# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 285
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5681 "2014-06-23T06:18:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nothing in anything I have written is fairly summarized as you have done, and you yourself regard Jesus as either entirely fictional or an insufficient source of moral authority. What possible reason would I have to be guided by your warped view of what Jesus would want? Because you might recognize the same principles espoused regardless of whether Jesus was fiction, a historical figure, or a supernatural being. One can appreciate Christ’s moral teachings without venerating him as other than an enlightened person. It is precisely because of your position’s inherent trust of “other” i.e. those on the opposing side of the fence that even if someone invokes your deity, you pretend their view is warped even if the principle cited is dead center on. But then, many who self-proclaim as followers of Jesus have a “say as he said, but not do as he did” approach to their faith. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5682 "2014-06-23T07:05:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I don’t agree that whatever “stink of corruption” is around them is sufficient to stop supporting them, because, again, I measure support on the actual law, not the motives of those who passed it. Right. But my point was to make it clear that you understand what I’m actually trying to convince you of, which, given your frequent claims of “well, I don’t see why I should abandon the Republican party because of this” you haven’t necessarily clearly understood in the past. To be clear, I am NOT (at least in this precise context) trying to convince you of any of the following: -You should stop being a Republican -the concept of voter ID is itself a bad idea -Republicans are all evil -No Democrats are evil, and no Democrat would ever do anything similarly scuzzy -Voter ID laws make it IMPOSSIBLE for significant number of people to vote -I have PROVEN that voter ID laws will have X effect on Y percentage of the population Rather, I’m just trying to convince you that there’s enough of a stink of corruption, and enough of a strong enough POSSIBILITY of antidemocratic effects, that you personally should consider withdrawing your support for this particular batch of voter ID laws. If I fail to do so, well, it won’t be the first time, but I at least want to make it clear what I’m arguing for. > [@](#): > > That makes no sense to me. If the net freedom principles you support also make it easier for a child porno producer or consumer to avoid prosecution, then there’s a tension between your principles, and you have to resolve it by either clarifying your principles or weighing them against each other and deciding which is the more compelling. > > Your approach leads to the absurd case that you would support a given law, but then oppose the identical law after the heretofore hidden motives of the legislator came to light. Or oppose the law, but then support it after news reports confirmed that the initial impression was wrong, and the legislator was not interested in making it easier to escape prosecution. > > You’re welcome, of course, to choose whatever reasons you wish to support or oppose legislation. But I don’t think that approach is remotely valid. Well, there is some sense to what you’re saying, but… (1) There’s a difference between how a member of the public posting on message boards should act and how someone who is actually making policy should act. It’s possible that if I were a member of congress voting thumb up or thumb down on a piece of legislation which had tainted motives but which did something I approved of, I’d decide that actually getting that law passed and getting its effects enshrined would be more important than moral issues. But as just a guy on a message board, I have the luxury of being more idealistic about it. Which, frankly, is the way it should be. (2) Similar to a point some other posters were making, when there is a law that is complicated and subtle and is going to have difficult-to-fully-study consequences, then the law being proposed by someone with scuzzy motives makes it more likely that those side effects will themselves be scuzzy. If it’s just a binary issue, either up or down, either we fund X or don’t fund X, either we approve treaty X or not, then whether the proposer was scuzzy is unlikely to taint the outcome. But if the law is going to have chaotic hard-to-predict effects, then the motives of the guy who actually wrote the detailed provisions are very relevant. (3) And finally, image DOES matter. Ethics DO matter. People should not be rewarded for being unethical. That can’t necessarily be an overriding issue but it should be AN issue. (And let’s not forget, by the way, that my position is not “these laws WOULD be just fine except for scuzzy motives”. I find the laws troubling in and of themselves, but the scuzzy motives just highlight the issue.) > [@](#): > > No matter what process exists, there will be someone whose personal situation places them at the extreme margin. The unlucky person who breaks her ankle the night before Election Day and can’t get to the polling station – we don’t demand that her local city services transport