In the other BBQ thread on voters, I think. Do you really need a link?
Don’t bother, I think I’ve pieced together the chain of events.
-
In this thread, you said that there are proper and improper justifications for voter ID laws, and that you support them for the former reasons and not the latter.
-
elucidator took you to task, quite sarcastically, for expressing a quite weak condemnation of what could be considered attempts to distort the electoral process.
-
You compared your weak condemnation to an uncited post where 'luci did not, to your satisfaction, sufficiently condemn an action by Democrats. (This appears to reference a 2009 post in Great Debates, and over which the two of you have disagreed before, you going so far as to create a poll over its meaning.)
-
'luci expressed a belief that “sordid” was a stronger pejorative than “improper”.
-
You claimed that 'luci’s use of “sordid” was referential, and therefore weaker, than your direct use of “improper”, without citing any particular instance.
It now appears you may be referring to yet another thread, started in June of last year and stretching to almost 3,200 posts, in which you call one Republican representative “improper” for committing voter fraud rather than for implementing laws to, ostensibly, prevent it.
Does that about cover it?
However, the comparison in question ends with:
Notice that you use the plural “legislators”, and I can find you only referring to a single Republican legislator as “improper”.
You should be ashamed.
I’m still not entirely sure I’m grokking you here… my contention is that while elections are obviously paramount, not all elections are created equal, and we should strive to ensure that our elections are as fair as possible; and any situation in which an elected body sets the rules for its own elections is an opportunity not just for corruption but for a particularly insidious form of corruption that sets up a self-sustaining feedback loop.
I have not (in this thread) offered any potential improvements to the election system in the US, but I believe there are many places our system can be improved. For instance, in California there’s a non-partisan committee that establishes district boundaries, thus hopefully obviating the issue of gerrymandering. Now, obviously, this could be corrupted in its own way, but the fact that improving the status quo is difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. What is unclear to me is whether your attitude is “eh, the system is good enough” or “the system is as good it could practically be” or “the system has always been this way, I like it, get off my lawn” or “the system has flaws, but hey, that’s just part of its charm, because it gives more advantage to the parties clever enough to exploit them” or what.
Its the “lurid prose” part that really hurt. Its a good thing, the restraints of typing posts mean nobody can tell when you break down in sobs.
I find it hilarious that the very person (people) you are calling a loser has defended his position in numerous threads where you ALL have been very active. I’ve seen it, and I am sure you have as well. It wouldn’t be all that hard to go back and read what he wrote but instead you sit and pound away at your jizz encrusted keyboard, frothing at the mouth, about HIS justification for wanting or liking a particular direction.
This board gets worse and worse every day and the reason is people like you.
I’d pretty much be willing to bet that Elvish has read every word. I know I have. Its a form of secular penance. Instead of a priest prescribing 6,000 "Hail, Mary"s and 3,000 "Our Father"s, we get 1,000 Bricker posts. Still going to Hell, of course, but we get the upgrade to business class. No water, but less salty peanuts.
And why is it you guys are always finding something “hilarious” and then express yourselves in a way that suggests you haven’t actually laughed at anything since Grandma broke her hip?
I think the shame should lie with those who call him out for not telling the truth. When shown that he did indeed say what he said, you resort to trying to minimize the impact. The fact that he uses legislators instead of legislator is laughable, really.
That isn’t fair, I laugh almost every time you post. (Well, I used to) Your responses have taken a more serious tone the last 6 months or so.
Correction: He’s *tried *to defend it, but failed every time, miserably and ridiculously.
However, there are still a few readers, such as, perhaps, yourself, who don’t yet understand that, who are still willing to be convinced by an argument that leads you where you want it to go, no matter how ridiculous and amoral it may be. Those are the audience of those of us posters willing to Fight Ignorance where we find it; not the sad sack of bullshit whom we are nominally addressing.
Oh, we have. The problem is that “what he wrote” ranges between threadbare rationalizations and outright lies. What, are you under some other impression for reasons you have not yet deigned to provide the rest of us?
It wouldn’t be all that hard for YOU to go back and read all the refutations of it, or even some, instead of resorting to simple, childish denunciations of those whose respect for fact forces them to reach conclusions you don’t like about people you do like - who seem to include yourself.
IOW, grow the fuck up.
Could be me. Could be you, just as easily. It takes two to dance the snark tango.
