I would think you should care because you’ve just acknowledged that a political party is using legal tactics to game the electoral system in their favor. This system of one person/one vote is supposed to be absolutely essential to the proper functioning of your country. This is especially egregious since you yourself concede that the primary motivation is NOT to prevent ineligible voters, but rather to “gain an advantage” (ie to disqualify eligible voters for the other party).
Are you really willing to let a political party discard someone’s actual right to vote, just because it is technically not illegal for this party to do so? Really?
Is the right to vote just a trivial little thing as far as you’re concerned? Nothing to really bother about? No big deal if it is stripped away by a political entity that wants to gain power by removing your rights?
You’re not a legislator, either, Rick, so why would anyone care whether you have “confidence” in our voting procedures? Just because you’re worried sick over a relatively non-existent trumped up problem, doesn’t mean our legislators should assuage your unbridled fears with voter suppression laws.
Natch.
As I understand it, there’s a department that has been hearing cases like Cramer’s dad’s since Day 1 and has issued hundreds of IDs under exactly the same circumstances once they become aware of them: If the person has a Social Security number but no birth certificate, they get an ID. Of course, since illegal aliens can get Social Security cards …
You see where I’m going with this, right?
Ooo, Ooo, Mr. Kottah, Mr. Kottah! I know this one!
When Massachusetts changed its laws to prevent its Republican governor from appointing a replacement senator, and then changed them again back to allowing their Democratic governor to appoint a temporary senator, they were doing the same thing you describe: using legal tactics to game the electoral system in their favor.
And I felt that if the people of Massachusetts objected, they had a remedy close at hand.
How did you feel about the Massachusetts legislature?
Because slavery is similar having to get an ID to vote.
Because poll taxes only applied to minorities.
Laws aren’t evil, people are.
Where does Jesus talk about how governments should be determined? He obviously doesn’t care about this issue as the largest religion in his name doesn’t allow any adherent, except a select few, to vote, either. Actually, if I was to buy into the argument that voter ID would stop people from voting who actually wanted to, I’d say Jesus wouldn’t give a shit.
I feel like you’re saying "Look! Over here a state legislature dominated by Democrats did something legal OK and yet morally repugnant! Therefore it’s perfectly OK for me to applaud Republicans using legal yet morally repugnant methods to deprive citizens of their right to vote! Come and see the hypocrisy inherent in the system!
You are fully in support of your fellow citizens having their right to vote stripped from them, because they might just vote for the “other” party. And your excuse is that the Republicans can do this for the same reason that a dog licks his balls; because they can.
Playing your patented “the other guys are scum too” defense just does not cut it; you have overused it.
Well, it’s true the Democrats have given me many opportunities to use it.
But in this case, it’s a perfect light to shine onto faux outrage. You would have the reader believe you’re outraged at legal processes being used by one party to gain a political edge, regardless of which party gains the advantage. But that’s not really true. In fact, your ire is reserved almost totally for Republcans.
You don’t get to define evil. In fact, I’m pretty sure your moral sense is so warped that I would adopt, as a working first assumption, that any law you decried as evil was actually a great idea, and then check to see if we happened to be discussing a rare exception, a blind-squirrel moment where you accidentally were able to correctly discern the morality of any given situation.
I base my notions of evil on my sense of empathy and the impulses being a member of a social species have given me. And of course my logical mind.
It doesn’t have the grandeur of your system of subcontracting your morality to a bunch of stinking, worm-infested, bronze-age, innumerate men living in goat-shit. But to each his own.
The horrible thing, is that you don’t even get that right. You’re a piss-poor Christian, friend Bricker.
Let me know when Democrats try to take away people’s right to vote. Post such examples right here in this thread and I will condemn them. We’re talking about TAKING AWAY someone’s right to vote, based on political leanings here.
Or start a thread that talks about scummy amoral things that Democrats have done - if appropriate, I will show you appropriate outrage.
But when you pop into every thread, excusing a Republican plan to disenfranchise voters, based simply on your opinion that I don’t show enough outrage across the whole political spectrum? You think that makes what the Republicans are doing A-OK? That simply does not logically hold together.
I didn’t show enough outrage against Massachusetts Democrats, therefore I am not allowed to show any outrage against Republicans who are disenfranchising voters? That’s not how it works, my friend.
Here’s how it works. I base my reactions on a set of standards that doesn’t change depending on who benefits. I recognized the Democrats’ right to pass the laws they did. I didn’t howl in outrage when they jiggered the deck to keep Massachusetts a GOP-free zone as far as Senate seats go.
You base your reaction on whether your party benefits. You have no real rules apart from that. Sure, sure, you can claim it was a separate issue, but it’s endemic – you simply ignore the instances of behavior from Democrats that would give rise to “outrage” if done by the GOP.
It’s true, you know it’s true, and pretty much everyone reading this knows it’s true.
I get it - everyone gets it; As long as a thing is technically legal, it’s OK by you, no matter how amoral it is, no matter if it is a reprehensible thing to do, no matter if it is damaging to the fabric of society. As long as nobody could actually be successfully prosecuted in a court of law, it’s just fine with you. We get it.
You may not believe it, but I don’t base my reaction on whether “my party” benefits. (Can you even guess what “my party” is?) I actually base my reaction on what is the right thing to do. I base it on underlying principles and morals. In my books, “technically legal, you can’t be prosecuted in a court of law” does not necessarily = “perfectly fine, A-OK, go ahead and do it.” Obviously this is where your moral compass lies.
Preventing eligible citizens from voting for purely partisan reasons is not the right thing to do no matter who does it. And no amount of “you’re a hypocrite if you don’t give mathematically equal outrage to everyone” will change that.
This kind of thing may work as a legal assertion, but it doesn’t even come close to anteing up for the smell test.
This is just another example of the conservative “you did it too” argument that virtually always is used when the difference of either the frequency and/or the magnitude of the infraction is massively to their detriment.
Well of course one instance in one state is equivalent to what’s going on all over the country.
All over the place. Do not resist evil, turn brother against brother, render unto Caeser, two talens. Bible Gateway has more if you’re interested.
Well what do you know? A law, neutral on its face (well, discriminatory against stupid lazy retards, but that’s what’s known as a low bar in my highly technical legal dictionary) could be discriminatory in effect.
And hey, Bricker is back. Bricker, I’ll take your refusal to respond to my post 2215 in this thread as admission that every point I’ve made in this thread is accurate and fair… since after all it now seem to be acceptable to draw conclusions about what people think based on things they did NOT post. (Or maybe only you get to do that since you’re a trained lawyer?)
