# 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:** 474
**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:** [May 2, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9461 "2016-05-02T19:11:12Z")
In my opinion, Bricker is a pretty terrible person. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9462 "2016-05-02T19:12:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > In my opinion, Bricker is a pretty terrible person. And in my opinion, this is an excellent example of your debate prowess. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9463 "2016-05-02T19:45:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d say it may be necessary, or it may be unnecessary. > > In cases in which the opinion is obviously opinion, it’s not necessary. Here, when the opinion masquerades as settled fact, it’s absolutely necessary. By the level of the complexity of the “masquerade”, you seem to presume we’re all Lois Lanes, fooled by the presence of a pair of eyeglasses. > [@](#): > > In fact, here’s the proof: Trinopus (and Septimus) has yet to specifically acknowledge that these statements are opinion even now, after this detailed discussion. They are both still confused and think they are discussing verifiable fact. They don’t strike me as confused about the difference between their opinions and fact. They at most strike me as taking for granted that any reasonable reader could tell which is which. I can. If you also can, are you presuming to speak for the Lois Lanes of the board? That kind of “think of the children / think of the stupid / think of the stupid children” attitude occurs to many a censor, I observe for the heck of it even while taking the extra effort to acknowledge the difference between you expressing your opinion of the writing style of others and the actual use of law enforcement to suppress expression, _just in case_ you or any other reader is at a Lois-Lanian level of perception. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9464 "2016-05-02T19:46:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And in my opinion, this is an excellent example of your debate prowess. Really? Then why did you have to lie about my position on the Mass legislature for, what was it, months or years? If I’m such a lightweight, surely you wouldn’t need to lie over and over, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9465 "2016-05-02T20:45:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > They don’t strike me as confused about the difference between their opinions and fact. They at most strike me as taking for granted that any reasonable reader could tell which is which. I can. That might have been true at the beginning of the conversation. But now it’s been cearly stated that there are two ways “unconstitutional” may be heard, and neither one of them, still, has been willing to affirm that sure enough his use of the word was simply to convey opinion. Trinopus: was your use of “unconstitutional” simply your opinion? Or do you contend that, factually, Voter ID laws are unconstitutional? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9466 "2016-05-02T20:47:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Really? Then why did you have to lie about my position on the Mass legislature for, what was it, months or years? > > If I’m such a lightweight, surely you wouldn’t need to lie over and over, right? You failed to make your opinion clear. In fact, to this day, I’d say you’ve failed to make it clear that you have anything particularly against the Massachusetts legislature. You’ve simply remained mostly silent on the point. Meanwhile, you’ve filled tomes with your indignation against photo ID laws for voters. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9467 "2016-05-02T21:32:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That might have been true at the beginning of the conversation. I invite anyone who feels genuine confusion on the matter to step forward in that case, such that we can see if your hypothesis has any evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9468 "2016-05-02T22:02:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I invite anyone who feels genuine confusion on the matter to step forward in that case, such that we can see if your hypothesis has any evidence. I already have. I have told you it’s unclear to me if Trinopus understands he’s just offering his opinion. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9469 "2016-05-02T22:32:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But now it’s been cearly stated that there are two ways “unconstitutional” may be heard I think there are far more than that, actually. Here are at least 3 (and a half): (1) This law strikes me as superficially unAmerican and Bad (2) My at-least-somewhat informed understanding of constitutional law leads me to believe that the best, most correct reading and analysis of the constitution would find this law unconstitutional (2.5) My at-least-somewhat informed understanding of constitutional law leads me to believe that the best, most correct reading and analysis of the constitution would find this law unconstitutional; and it is a matter of legal fact that this law has not yet been appealed to the SC, so there is no ultimate authority judging whether my understanding is correct or not (3) This law is unconstitutional as a matter of established legal fact, having been found unconstitutional by the SC It’s worth pointing out that while (1) is obviously at some level a bit silly and imprecise, I think it’s become fairly commonly used in the general vernacular. Certainly I don’t think that’s it’s automatically deserving of derision. In any case, it seems like you (and **D’Anconia** ) have somehow decided that the default is (3). And you assume that everyone means (3) unless proven otherwise. And if not (3), then you’re grudgingly willing to admit they might mean (1), but of course (1) is just purely an opinion anyhow, so who cares? Although it’s also worth pointing out that this entire line of discussion is, once again, just a distraction. Sure, a few people in this thread have, from time to time, said that they thought voter ID laws were “unconstitutional”. But that’s far from the main thrust of the discussion, and that’s far from the “consensus” opinion of the “liberal side” of the debate, to the extent that there is one. And yet, somehow, once again, you’ve gotten all of us parsing the precise meaning of words typed by some other random liberal poster in this thread, as if that’s somehow our responsibility. So, I guess, well done? ---
**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:** [May 2, 2016, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9470 "2016-05-02T22:48:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I already have. I have told you it’s unclear to me if Trinopus understands he’s just offering his opinion. In that case, in future I will do my best to remind people to think of the Brickers. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9471 "2016-05-02T23:04:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You failed to make your opinion clear. So, when you don’t know the answer to something, you should assert it is whatever helps your argument, even when the person tells you otherwise repeatedly? You fucking liar. > [@](#): > > In fact, to this day, I’d say you’ve failed to make it clear that you have anything particularly against the Massachusetts legislature. You’ve simply remained mostly silent on the point. Mostly silent. I like that bit ambiguation you’ve got there. I’ve said my position on it. And you went on lying about it, because it was convenient to your point at the time, and because it was an easy attack. Dishonestly is often easier, but it’s not right. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, you’ve filled tomes with your indignation against photo ID laws for voters. And once again, you proceed with your mental-defective insight that, “Whatever someone has not strenuously decried, at length, over and over, they must support!” That you have to resort to such outright nonsense and lies, should be an indication that your position is shaky. A person with integrity would rethink his footing, instead of just blustering and lying. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9472 "2016-05-02T23:21:05Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think there are far more than that, actually. Here are at least 3 (and a half): > (1) This law strikes me as superficially unAmerican and Bad > > (2) My at-least-somewhat informed understanding of constitutional law leads me to believe that the best, most correct reading and analysis of the constitution would find this law unconstitutional > > (2.5) My at-least-somewhat informed understanding of constitutional law leads me to believe that the best, most correct reading and analysis of the constitution would find this law unconstitutional; and it is a matter of legal fact that this law has not yet been appealed to the SC, so there is no ultimate authority judging whether my understanding is correct or not > > (3) This law is unconstitutional as a matter of established legal fact, having been found unconstitutional by the SC > > It’s worth pointing out that while (1) is obviously at some level a bit silly and imprecise, I think it’s become fairly commonly used in the general vernacular. Certainly I don’t think that’s it’s automatically deserving of derision. > > In any case, it seems like you (and **D’Anconia** ) have somehow decided that the default is (3). And you assume that everyone means (3) unless proven otherwise. And if not (3), then you’re grudgingly willing to admit they might mean (1), but of course (1) is just purely an opinion anyhow, so who cares? > Although it’s also worth pointing out that this entire line of discussion is, once again, just a distraction. Sure, a few people in this thread have, from time to time, said that they thought voter ID laws were “unconstitutional”. But that’s far from the main thrust of the discussion, and that’s far from the “consensus” opinion of the “liberal side” of the debate, to the extent that there is one. And yet, somehow, once again, you’ve gotten all of us parsing the precise meaning of words typed by some other random liberal poster in this thread, as if that’s somehow our responsibility. So, I guess, well done? That’s a far better fate than making me defend changes to voting hours or polling locations, items which I haven’t really taken a position on but have been offered up as part of the Great Conspiracy that I am supposedly protecting. The problem I have is that these few people get away with it. They run merrily through threads announcing their opinions as though they were handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And the rest of you liberals are not remotely interested in correcting them. Even now you castigate me for drawing attention to their stupidity, as though, in the interests of fair play, I should also let their bullshit pass unchallenged. But it is bullshit, and as you can see, Trinopus has no real willingness to say that he meant (1). In fact he’s disavowed (1) – he is working on (4). And (4) is “The law is unconstitutional as a matter of fact, regardless of what the Supreme Court happens to be saying at present.” Be honest. That’s that best summary of Trinopus’ claim, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9473 "2016-05-02T23:24:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So, when you don’t know the answer to something, you should assert it is whatever helps your argument, even when the person tells you otherwise repeatedly? You fucking liar. > > Mostly silent. I like that bit ambiguation you’ve got there. I’ve said my position on it. And you went on lying about it, because it was convenient to your point at the time, and because it was an easy attack. Dishonestly is often easier, but it’s not right. > > And once again, you proceed with your mental-defective insight that, “Whatever someone has not strenuously decried, at length, over and over, they must support!” > > That you have to resort to such outright nonsense and lies, should be an indication that your position is shaky. A person with integrity would rethink his footing, instead of just blustering and lying. Come on. You devote pages and pages, thousands of words, to photo ID laws being the spawn of Lucifer. You devote a few lukewarm words of mild discomfort about the Massachusetts legislature adopting a de facto rule that only Democratic governors can appoint replacement US Senators. But the idea that your position may be safely inferred from this is just shaky blustering and lying. Only in liberal land. ---
**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:** [May 3, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9474 "2016-05-03T00:14:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Come on. Face or butt? > [@](#): > > You devote pages and pages, thousands of words, to photo ID laws being the spawn of Lucifer. No, I think they’re the spawn of dishonest men and women, like you, who are perfectly fine winning with a finger on the scale. > [@](#): > > You devote a few lukewarm words of mild discomfort about the Massachusetts legislature adopting a de facto rule that only Democratic governors can appoint replacement US Senators. > > But the idea that your position may be safely inferred from this is just shaky blustering and lying. 