her in an ambulance to the polling station. So, yes, there will be people who had obstacles that they chose not to overcome, and that’s a feature of life. That’s true to a certain extent. If we pass a law intended to make it easier for Veterans to go to college (to pick something hopefully very noncontroversial), then we have to actually give the law some precise text, and however we do that, there’s almost certainly going to be someone who it kind of SEEMS should benefit from this law but due to some corner case of situations, isn’t going to benefit. Which is a shame. And we shouldn’t condemn the entire law because of that. But that’s a very different kettle of fish from a situation in which people are (some of us suspect) deliberately making it HARDER for some group of people to vote, in a way which is clearly going to have varying effects on varying people. In that case, the 2% of people who are worst effected by the law are in fact the precise point of it. Therefore, it’s not only fair to judge it on that 2%, it’s essential to do so. > [@](#): > > We just don’t agree on where to draw the “impermissible” line. So look at the effect this law had on that old lady. I think we agree that most democratic voters weren’t effected that much. But are you saying that if there was an effect that was literally that drastic for literally EVER democratic voter, you’d still be OK with that? > [@](#): > > Yes. But that’s because _any_ burden – weather, time off from work, availability of support system to drive you and you broken ankle, ID requirements, any burden at all – falls disproportionately on the poor. I don’t think that’s 100% true, but there’s certainly a correlation there. > [@](#): > > No. It suggests that if you spread things out evenly, you don’t get many districts in which racial minorities are the majority. The side effect of drawing districts to ensure grouping of racial minorities so that they have a voice that doesn’t get drowned out also ensures the imbalance discussed: you amplify racial minority voices in a given district and at the same time ensure more districts have Republican tilts. So, you reject the conclusions of the learned-seeming paper I linked to? You claim that within the past 10 or 20 years democrats have done just as much gerrymandering as republicans? > [@](#): > > Here, you’re trying to distinguish Voter ID laws as a particular way to influence voting, separate and apart from gerrymandering, or from “walking around money,” or any of the sleazy practices more common to Democrats. This is a useful tactic for this discussion, but an arbitrary division. But this line of thought leads to conversation gridlock. Any time anyone makes any point about ANYTHING it’s possible to say “wait, but there are other things that are similar… you can’t proceed until you and those you agree with give full and lengthy discourses about your positions on all those things, lest someone be guilty of hypocrisy”. Unless lots of people in this thread have been saying “…and this proves that Republicans are in general worse than Democrats”, then you’re just responding to straw men. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5683 "2014-06-23T11:56:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Ignoring you,” in this context, has two possible meanings: choosing not to respond to anything you write, or choosing not to be persuaded by your so-called wisdom or moral appeals. That’s okay, I wasn’t suggesting a moral failing, but an intellectual one if it was as literally true that you could not imagine what was suggested. It’s not like a square circle or invisible pink unicorn or other self contradictory concept, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5684 "2014-06-23T13:26:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That’s okay, I wasn’t suggesting a moral failing, but an intellectual one if it was as literally true that you could not imagine what was suggested. It’s not like a square circle or invisible pink unicorn or other self contradictory concept, after all. Ahhh. The usual use of the phrase “I can’t imagine,” if taken literally, is often amphigorical. You’re quite right: I can imagine the outcomes he suggests, in the same sense I can imagine a talking mouse and a school for gifted children that actually trains mutants in how to effectively use their powers to walk through walls or summon lightning. I have an excellent imagination. But the more common use of the phrase is, in my opinion, to signal that I regard the proposed scenario as extraordinarily unlikely, so unlikely that I do not concern myself with its actual existence. Even though I can literally imagine a talking mouse, I still place traps without worry that I am ending the life of a sentient creature, and if asked, I describe this as, “I can’t imagine these traps endangering an actual talking mouse.