Let me clarify my questions for this thread. I’m not interested in opinions of whether voter ID laws are good or bad, right or wrong. I’m not interested in opinions about whether niggers too lazy to get ID should be allowed to vote. I simply want to hear opinions on whether the following statements are true or false:
[ul][li] The voter ID laws being proposed in places like Pennsylvania will lead to higher Republican vote proportions.[/li][li] Republican legislators espousing these laws are doing so to get that higher Republican result.[/li][/ul]
Some of you, secretly, want to answer as
[QUOTE=Honest Republican]
Of course we’re delighted to do whatever it takes to remove Socialist Islamist nigger-loving homophilic baby killers from office, and return the country to the good white-skinned Job Creating homo haters who made our country great.
[/QUOTE]
I have far more respect for Honest Republican than the lying Scum I see denying the obvious in this thread.
I don’t have time to read 1800 posts but I recall only one answer to my question. It was by the Chief Asshole, Brick himself, and it was just a non-answering joke, the sort of snarky gibberish a sophomore would make, trying to impress a stupid freshman.
Any Repubs willing to answer? I’m not holding my breath…
You did right there. 10% of Americans will be disenfranchised.
I was called a liar for not actually doing what you did here. You actually said that all 10% would be disenfranchised, where I said that only a portion of them could potentially be.
You must be a teacher? You see someone reacting and you assume they must be the sole guilty party. Go back and read the thread and you’ll see where the name calling really started.
I took his statements to mean that if we make it ridiculously easy to register poor and minority voters, it will advantage Dems because of the general party preferences of those groups. Fraud didn’t even enter my mind.
I’m defending it because proving who you are before you get to vote makes sense. That is why most other countries do it. That is why most of the people in your own country support it.
As if anyone had said otherwise! :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Budget Player Cadet]
Uzi, I’ve explained how it’s entirely possible for someone to be essentially unable to get voter ID despite being able-bodied and moderately intelligent. I’ve explained how 10% of the population not having ID in this day and age should really be cause to think "huh, why is that happening?".
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty much implied right there in bold.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
by a puerile use of the strawman fallacy.
[/QUOTE]
Pffl. You wouldn’t know a strawman if he jumped down off of a pole and started singing, “If you only had a brain”.
Even if there’s zero evidence that it’s a problem? And a helluva lot of evidence that your “solution” causes other problems, on a far larger scale? And that it wouldn’t address your stated problem even if it were in place? That’s what “makes sense” to you? After having it all spoonfed to you?
‘luc’ put quotes around “unfairly” because he was deriding those who consider more democracy less fair.
But I’m “sure” no equivocation was intended by Bricker when he “logically assumed” elucidator was weirdly championing fraud as the source of the advantage to Democrats.
Bullshit! Mine was an out-of-context hypothetical used solely as a basis to discuss your use of the word “substantial.” Try reading for comprehension.
All my recent posts make clear that I have a single interest in this thread: Learning whether any of you hypocrites have the shred of honesty needed to answer my questions. You keep babbling irrelevancies. Care to answer the questions?
Well, it is endearing that the right wing is adopting situational rhetoric. It’s no longer an integral element of poorness that it indicates their status as a helot, that if they’d only accept, life would be better for everyone. No, in fact, we can all strive to be rich and white.
You don’t think ridiculing your stances answered your questions well enough? If you reread my post, you may, just may, be able to glean my position in regards to your post.
You might just be broken. I think you’re so twisted and vile that you assume everyone else bleeds corruption and disdain when cut.
But that’s neither here nor there. How was the weekend? Spend some time on the boat laughing at poor people?
To the first, yes, but only slightly, as ACORN never had the resources to go full out and balls to the wall. If they had, the Republicans would have killed it a lot sooner. It was only as demographics got tighter than anybody really noticed ACORN, or cared. A very similar dynamic inspired the current debacle. This effort was conceived to trim Democrat voting, which could only be effective in such districts where the vote was expected to be very close. How many Americans had ever even heard of ACORN until the Breitbart/O’Keefe slanders?
(As a strategy to trim voter rolls, it was smart, subtle, and modest. I think things only got out of hand because the Republican leadership is no longer in charge of the asylum. They could have done it and gotten clean away with it if they hadn’t overplayed their hand. But I digress…)
I only knew about ACORN because I worked for a foundation that funded them. And even I thought of them in patronizing and condescending terms, as I shamefacedly admit.
As for the second, you are forgetting that not everybody with a “D” appended to their names is even remotely progressive. A lot of Democrats along the centrist-Blue Dead Dog divide were happy enough to ignore ACORN, last thing they wanted was a challenge from their left. And, as well, perfectly happy see it dead. A conservative Democrat in a fairly secure seat would be first in line to stick the knife in.
Keep in mind,** Bricker**, when we talk that I am a radical lefty, not a Democrat. I vote for Democrats because I have a bound duty to choose, so I do the best I can.
ETA: Were you reaching for another Perry Mason moment here, when the witness breaks down on the stand and blubberingly confesses that yes! yes! it was a partisan effort!
ACORN is a private organization that helped people register. You support governments that hinder people from voting. You call yourself a lawyer and couldn’t figure that difference out by yourself? :smack:
What a joke you’ve turned into.
But … I’ll admit I’m happy when those voting for rational leaders get an edge over those who support the filthy politicians you admire.
You’ve highlighted some distinctions you seem to feel are important between my questions and yours, and indicated you’re happy when your politicians win.
But you haven’t answered my questions.
Just to review:
Yes, or no: Voter registration efforts limited to poor, urban areas, such as those conduced by ACORN, led to higher Democratic vote proportions.
Yes, or no: Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN’s efforts did so to get that higher Democratic result.
:smack: