It must baffle you that people passing bounced checks get arrested and convicted, eh?
Of course the prosecutor will be able to match the poll worker to the vote. And that poll worker can testify that he followed the mandates of the training program set out in 32.114(a). That’s legally sufficient.
That’s not quite accurate. Under 63.001(c), the elections officer compares verifies the identity of the voter by ensuring that the voter is on the list of registered voters for the precinct – a list which does in fact include the address. Certainly nothing limits a part of that comparison being a matching of addresses.
They are lawyers throwing a Hail Mary pass after losing the VRA suit at the Supreme Court.
Shall we revisit this thread after those suits are concluded, and see who is eating crow on this claim?
I will absolutely admit how utterly wrong I was if the suit goes DoJ’s way.
And you? Will you also admit error if the suit goes Texas’ way?
My bet: no. In fact, speaking of bets, how about we make it interesting?
$100 says Texas wins. Oh, let me guess: you’ll bloviate but won’t actually want to risk any actual consequences for being wrong. You’ll have some pious opposition to gambling. Or something. Right?
This betting thing is getting tedious, Bricker. It seems to have become your version of judicium Dei. It also ignores the fact that even in the face of a court ruling, individuals don’t have to concede their values.
Shop owners find out about bounced checks in a couple of days, and don’t process hundreds of checks a day. There’s no way a fraudulent vote is sussed out in a couple of days and no way any poll worker is going to be able to reliably state that the defendant walked into the voting location at all. The entirety of the worker’s testimony would be “Yes sir, I did my job, didn’t slack off or screw up at all, go ahead and throw that immigrant in jail.”
There is no requirement to match addresses, they can’t stop you from voting if the address doesn’t match, which does sort of limit their ability to match addresses. Or, they can match addresses all they want, but if the name matches, they have to let you vote, which sort of makes address matching kind of irrelevant. From the Texas Govt website
and
I’ll also point out that a Passport is valid ID, and it doesn’t have an address on it at all.
I only bet with friends. I have to live with the “consequences” of this suit because I’m a Texan. It’s not just a game to me. Despite the outcome of the lawsuits, you are wrong.
Despite all the desperate efforts of your sort, Texas* will* turn blue eventually.
No. The betting thing seeks to prove that the blithe predictions offered up by Bridget Burke are such arrant nonsense that she does even believe them herself. Note I am discussing a factual prediction about future events, as opposed to her “values,” whatever flexible erasable board they may be written upon.
She doesn’t need to compromise those “values,” of hers. I’m not offering a bet on what’s Right and what’s Wrong. I am offering a bet on what’s constitutional and what’s permissible under the VRA. She’s happy to suggest different factual predictions, confident that there’s absolutely zero penalty for her being wrong. She can simply vomit up her errors now, and then slink off later.
And if I have the temerity to call her on that error, I’ll just hear a cascade of “Get over it,” and posts will be made wondering why I don’t have a life because I must have obsessively tracked the issue and then resurrected the thread. I’ll be accused of gloating, crowing, and there will be nothing but sympathy for poor, beleaguered Bridget Burke, set upon by the Evil Conservative. No one will care that she was wrong, because she was Wrong in the Right Way.
How can I be wrong if Texas wins? The issue is what the VRA requires. That lawsuit settles that issue.
Or do you mean “wrong” in some nebulous, ill-defined, way that only you get to determine, as opposed to the normal way we determine law in a representative democracy?
It doesn’t prove anything if no one wants to bet with you just because they don’t want to bet with you. There are many other reasons why someone might not want to bet, other than they secretly believe you are right. But what this comes down to is what is becoming what seems like an obsession about PEOPLE BEING WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!
The people on these boards don’t owe you anything, Bricker. They don’t even owe you sincere intellectual argument. And you can’t force them into it. I’ve said this before—if you think someone is playing false, then the sensible move is not to engage them. After all, what do they say about someone who argues with fools?