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5685 "2014-06-23T13:28:03Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > If i live in the country and have no Way to get to the voting booth other than to drive my truck there and I must drive said truck down the highway am I not required to have an ID? Am I not required to have insurance on said truck placing an unfair burden on me? Apparently that’s entirely different, because of reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5686 "2014-06-23T14:00:09Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Rather, I’m just trying to convince you that there’s enough of a stink of corruption, and enough of a strong enough POSSIBILITY of antidemocratic effects, that you personally should consider withdrawing your support for this particular batch of voter ID laws. If I fail to do so, well, it won’t be the first time, but I at least want to make it clear what I’m arguing for. Got it. I understand that your point is simply there’s enough of a sense of corruption, and enough of a possibility of antidemocratic effects, that make support of this batch of Voter ID laws problematic. I decline your invitation to withdraw support, because I don’t share your view that the various impure motives that have undoubtedly motivated some lawmakers here, nor the possibility of undemocratic effects, rises to the level that would make it worth scuttling otherwise sensible laws. > [@](#): > > Well, there is some sense to what you’re saying, but… > (1) There’s a difference between how a member of the public posting on message boards should act and how someone who is actually making policy should act. It’s possible that if I were a member of congress voting thumb up or thumb down on a piece of legislation which had tainted motives but which did something I approved of, I’d decide that actually getting that law passed and getting its effects enshrined would be more important than moral issues. But as just a guy on a message board, I have the luxury of being more idealistic about it. Which, frankly, is the way it should be. Then, equally, don’t I have the luxury of being another guy on a message board who chooses to weigh alternatives as though he were a legislator? Indeed, I’d argue that this makes more sense: the legislator governs in my name. Why in the world would I be comfortable placing him in an impossible situation: realizing his action is justified, but I still disapprove? Yes, the message board poster can be more idealistic, because he has the luxury of no consequences for being wrong. > [@](#): > > (2) Similar to a point some other posters were making, when there is a law that is complicated and subtle and is going to have difficult-to-fully-study consequences, then the law being proposed by someone with scuzzy motives makes it more likely that those side effects will themselves be scuzzy. If it’s just a binary issue, either up or down, either we fund X or don’t fund X, either we approve treaty X or not, then whether the proposer was scuzzy is unlikely to taint the outcome. But if the law is going to have chaotic hard-to-predict effects, then the motives of the guy who actually wrote the detailed provisions are very relevant. The problem is: it’s not one guy. A Voter ID bill passes by 118 to 61 in some state legislature. Of the 118 yes votes, 71 hoped this would decrease the opposition turnout, 30 were convinced that this was a good, neutral first step to improving accuracy and confidence in the outcomes of elections, especially close ones, 6 were recipients of campaign contributions of ID-STAR Corp. (makers of holographic tamper-proof ID badges with an inside track to win the state contract to provide IDs), and 9 had no strong opinions but agreed to support the bill because they got promises of future support or were repaying promises they had given for past support of unrelated bills. And 61 votes against: 48 came from a conviction that these measures would disenfranchise the poor, 3 came from legislators who genuinely believed their side would lose illegal votes and thereby suffer, and 10 came from legislators who didn’t believe in the disenfranchisement but didn’t wish to go against their party’s public position. So how in the world would you analyze that, and measure “stink?” > [@](#): > > (3) And finally, image DOES matter. Ethics DO matter. People should not be rewarded for being unethical. That can’t necessarily be an overriding issue but it should be AN issue. > > (And let’s not forget, by the way, that my position is not “these laws WOULD be just fine except for scuzzy motives”. I find the laws troubling in and of themselves, but the scuzzy motives just highlight the issue.) Sure. Except that your side tends to adopt this position when its benefits them to do so, and offer only mumbling of half-hearted protest when it does not. You yourself were unaware that the California Democratic Party not only opposed non-partisan redistricting but fought tooth-and-nail against it, to the extent of punishing non-compliant members by shutting down all their other legislative efforts. Why wasn’t this kind of outcry heard then? Yes, yes – no one has a responsibility to speak out on any given issue. But when the outcry arises only against one side consistently, even though no particular individual can be fairly assigned blame for failing to speak, the net effect is ALSO one of image and ethics. So forgive me if I don’t find pious appeals to image and ethics on this one issue convincing. > [@](#): > > So look at the effect this law had on that old lady. I think we agree that most democratic voters weren’t effected that much. But are you saying that if there was an effect that was literally that drastic for literally EVER democratic voter, you’d still