I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Bricker]

@elucidator

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!

You’ve answered the first question. Not the second.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

some distinctions you seem to feel are important

Such as promoting democracy vs. weakening it. Yes, there are quite a few of us who feel that’s important. Why aren’t you one of them?

[septimus]

@Bricker

Yes, or no: Voter registration efforts limited to …

Yes, or no: Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN’s efforts …

Most probably yes.
Most probably yes in many or most cases.
That you needed such obvious answers makes one wonder how you got through 5th-grade arithmetic.

The questions you and your ilk were asked in this thread 2000 posts ago also have obvious answers. Should I hold my breath?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Interesting. So if I read this correctly, by your standards, ACORN was “unfairly” advantaging the Democrats when they were active?

Weird. The only way I could see that ACORN was unfairly giving the Democrats an advantage was by making voter registration fraud easy. But as long as they switched tactics and started correctly registering voters, acting within the law, then I would say any advantage to the Democrats is well-deserved.

Forgot about this. Out of all I said, the only thing you thought worthy of comment was my ironic use of the word “unfairly”. What I’m thinking its that you are smart enough to take my point, that this could very well turn around and bite your favored party right in the ass. But had to contradict me on something, however trivial.

ACORN never set out to get fraudulent voter registration. Firstly, because they were fully aware of the contempt and suspicion with which they were regarded, they knew they would be gone over with a very fine-toothed comb. Second, these are dewey-eyed idealists, they figured they didn’t have to cheat to win. The same dumb idealism that led them to assume that hiring lower class people to conduct their registration drives was such a good idea, they didn’t need to keep a close and suspicious eye on them. Because the proletariat is inherently more ethical. They were victimized by the people they were trying to help. Fucking liberals…

Well, at least you read it. Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt. You were gloating?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

You’ve answered the first question. Not the second.

Sure I did, its right there after the words “As for the second…”. That you don’t like my answer doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Were you in a dreadful hurry, and didn’t have time to explain why you think I didn’t answer? With all due awe, that’s kinda weak.

[Bricker]

@septimus

Most probably yes.
Most probably yes in many or most cases.
That you needed such obvious answers makes one wonder how you got through 5th-grade arithmetic.

The questions you and your ilk were asked in this thread 2000 posts ago also have obvious answers. Should I hold my breath?

Excellent.

Thank you.

Now, as it happens, I can answer your questions:

1. Most probably yes.
2. Most probably yes in many or most cases.

[elucidator]

Is this a guessing game? We are supposed to figure out what questions you answered? Is there a cookie in the offing for the winner?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Sure I did, its right there after the words “As for the second…”. That you don’t like my answer doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Were you in a dreadful hurry, and didn’t have time to explain why you think I didn’t answer? With all due awe, that’s kinda weak.

Here was my question:

Yes or no: Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN’s efforts did so to get that higher Democratic result.

Here is your answer:

*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.
*

That’s not responsive. It doesn’t answer the question. Are the Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN’s efforts in my question “along the centrist-Blue Dead Dog divide?” It doesn’t seem like “A conservative Democrat in a fairly secure seat” would be a “Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN’s efforts.”

I asked you if Democratic politicians who assisted ACORN’s efforts did so to get that higher Democratic result, and you responded with a brief essay about other Democrats, ones who did not support ACORN’s efforts.

[septimus]

@Bricker

Excellent.

Thank you.

Now, as it happens, I can answer your questions:

1. Most probably yes.
2. Most probably yes in many or most cases.

Thank you. Please do go back and read the inanely sophomoric response you gave to the same question when I asked it of you in this thread 1000+ posts ago.

As annoying as you are, Brick-head, AFAIK you’re the only one of your ilk in this thread who has condescended to answer. :smack:

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Is this a guessing game? We are supposed to figure out what questions you answered? Is there a cookie in the offing for the winner?

I know it’s a long thread, but this was really just a few posts ago:

@septimus

[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]
.
.
.

Any Repubs willing to answer? I’m not holding my breath…

[Bricker]

@septimus

As annoying as you are, Brick-head, AFAIK you’re the only one of your ilk in this thread who has condescended to answer. :smack:

I love you too.

Just out of curiosity, and since I sense that you feel my comparison fails because it include the private ACORN as opposed to purely governmental bodies…

In 2004, when John Kerry, was the Democratic presidential nominee, Massachusetts state law allowed the governor to appoint a replacement senator to serve out the remainder of the two-year cycle. If Kerry won in November, then Republican Governor Mitt Romney could appoint a replacement. The Democratic leadership of the legislature passed a law to strip the governor of his senatorial appointment power.

Then in 2009, after Ted Kennedy’s death, the state had a Democratic governor. But because of the 2004, law, he couldn’t appoint a replacement, and the U.S. Senate would have one less Democrat during the time that health care teetered on the balance. So they passed another law, giving the governor the power to appoint Senators until a special election could be held.

My follow-on questions to you:

[ul]
[li]The changes in 2004 and 2009 in the governor’s power to appoint a senator in Massachusetts led to higher Democratic outcomes in the Senate[/li][li]Democratic legislators espousing these laws did so to get that higher Democratic result.[/li][/ul]

Well?

[septimus]

@Bricker

Well?