Other participants here might not have the attitude that you have, that Great Debates is some kind of holy ground for practicing the art of rhetoric. I would guess that a good chuck—if not a majority—are only here to express their oponions and their something off their chests . Or maybe just because they like arguing with people. And if that’s the case, there are no rules of rhetorical soundness.
But more than that, if people don’t want to engage you in the way you want them to, you can’t force them to. Your complaint is that people feel free to say what they want because they have nothing at stake. Well, duh, a huge part of the appeal of internet squabbling is based on the fact that there’s nothing at stake. You’re fighting the actual premise of the internet to try to reverse that.
But it doesn’t do even that. All it proves is that she does not wish to bet. There is nothing in the refusal itself that would go to show the reason for the refusal and your poisoning the well regarding the reasons is a poor rhetorical device indeed.
If for instance you were willing to bet me about anything, regardless of how sure I was of winning, I would refuse the bet. The reason might be that I don’t bet. That simple. The reason might be that I am in a financial position such that, regardless of how sure I am of winning, I am more adverse to losing as it would negatively impact my ability to provide for my family. Even $20 could mean the difference between my being able to feed my child lunch for a week or not. You don’t know and unless you can show that I have been taking bets willy nilly you have no basis to say that the reason for my refusal is that I don’t believe my assertion.
Bricker, this isn’t debate. You’re insulting another poster and accusing her of being dishonest. I’m giving you a warning for it. And your betting routine is not against the rules, but if you’re going to rely on it, you had better not insult the person you’re talking to at the same time.
I reject the premise that GD is simply another part of the Internet.
And I reject the attempt you’re making to soften or eliminate the consequences of being wrong. I can only assume that the desire to avoid consequences of being wrong arises from a knowledge that the argument in play now is, in fact, wrong.
Only the financial objection precludes money as a bet. There are myriad reasons why someone might not wish to bet other than they know they are wrong. Your logic in impuning motive is faulty.
But explain to me, please, some of the myriad reasons someone can use to avoid a non-monetary wager when they believe – when they’re certain – they’re right.
You have a history of recreational wagering, Bricker. It means something to you that it might not mean to other people. Surely, you can see that.
For me, it just makes the whole experience her less pleasurable and less fun. Similar to the way I don’t like hanging around guys who are constantly trash-talking about sports. It’s cheap and brimming with one-upmanship and humiliation, more than just posting arguments on a message board. You might take shit like that from a close friend, but not from just some guy.
Perhaps you also use alcohol recreationally. Similarly, there are people who have reasons why they don’t, ranging from alcoholism at one end to just not liking the taste at the other.
And one of those reasons might be that putting up real stakes is not what people want to do when they’re posting on a message board for fun.
None of this can be unfamiliar to you–you’re a smart guy.
So it’s fun for someone to dogmatically insist that they’re right, and then if they’re wrong, dodge any consequences?
Gosh, I guess that’s true.
But you know what? It’s not fun for me to be on the receiving end of these confident declarations of accuracy that turn out to be wrong.
So I’m going to continue to shine a light on the practice by whatever permissible means I can. And that includes publicly offering wagers and forcing the claimant to demur (or accept, which also happens).
You are seriously putting forth that you can’t think of a single reason why someone may not wish to bet even though they are certain they will win? Even after posting one such reason yourself (in a dismissive and backhanded way)?
Perhaps the person does have moral qualms regarding gambling. Perhaps the person finds no enjoyment in betting, perhaps the person is a gamble addict and is avoiding temptation. Perhaps, out of spite, the person doesn’t wish to grant you the pleasure of indulging in a pass time that you so obviously enjoy.
I bet (hahaha) If you put your mind to it you could come up with some other reasons yourself.
In light of the warning I got above, speculations about motives behind decisions to wager or not wager seems like treading on dangerous ground. So I’ll leave it to any person who doesn’t wish to wager to offer up their own claims.