# 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:** 355
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7081 "2014-10-27T00:29:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In my eyes such language is clearly figurative, in the “you can’t just let someone wait at the airport without a ride home!” sense – “you can’t” meaning “you shouldn’t”. > > I don’t think you do your argument any service by misconstruing this sort of figurative language for an advocacy of rule-by-fiat. Except picture this conversation: Joe: You can’t just let someone wait at the airport without a ride home! Ed: of course you can! As proof, I just did it to you. What’s your proposal to stop me? Joe: True. I meant, of course, that you should not. As opposed to these conversations: Libby: You can’t pass laws that trample the rights of voters unless you have more evidence! Bricker: I don’t agree any rights are trampled, and in fact the law clearly can be passed. What’s your alternate scheme for passing laws, if not the one we use now? Libby: (incoherent sputtering, calling Bricker immoral) See? Where is the simple rejoinder? Answer: no one (except Max) gave it, because no one meant merely “shouldn’t.” They all meant to say that these laws should be trashed with or without the legislature. ---
**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:** [October 27, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7082 "2014-10-27T00:35:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As opposed to these conversations: Yeah, about those conversations… could we see one? I mean, I know we _could_ if they existed, in the sense that it is physically possible for visible light to emerge from our monitors in a pattern our brains will interpret as comprehensible English text, but could you point one out? And I know you _could_ point one out in the sense that it is possible for you do so, but _will_ you? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7083 "2014-10-27T00:50:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As opposed to these conversations: > > Libby: You can’t pass laws that trample the rights of voters unless you have more evidence! > Bricker: I don’t agree any rights are trampled, and in fact the law clearly can be passed. What’s your alternate scheme for passing laws, if not the one we use now? > Libby: (incoherent sputtering, calling Bricker immoral) > > See? Where is the simple rejoinder? Answer: no one (except Max) gave it, because no one meant merely “shouldn’t.” They all meant to say that these laws should be trashed with or without the legislature. Alternate explanations for your theoretical conversation; - The impression that their meaning was clear, or the impugned motive dumb, rendering the question foolish. - A failure of communication on the part of either party the intended points. - Simple idiocy. - The inability to answer the question for an alternate scheme for passing of laws, on the basis that none can (presumably sadly) be thought of, rendering the sentiment wishful. - A disinterest in answering the question for non-overthrow-democracy purposes. - A lack of knowledge of the law meaning unableness/unwillingness to debate points upon it. - A suspicion that within the question lies a trap. - The thought that others in the thread may be better suited to respond to said question. - …or the thought that said question has already been answered. - Not seeing the question. - A rejection of the question as an inaccurate or irrelevant one based on the debate thus far. - An efficiency or measure of importance which renders the question less worthy of attention than other matters. - Some personal issue. - Some personal issue between you and the posters in question. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7084 "2014-10-27T01:22:27Z")
No, wait, I see it now! All along, we were trying to subvert the will of the American people with our dastardly schemes. And **Bricker** is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life… These headaches… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7085 "2014-10-27T01:43:17Z")
**Bricker** : Can you please just quote one or two of the posts you are alluding to instead of talking about theoretical posts that could possibly exist? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7086 "2014-10-27T01:46:46Z")
Just imagine, if the Republicans were totally sincere on this… Pubbie: Look this voter id thing is really, really important because voter confidence, so lets make a deal. You guys back us on this, and we will approve and fund a voter outreach and voter registration drive, with easy and convenient access to the photo id… Dem: For free?? Pubbie: For sure! All we want is to be sure about the validity of votes, plus, we would just simply _love_ to have a whole bunch of brand new black, hispanic and young voters, the more the better! Dems: How about we change the name of all those Reagan airports and stuff after Eugene V. Debs? Pubbie: We’ll talk… Latino Dem: And if a cop asks you something about being a citizen, you just show him the ID and that’s it? Pubbie: _Como no_? Dems: DEAL! Lets go write it up! Me? Tequila and bongwater, why do you ask? ---