be OK with that? No. > [@](#): > > So, you reject the conclusions of the learned-seeming paper I linked to? You claim that within the past 10 or 20 years democrats have done just as much gerrymandering as republicans? I think that during the past 10 or 20 years, Democrats have made just as many unethical attempts to game the system by whichever methods were available to them. > [@](#): > > But this line of thought leads to conversation gridlock. Any time anyone makes any point about ANYTHING it’s possible to say “wait, but there are other things that are similar… you can’t proceed until you and those you agree with give full and lengthy discourses about your positions on all those things, lest someone be guilty of hypocrisy”. Unless lots of people in this thread have been saying “…and this proves that Republicans are in general worse than Democrats”, then you’re just responding to straw men. In my view, **Max** , that’s precisely what lots of people in this thread have been saying. The OP of this thread did it: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You’re all worthless motherfucking liars with the civic virtue of a sewer-rat’s tapeworm. “Voter fraud” is a non-problem and you **know** it. The Dems don’t want undocumented immigrants to vote any more than you do, and you know that, too. This is all about disfranchising the poor and minorities. Shame on you all, and STFU forever. And others have followed suit. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5687 "2014-06-23T14:48:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ahhh. > > The usual use of the phrase “I can’t imagine,” if taken literally, is often amphigorical. You’re quite right: I can imagine the outcomes he suggests, in the same sense I can imagine a talking mouse and a school for gifted children that actually trains mutants in how to effectively use their powers to walk through walls or summon lightning. I have an excellent imagination. > > But the more common use of the phrase is, in my opinion, to signal that I regard the proposed scenario as extraordinarily unlikely, so unlikely that I do not concern myself with its actual existence. Even though I can literally imagine a talking mouse, I still place traps without worry that I am ending the life of a sentient creature, and if asked, I describe this as, “I can’t imagine these traps endangering an actual talking mouse.” I’d be impressed by the amount of effort you’ve put into responding to an off-the-cuff pop culture reference if it wasn’t a mere one percent of one percent of your efforts in this thread.l overall. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5688 "2014-06-23T14:58:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’d be impressed by the amount of effort you’ve put into responding to an off-the-cuff pop culture reference if it wasn’t a mere one percent of one percent of your efforts in this thread.l overall. **Bryan** , my experience with the SDMB as a whole is something I have adverted to in this thread: because it’s friendly to liberals, liberal-leaning fallacies are tolerated credulously, and conservative fallacies are dissected mercilessly. A liberal gets away with posting unchallenged garbage to a much greater degree than a conservative does. Of course, this is not a community of completely credulous morons – there is certainly a level at which idiocy overwhelms ideological loyalty, and liberal banner-bearers are criticized for their foolish presentation or argument. But the bar is set much lower for rebutting liberal nonsense than it is for rebutting conservative nonsense. I cannot possibly counterweight that trend across the entire board. But I can pick individual threads and decide at least for that thread, I’ll make an effort to force my interlocutors to defend, retract, or blatantly weasel their way away from inaccurate statements of fact, liberal (as in plentiful, not politically-leaning) use of logical fallacy, and general bon mots that otherwise would amount to a tiny score because I was just too tired to respond. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5689 "2014-06-23T15:19:15Z")
Oh, you poor dear! Need a moment? A hanky, perhaps? How about a hug! Clusterhug on **Bricker**! Clusterhug on **Bricker**! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5690 "2014-06-23T15:25:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I can pick individual threads and decide at least for that thread, I’ll make an effort to force my interlocutors to defend, retract, or blatantly weasel their way away from inaccurate statements of fact, liberal (as in plentiful, not politically-leaning) use of logical fallacy, and general bon mots that otherwise would amount to a tiny score because I was just too tired to respond. Regardless of your effort or their accuracy or whatever score someone might be keeping, you have no means to force anyone to do anything on this board. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5691 "2014-06-23T16:26:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …This explanation makes no sense. Were you lying? Yes, I was. There are no hamsters, the massive SDMB servers are powered entirely from the emanations of the Mind of Cecil. There are no hamsters, hence, none could be overworked to mortal extremes. And, of course, I wouldn’t risk it, a search to gather every incident of “Bricker” whining and sniveling about “liberal hypocrisy” over the years might well induce a data singularity. Fabric of space/time, and all that. In the future, i will bend every effort to emulate the strict candor and humorless honesty that have made you the focus of universal admiration here on the Boards. