I use it because I think it draws an important distinction, the one between what people of some influence on the other side are saying, and what random crazies on the other side might be saying. I defined it when I first used it in this thread, because I know it’s not a term that’s part of most people’s vocabularies - though I’m trying to do what I can about that. 
I thought it was why when you put out a big bowl of mixed nuts at a party, within half an hour there’s no cashews.
By the same token, I may not get “conviction after conviction” with photo IDs – an illegal alien may vote and then claim he didn’t, and that the actual voter used a fake ID, and can the poll worker really remember one face out of hundreds?
I would love a scheme that guarantees conviction. But I will settle for a framework that will build a factual record that is legally sufficient for a conviction.
What conversation on this board DOES have any meaning outside this board?
Maybe you can understand the difference between debates where the subject matter is the board or its posters, and debates where the subject matter is the wider world.
Or you can pretend that you have no idea what anyone is talking about until it’s spelled out in the nitpicking, excruciating level of detail and precision required by the world’s most useless profession. Or maybe it’s not the law - maybe it’s just you.
ETA: And if your point is to impugn a particular class of posters on this board, maybe you should start a Pit thread specifically dedicated to that. Not saying you have to - I’m not a mod, after all - but it would unclutter this thread a bit.
I think the problem with this particular debate (the OP and not the voter fraud debate) is that both sides of the issue have major shortcomings in their positions.
Pro 102-year old woman:
- 3 hr wait times are unacceptable. Why? Arbitrarily so.
- The only reason for cutting back extra voting days/hours is voter suppression which can only be explained by either irrational racism or self-serving reasons.
- If you don’t agree, you’re a scumsucking ass.
Anti 102-year old woman:
- We need to prevent voter fraud even though it’s really a non-issue, probably less so than wait times.
- Cutting wait times would be a waste of money but it’d be less of a waste to institute better voter identity practices because it costs less money. The non-issue-ness of preventing voter fraud doesn’t affect the waste status?
- Legal (precedence/incumbent/conservative) trumps moral (new/change) except in voter ID practices.
This is a misrepresentation of my position, as someone on the “pro” side (though I am not really arguing on behalf of this specific 102-year-old person).
First of all, my assertion that 3 hours is too long is not arbitrary; I have already said what I’m basing this on. IMO, people should be able to vote during a lunch break from work, which is typically about an hour long. I know that not all people have lunch breaks, and some breaks are shorter, etc., but I feel this is a reasonable yardstick to use.
I have never said either of the other two things in your list.
Ah, false-equivalence which makes the worse side (the pro-voter suppression side) look somehow better so that hopefully dummies cannot tell the sides apart and keep voting repub rears its head again.
Yes. Interesting how you felt it was necessary to explain to the reader which side the worse side was. Hard to ensure the sheep will do what they’re supposed to without explicit guidance, eh?
Obviously the subject is a matter of wider interest than just the board.
But the board’s membership has a strong effect on the direction, tenor and substance of debates that happen on this board. Secure in their little cocoon of Leftiness, posters like BrainGlutton and BobLibDem steer the conversation with these far-left positions, and the majority of the boards lets it happen, unwilling to meaningfully attack “their side.”
Even now, when I have painstakingly highlighted a difference between your more moderate and defensible position, and the effect-no-compromise nonsense, your reaction is to attack me, and ever so carefully NOT criticize them, even though I agree with mailing ballots and they do not.
Think about that for a moment.
Beware of wolves with sheep skins.
Won’t take that long.
Be inspired, then, Debaser. Go thou and do likewise.
The fact that people here appear to think that a 3 hour wait is acceptable blows my mind. I live in the twin cities which is relatively populous. I waited 20 minutes to vote in the election and that was at 7:30 in the morning. It’s the longest I’ve ever waited to vote and if I ever have to wait 30+ minutes, you can bet I will be burning up my reps’ inboxes wanting to know why they’re fucking over people’s ability to vote.
And I voted for my representative, the Muslim guy. A Lutheran Muslim, so that’s OK. No particular reason to mention that, just wanted to brag.
To be fair, Chris Fields was hardly enticing. Plus, he kept leaving pamphlets on my car which I then had to dispose of. Unasked for trash always irritates.
I’ve waited 3 hrs, 30 mins, and 0 minutes and I guess I’m such a dullard that I just accepted it without much thought or outrage.
You said it, not me.
I’m imagining someone standing for 3 hours in line with a blank stare. Probably with mouth open.
While it is nice that there are people who do not have jobs, children, or other obligations that prevent them from standing in line for three hours during a weekday to perform a task that will take only a few minutes to complete, I don’t think we should base our civic planning around them.
Nor should we base our civic planning around extreme statistical outliers.
Average wait time – fine.
“No person should ever” – ridiculous basis for public policy, suitable only for woolly-headed dreamers.