**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:** [October 27, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7087 "2014-10-27T01:47:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Bricker** : Can you please just quote one or two of the posts you are alluding to instead of talking about theoretical posts that could possibly exist? Those posts are ultra-close. I’m confident. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7088 "2014-10-27T02:11:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Those posts are ultra-close. I’m confident. Perhaps we have to beg for 6 pages before we are presented with the _coup de grâce_. ---
**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:** [October 27, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7089 "2014-10-27T02:29:21Z")
How can we be presented with something in the future?! IT DON’T MAKE NO SENSE! ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7090 "2014-10-27T02:41:24Z")
So now this has gotten to the point of arguing about what the meaning of is is.[sup]\*[/sup] Is there some sort of law, similar to Godwin’s, but about semantics instead of Hitler? [sup]\*For **Bricker** , yes, yes… I realize that the discussion is about "can’t? versus “shouldn’t” and not literally about the definition of “is”. It’s called a figure of speech.[/sup] ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7091 "2014-10-27T02:49:03Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > So now this has gotten to the point of arguing about what the meaning of is is.[sup]\*[/sup] > > Is there some sort of law, similar to Godwin’s, but about semantics instead of Hitler? > > [sup]\*For **Bricker** , yes, yes… I realize that the discussion is about "can’t? versus “shouldn’t” and not literally about the definition of “is”. It’s called a figure of speech.[/sup] The boring answer would be Clinton’s Law. The amusing answer would still involve Clinton in some way, but I can’t come up with anything amusing. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7092 "2014-10-27T03:17:16Z")
Either Clinton’s Law or Bricker’s Law. Maybe the Clinton-Bricker Law. And I just realized that Hitler has now been mentioned in this thread. Although it was in the context of Godwin so I’m not sure if it counts. I suppose there should be corollary to Godwin’s Law regarding the mentioning of Godwin’s Law. (Note that I’m talking about the original and real meaning of Godwin’s Law; that says that as the length of a discussion thread approaches infinity, the likelihood of Hitler being mentioned approaches certainty. I’m NOT talking about who wins or loses the debate. That’s a bastardization of Godwin.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7093 "2014-10-27T05:51:03Z")
You guys may have fucked up sending him on this task,kinda like the Myth of Syphilis, ya know? I mean, there are thousands of posts, and at least sixty percent are from Dopers more liberal than “Fat Tony” Scalia, hence “lefties”, and the rest are **Bricker**. So, he’s gonna be gathering a metric buttload of posts and dumping them on the hamsters. Do we still have the amphetamine based hamster food? ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7094 "2014-10-27T06:01:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Perhaps we have to beg for 6 pages before we are presented with the _coup de grâce_. Since he’s the only one arguing his side here and we are all clueless in the presence of his supremely adroit skill, I just wish I could figure out who is keeping coup score and for whom. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7095 "2014-10-27T11:09:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Anyway, you can’t just go around accusing people of stuff without actually giving proof! Uh … **John**? You can’t just go around saying “you can’t” when you mean “you shouldn’t.” The **Brickbear** will bite you. > [@elucidator](#): > > You guys may have fucked up sending him on this task,kinda like the Myth of Syphilis, ya know? … :eek: I’ll ask again:       Are _The sayings of elucidator_ available from [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com)? (Print,please: I don’t read e-books.) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7096 "2014-10-27T12:41:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except picture this conversation: > > Joe: You can’t just let someone wait at the airport without a ride home! > > Ed: of course you can! As proof, I just did it to you. What’s your proposal to stop me? > > Joe: True. I meant, of course, that you should not. > > As opposed to these conversations: > > Libby: You can’t pass laws that trample the rights of voters unless you have more evidence! > Bricker: I don’t agree any rights are trampled, and in fact the law clearly can be passed. What’s your alternate scheme for passing laws, if not the one we use now? > Libby: (incoherent sputtering, calling Bricker immoral) > > See? Where is the simple rejoinder? Answer: no one (except Max) gave it, because no one meant merely “shouldn’t.” They all meant to say that these laws should be trashed with or without the legislature. I’ll add to the chorus – can you link to this conversation and other examples? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7097 "2014-10-27T13:30:46Z")