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5692 "2014-06-23T16:59:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I can pick individual threads and decide at least for that thread,\*\* I’ll make an effort\*\* to force my interlocutors to defend, retract, or blatantly weasel their way away from inaccurate statements of fact, liberal (as in plentiful, not politically-leaning) use of logical fallacy, and general bon mots that otherwise would amount to a tiny score because I was just too tired to respond. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Regardless of your effort or their accuracy or whatever score someone might be keeping, you have no means to force anyone to do anything on this board. Please note the emphasized words. This means that I will try – make an effort to – force my interlocutors to defend, retract, or blatantly weasel, by continuing to explicitly highlight their weak arguments or outright fabrications. The use of the word “force” is also ambiguous. If I were standing behind **elucidator** armed with a poison crossbow bolt in a loaded crossbow, demanding that he admit he never did any kind of search to discover if I had simultaneously condemned Republicans when I criticized Massachusetts Democrats, that still wouldn’t be “forcing,” since, after all, he could choose to be shot in lieu of offering up that admission. But I think many people would be comfortable in saying that such a hostage situation would indeed be “forcing” his admission. Obviously my access to crossbows here is limited, but by highlighting the kinds of claims that routinely go unchallenged, and explicitly challenging them, I apply a sort of social pressure. it’s one thing to pass by **elucidator** ’s claim and ignore it. It’s quite another to read his continuing denials, and he knows this. So this is, in a way, applying a force to achieve my desired result. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5693 "2014-06-23T17:07:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Yes, I was. There are no hamsters, the massive SDMB servers are powered entirely from the emanations of the Mind of Cecil. There are no hamsters, hence, none could be overworked to mortal extremes. > > And, of course, I wouldn’t risk it, a search to gather every incident of “Bricker” whining and sniveling about “liberal hypocrisy” over the years might well induce a data singularity. Fabric of space/time, and all that. > > In the future, i will bend every effort to emulate the strict candor and humorless honesty that have made you the focus of universal admiration here on the Boards. Thank you. In an exercise of your newly-discovered interest in candor, I’d like to examine your continuing attachment to the claim that a search for “liberal hypocrisy,” would somehow have uncovered a post from me responsive to the inquiry at hand. As I believe I mentioned above, the situation was your questioning whether I had also condemned Republicans when I had criticized Democrats for their expedient law-switching in Massachusetts. You now appear to be saying that you didn’t actually conduct such a search, because you feared the large numbers of posts or threads such a search would return. But that doesn’t explain why you believe that the search term “liberal hypocrisy” would be the correct term to find such a post in the first place. My criticizing the Republicans at the same time I criticized the Democrats would not be an example of liberal hypocrisy, or, indeed, of _any_ hypocrisy. Nor does it explain why you claimed to have made a search at all, a matter you now admit to be a falsehood. Obviously, by claiming you searched for my admission and could not find it, you created a veneer of credibility for your claim that I had never done it. Fortunately, I remembered having done so, but if I had been unable to produce the actual post that so convincingly exposed your lie, I have little doubt you would have continued to assert its truth. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5694 "2014-06-23T17:19:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thank you. > > In an exercise of your newly-discovered interest in candor, I’d like to examine your continuing attachment to the claim that a search for “liberal hypocrisy,” would somehow have uncovered a post from me responsive to the inquiry at hand. > > As I believe I mentioned above, the situation was your questioning whether I had also condemned Republicans when I had criticized Democrats for their expedient law-switching in Massachusetts. > > You now appear to be saying that you didn’t actually conduct such a search, because you feared the large numbers of posts or threads such a search would return. > > But that doesn’t explain why you believe that the search term “liberal hypocrisy” would be the correct term to find such a post in the first place. My criticizing the Republicans at the same time I criticized the Democrats would not be an example of liberal