What’s your point, Brick? Some Democrat once did something political, so every slimy trick the GOP does is OK?

Your turn to answer two questions.
[ul][li] Is Karl Rove a slimy sleaze-ball or isn’t he? Or are you still going to babble ignorantly on that topic?[/li]
[li] Assuming we could agree on a definition of slimy money-based politics, and assuming hypothetically that all American politicians refrained from such, who do you think would do better in elections? Rational centrists like Obama or the corrupt hypocrites that now dominate your Party?[/li][/ul]

[Bricker]

@septimus

What’s your point, Brick? Some Democrat once did something political, so every slimy trick the GOP does is OK?

No, that’s not my point.

I notice you said “some” Democrat does something. Did you miss where I was discussing the entire Democratic contingent of the Massachusetts state legislature?

And you didn’t answer my questions.

But since you stepped up and answered the previous set before I did, I’ll return the favor and go first.

Your turn to answer two questions.
[ul][li] Is Karl Rove a slimy sleaze-ball or isn’t he? Or are you still going to babble ignorantly on that topic?[/li]
[li] Assuming we could agree on a definition of slimy money-based politics, and assuming hypothetically that all American politicians refrained from such, who do you think would do better in elections? Rational centrists like Obama or the corrupt hypocrites that now dominate your Party?[/li][/ul]

1. No. At least, not by my definition, but I hope your recognize that “slimy sleave ball” is not exactly a term of precision.

2. I don’t know, because we’d first need to agree on some definition of “slimy money-based” politics as distinguished from ordinary political actions. I can’t imagine that happening.

[MaxTheVool]

Bricker: Why are you bringing up this Massachusetts business at all? To prove that liberals/democrats aren’t always 100% perfectly objective paragons of total impartiality?

Well, guilty as charged, you got us. We are not perfect. You remember that post where I said “no liberal or democrat would EVER let political advantage factor into any decision in any context, because we’re awesome and better than you”. Well, I was wrong. Oh, wait, I never posted anything like that, and I doubt anyone else ever did, and if they did, they were wrong.
But I don’t see any relevance, aside from your general policy of derailing the thread when you’ve got nothing else.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

My follow-on questions to you:

[ul]
[li]The changes in 2004 and 2009 in the governor’s power to appoint a senator in Massachusetts led to higher Democratic outcomes in the Senate[/li][li]Democratic legislators espousing these laws did so to get that higher Democratic result.[/li][/ul]

Well?

1. No. The changes led to the *same *Democratic membership in the Senate that We The People voted for. As you fucking well know.

2. That was one reason. You fucking well know the other one too, even if you can’t comprehend it.

[Sinaptics]

@Bricker

Inferences, you can easily deny.

I’d like a direct answer:

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.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

1. We don’t know that ACORN targeted minorities, the poor, or urban areas. I imagine they did, because hey, you go where the people are since you have limited funding, but I don’t know this for a fact.

2. I’m not aware of any special “help” from Democratic politicians and even if they did, we can’t be sure it was for partisan purposes. Voter registration is a feel-good activity, like feeding the homeless. It wasn’t until recently that it came into the spotlight for partisan purposes (not that ACORN was partisan, but the reasons for killing it and limiting other drives are partisan).

[Sinaptics]

@Bricker

No, that’s not my point.

I notice you said “some” Democrat does something. Did you miss where I was discussing the entire Democratic contingent of the Massachusetts state legislature?

And you didn’t answer my questions.

But since you stepped up and answered the previous set before I did, I’ll return the favor and go first.

1. No. At least, not by my definition, but I hope your recognize that “slimy sleave ball” is not exactly a term of precision.

2. I don’t know, because we’d first need to agree on some definition of “slimy money-based” politics as distinguished from ordinary political actions. I can’t imagine that happening.

I think this was a slimy move by the Dems. I think cases like this should be done by special election.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sinaptics

I think this was a slimy move by the Dems. I think cases like this should be done by special election.

The change was to make the replacement done by special election. :rolleyes:

It prevented Romney from appointing someone of the party who had not won the election - which is what **Brickhead **is still pouting about.

[MaxTheVool]

@Uzi

Yes, I know. You see black people, I see people whose skin color happens to be black.

What a bizarre comment, and what a totally ridiculous non-sequitur. What does that have to do with anything?

And claiming that 10% of the population is an insignificant fraction is just so weird and wrong as to be basically impossible to respond to.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Bricker: Why are you bringing up this Massachusetts business at all? To prove that liberals/democrats aren’t always 100% perfectly objective paragons of total impartiality?

Well, guilty as charged, you got us. We are not perfect. You remember that post where I said “no liberal or democrat would EVER let political advantage factor into any decision in any context, because we’re awesome and better than you”. Well, I was wrong. Oh, wait, I never posted anything like that, and I doubt anyone else ever did, and if they did, they were wrong.
But I don’t see any relevance, aside from your general policy of derailing the thread when you’ve got nothing else.

The point is to derail the pious attitudes on display here.

Almost everyone – elucidator in particular – has spoken of what a terrible offense against democracy this is, and how outrageous is anyone’s acceptance of it.

But you notice that even when I can show Democrats doing the same thing, the reaction is sharply muted, or even non-existent.