The entire thread is filled with exchanges like that. Here’s one: > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Kimstu](#): > > > > This seems to me a commendably candid admission that the voter-ID movement is to some extent about considering poverty a disqualification for voting. > > > > Many conservatives do not like the way poor people tend to vote, and (or perhaps hence) they think that poor people ought to be discouraged from voting. > > > > **Bricker** is pointing out, AFAICT quite correctly, that those conservatives are entitled to push for the implementation of their views as far as the law will allow them to do so. Saying “but voter-ID laws tend to disenfranchise poor people” is not in and of itself a rebuttal to them, because the whole **point** of the voter-ID laws for them is to disenfranchise poor people. > > Even if that so-called “real need” is ultimately manufactured by elitist conservatives deliberately manipulating and misinforming voters about the integrity of election results precisely in order to diminish their confidence in it? > > > > Suppose I manage to convince large swathes of the electorate that extraterrestrial aliens routinely put bombs in the body cavities of middle-aged white male voters on election days and therefore such voters need to be strip-searched when they get to the polls. The electorate is understandably worried about this “threat” and favors legislation mandating such precautions. > > > > Obviously, such legislation serves a real need, because people need to feel confident in the physical safety of the electoral process. So we should pass it, right? Because by **Bricker** logic, the fact that this “threat” inspiring the legislation _doesn’t happen to have any basis in what’s actually happening_ is irrelevant. > > But that applies equally to ANY question before the body politic. > > Do we define some body to sit in judgement and ascertain the truth of a proposition before the legislature is empowered to act? How will such a body’s members be chosen? How long will this super-legislature sit? What if their factual determination is also skewed? Should we then empower a meta-super legislature to overrule them? > > It seems to me your proposal boils down to, “ **Kimstu** gets to decide these things.” Yes? Because you reject the current method; other methods are equally susceptible to the same flaw you identify with the current one. > > What kind of process can we agree upon to settle these sorts of disputes such that you would recognize its legitimacy even if you disagree with its results? ---
**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:** [October 27, 2014, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7098 "2014-10-27T13:38:15Z")
Your evidence that people in this thread are proposing overthrowing democracy is your accusation that Kimstu is proposing to overthrow democracy? ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7099 "2014-10-27T13:40:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The entire thread is filled with exchanges like that. > > Here’s one: No offense, **Bricker** , but that exchange exactly serves to debunk your point. Nothing in **Kimstu’s** post could possibly be construed as saying “our method of passing laws should be circumvented.” He’s saying, just like most people in this thread are saying, that the methods we have for passing laws can be used, or even manipulated, to pass _bad_ laws, but that the problem isn’t the method for passing legislation, it’s the _immorality of those seeking to pass the laws._ That’s the entire point of this thread, really. No one is advocating that we literally bypass legislatures and pass laws by fiat or something. Seriously. We object rather to the bad faith in which one political party is using the system to pass bad laws. And like others before me, I find it hard to countenance how someone of your scholarly bent could not realize that “You can’t…” is a standard English stand-in expression for “You shouldn’t…” That’s how it’s being used in this thread. You do yourself and your arguments a disservice by clinging to the notion that your opponents are using the expression literally. ---
**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:** [October 27, 2014, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7100 "2014-10-27T13:51:20Z")
Amusingly, in the quoted passage, I don’t even see where Kimstu used the word “can’t”, so it doesn’t even satisfy the claim that people in this thread are using “can’t” when they mean “shouldn’t”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=354) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=356)