1. I don’t grant that the actions of the Mass legislature are the equivalent of the GOP’s attempts to enact Voter ID. The latter is much, much, much worse. You suggest they are equal, because your position is so weak, you’re flailing for a cudgel to fight back. I think the Mass Legislature was shady. I think the rules are the rules. I wouldn’t pat them on the back and say, “Good job, Mass Legislature.” 2. You lied, outright, and repeatedly about my position for a long time, after I told you many times that you were mistaken. 3. My not devoting pages of ire to the Mass Legislature’s actions a decade ago is because: I have never, as far as I recall, posted in a thread where it was the subject at hand. And it is less evil than Voter ID as being pushed by the GOP. And I heard no one glad-handing it, like you do for the GOP. You fucking simp. > [@](#): > > Only in liberal land. For a guy who can’t think clearly, you’ve got moxie. Anything else, you silly bitch? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9475 "2016-05-03T00:50:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I already have. I have told you it’s unclear to me if Trinopus understands he’s just offering his opinion. That’s kinda your problem, then. I’m completely clear on the fact that you’re being dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9476 "2016-05-03T00:53:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . But it is bullshit, and as you can see, Trinopus has no real willingness to say that he meant (1). In fact he’s disavowed (1) – he is working on (4). And (4) is “The law is unconstitutional as a matter of fact, regardless of what the Supreme Court happens to be saying at present.” > > Be honest. That’s that best summary of Trinopus’ claim, isn’t it? Nope. Nice try, but I think **Lobohan** characterized you best. To add to **Max the Vool** ’s list, there’s “Four out of Nine Supreme Court Justices believe it is unconstitutional.” That’s one of the reasons I cite. Otherwise, I mostly hold with Max’s items 2 and 2.5. Your consistent dishonesty is your single most glaring character flaw, and undermines your integrity in this debate. You’ve been caught out too many times saying things that are simply not true. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9477 "2016-05-03T01:20:05Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Nope. Nice try, but I think **Lobohan** characterized you best. > > To add to **Max the Vool** ’s list, there’s “Four out of Nine Supreme Court Justices believe it is unconstitutional.” That’s one of the reasons I cite. > > Otherwise, I mostly hold with Max’s items 2 and 2.5. > > Your consistent dishonesty is your single most glaring character flaw, and undermines your integrity in this debate. You’ve been caught out too many times saying things that are simply not true. Max’s 2.5: " My at-least-somewhat informed understanding of constitutional law leads me to believe that the best, most correct reading and analysis of the constitution would find this law unconstitutional; and it is a matter of legal fact that this law has not yet been appealed to the SC, so there is no ultimate authority judging whether my understanding is correct or not." So that’s your position? The Supreme Court hasn’t addressed the issue? Or 2: “My at-least-somewhat informed understanding of constitutional law leads me to believe that the best, most correct reading and analysis of the constitution would find this law unconstitutional.” Is that it? How do you reconcile it it with the Supreme Court’s existing decisions? Oh, yeah. Per 2.5: they don’t exist. Is that correct? Or are you unable to explicitly admit that the current authority of law cuts blatantly against your view of the issue? ---
**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:** [May 3, 2016, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9478 "2016-05-03T01:47:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is that correct? Or are you unable to explicitly admit that the current authority of law cuts blatantly against your view of the issue? So what if it does? Is he disentitled to his opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9479 "2016-05-03T02:00:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . Is that correct? Or are you unable to explicitly admit that the current authority of law cuts blatantly against your view of the issue? It’s obvious that the court has made their ruling…and that I disagree with it. I think the dissenting four justices were correct, and the ruling five were in error. Is this really impossible for you to comprehend? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9480 "2016-05-03T02:48:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It’s obvious that the court has made their ruling…and that I disagree with it. I think the dissenting four justices were correct, and the ruling five were in error. > > Is this really impossible for you to comprehend? No, I get it. And I notice that you’re still dancing as close to the line as you possibly can without seeming to be psychotically disconnected from reality. What is the current authority, the current state of the law? Can you answer that question, without embellishment? I know you disagreee with it. But can you explicitly say what it is? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=473) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=475)