hypocrisy, or, indeed, of _any_ hypocrisy. > > Nor does it explain why you claimed to have made a search at all, a matter you now admit to be a falsehood. > > Obviously, by claiming you searched for my admission and could not find it, you created a veneer of credibility for your claim that I had never done it. Fortunately, I remembered having done so, but if I had been unable to produce the actual post that so convincingly exposed your lie, I have little doubt you would have continued to assert its truth. > > Right? “It is the mark of a real dick to focus on random tangents to bring attention away from dismal performance in other areas.” — _Genghis Khan_ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5695 "2014-06-23T17:24:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > “It is the mark of a real dick to focus on random tangents to bring attention away from dismal performance in other areas.” — _Genghis Khan_ The alternative is to let my legions of foes gain the rhetorical advantage by starting these random tangents. I did not bring up the question of my previous treatment of Republicans while criticizing Massachusetts – **elucidator** did. Having discovered to his dismay that it’s not fertile ground after all, of course he – and you – now wish to call the whole thing a tangent. But the concern about tangents wasn’t present when he started the question. And he can end it right now by acknowledging that there was no search, that the term “liberal hypocrisy” had no relevance in finding any such prior posts, and that he fabricated all those claims. I certainly won’t continue to press it pass such an acknowledgement. “It’s the mark of a desperate rhetor to try to distract from his allies’ failed smear attempts by calling the exercise tangential.” – _Bricker_, 2014 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5696 "2014-06-23T17:36:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The alternative is to let my legions of foes gain the rhetorical advantage by starting these random tangents. > > I did not bring up the question of my previous treatment of Republicans while criticizing Massachusetts – **elucidator** did. Having discovered to his dismay that it’s not fertile ground after all, of course he – and you – now wish to call the whole thing a tangent. > > But the concern about tangents wasn’t present when he started the question. And he can end it right now by acknowledging that there was no search, that the term “liberal hypocrisy” had no relevance in finding any such prior posts, and that he fabricated all those claims. I certainly won’t continue to press it pass such an acknowledgement. > > “It’s the mark of a desperate rhetor to try to distract from his allies’ failed smear attempts by calling the exercise tangential.” – _Bricker_, 2014 I don’t feel that desperate, considering how monumentally you’ve failed the debating portion of this skrum. You are advocating a bad solution to an insignificant problem, that’s really the bedrock of the issue. And I’d guess if that bad solution didn’t serve your electoral desires, you might be more concerned about that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5697 "2014-06-23T17:40:51Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t feel that desperate, considering how monumentally you’ve failed the debating portion of this skrum. I don’t think I have, **Lobohan**. I think if this debate were being scored, as in formal debate, I’d be winning. > [@](#): > > You are advocating a bad solution to an insignificant problem, that’s really the bedrock of the issue. And I’d guess if that bad solution didn’t serve your electoral desires, you might be more concerned about that. Your guess is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5698 "2014-06-23T17:52:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think I have, **Lobohan**. I think if this debate were being scored, as in formal debate, I’d be winning. A dubious and self-serving claim at best. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5699 "2014-06-23T18:00:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think I have, **Lobohan**. I think if this debate were being scored, as in formal debate, I’d be winning. I’m sure that delusion brings you great comfort. You can pile it on top of all the other comfortable delusions you’ve accumulated to get through the day. There’s space on top of that pile with the Laffer Curve and Life After Death. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5700 "2014-06-23T18:09:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > A dubious and self-serving claim at best. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m sure that delusion brings you great comfort. You can pile it on top of all the other comfortable delusions you’ve accumulated to get through the day. There’s space on top of that pile with the Laffer Curve and Life After Death. Is there a poster on this board who you regard as a neutral authority, to whom the question could be placed? NOt who’s right on the merits, but as a matter of debate points won and lost, am I winning ot not? Is there anyone on the boards whose reputation is, to your mind, neutral, and whose view you would accept? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=284) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=286)