of the law, of course, but when they were simultaneously arguing the letter of the law should be cast aside in favor of the SPIRIT of the law when it came to the Secretary of State certifying results, and when it came to spoiled ballots being counted if only the intent of the voter could be divined, there was no reasonable conclusion except duplicity.

And were the Republicans stalwart defenders of the Truth? Of course not. They were doing exactly the opposite: arguing that the military ballots should be counted because the spirit of the law demanded that our brave fighting men and women be given their voices, while at the same time insisting on a hypertechnical adherence to the rules when it came to times, dates, and the discretion of the Sec’y of State.

But forget Repubs and Dems generally. Here’s the difference between me and a number of people here: I accuse the other side of doing it… and in the same thread acknowledge that my side does it too. Look at the people here who have seldom, if ever, acknowledged equal wrongdoing by the Dems.

Or is that because it really is true that the Democrats are just pure and good, and the Republicans are just conniving and evil?

Come on.

Now, in this instance – ACORN – of COURSE the people leading the attack are right-wingers who don’t like ACORN. Yes, yes - I’ve said it before. But as I also said before, ACORN actually did objectively wrong things. Not nearly AS wrong as the attackers woul dhave us believe, but their hands aren’t clean. Who is admitting that here in this thread, eh?

I see. And when, exactly, has a Dem political operative sicced the Justice Dept on the Cato Insitutute?

You have a point only if the question is utterly binary, only if ACORN must be entirely free of any taint, of any sort, whatsoever, to qualify as a victim of political persecution. An absurdity, people being what they are.

And, once again, you assign blame to an entire organization for the actions of minor players, a standard of reponsibility I very much doubt you would like to see more broadly applied.

By my accounting, the vast majority are admitting that ACORN did objectively wrong things, and their hands are not lily-white clean.

My point is that the wrong things they did were so minor (failing to effectively supervise some of their thousands of temporary workers) and the rhetoric of their enemies is so hyperbolic. And not just random nutters - Repub politicians (ACORN is responsible for the mortgage crisis, ACORN is a criminal enterprise - Steve King (R)

We never said the Left was blameless and perfect. We just said that the Right is worse.

As a Canadian, I could not care less about this issue, but as a somewhat disinterested bystander - this pitting is in no way justified. Bricker’s no troll, and it is a sad commentary on the partisan state of political argument that so many of you are claiming he is.