Quite possibly.
Maybe it’s the all out attacking style of some on the board that gets to me. It isn’t so much a refutation of facts, it’s a complete and total disagreement on the ideology and less discussion of merits.
Lobohan was one. There are still quite a few, Elvis and **septimus **comes to mind as well. Those people will tell you that they have ‘refuted’ it many times but if it hasn’t been refuted (and it clearly hasn’t or I wouldn’t be half assed defending Bricker) then stop saying it.
I’ve seen Brickers opinion evolve on this very fact. Whether or not his opinion evolved due to him or to others challenging the argument, you, me and everyone else on the board will never know. To call him the names that get attributed to him because you just KNOW, is plain and simple bullshit.
His argument has been for a while that the vote ID laws will help with the prosecution of the people who commit it. I have seen all kinds of strawman arguments attributed to Bricker, but his stance has remained unchanged for at least the last 6 months
Could be you just don’t quite realize it. Which makes you part of the entertainment around here.
Oh yes, we do. And so do you, deep inside.
Now you’re telling the same lie he is. His “argument” has been, until very recently when even he (but not you) finally realized his rationalizations were laughable, that it’s about protecting the integrity of elections, *before *the fact. *Not *prosecuting *after *the fact; that’s a new one.
But then you’d have to have some reading comprehension skills to know that, wouldn’t you?
Jump, monkey, jump!
As I recall, he first advanced the notion to explain the absence of any factual basis for the great voter fraud crisis, that prosecutors didn’t have the tools to pursue cases against the vast numbers of fraudulent voters because no voter id. It received pretty much the reception it deserved, but he apparently thought he had a winner, so he kept on repeating it.
Did he offer testimonials from prosecutors substantiating his complaint? Not that I know of. Did he offer any form of citation whatsoever? News to me. Leading to the plausible conclusion that he pulled it right out of his ass. Sort of like improvisational comedy, but without the chuckles.
None of the above.
There is tension between a neutral drawing of a district and the drawing of a district to advantage certain goals.
When a district is drawn to create advantages, this is unfair, by convention wisdom…except if the aim is to increase minority representation, at which point is becomes sacrosanct, or at least palatable.
In Jewish law, the. Torah warns against favoring the poor over the rich. No typo there: there is a temptation, in judging a poor man’s case against a rich one, to favor the poor man’s needs as more acute than the rich one’s. I think the same dynamic applies here: you’re more amenable to pretzel-shaped districts when they advance the cause of minority representation and not so much in other cases. I say that “We the People,” means that we the people get to decide things, and paradoxically that includes the responsibility for ensuring that some proposed change does not impact the future ability to do that fairly.
The system is as good is it should be for this purpose. I will listen attentively to proposed improvements, but “improvements” that undercut the power of the people to decide things… even in the name of protecting the people… are questionable. Especially when they arrogate the power of decisions to some other body, wiser than the people.
Exactly correct. Voter ID laws will create a framework that allows legally sufficient evidence for prosecution, and this self-evidently will booster voter confidence in election results.
How is it you know this, and are willing to speak out when people ignore it, and sofew other people are? There are very few actual idiots repeating the Lobohan-ism attacks, but no one except you calling them on it. Why is that?
Some people really are very upset about voter confidence, some people genuinely believe that liberals/lefties are busing illegal aliens to the polls because, after all, its the only way they could be winning. Everybody knows that America is a center-right country, everybody knows that most Americans agree with the Republicans, so how else could the left be winning unless they are cheating?
Its crap, but some people totally believe it. Not you, of course, you are too smart for that. You even accept that such underhanded motivations are part of the Republican effort, to exploit that fear for undeserved political gain. You know, guys who like to try and insinuate that CASA is part of a conspiracy to promote illegal alien voting. Guys like that. Not fine, upstanding guys like you, who wouldn’t stoop to such slander.
I have repeatedly linked to the story of Ramon Cue, the Miami man who claims he didn’t vote despite voting records showing he did. That story includes comments from prosecutors about how difficult securing a conviction is.
One? That’s it, one? A nationwide epidemic of mass fear, and you’ve got one? Besides which, your claim was that we would hear a lot more about such voter fraud if it were not so difficult to convict. But we did hear about this one, over and over, from you.
So, where’s all the others?
Why did you deny that I had any?
Here’s another. page 60.