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

[Bryan_Ekers]

Ah, forced laughter… now we’re cooking.

[Richard_Parker]

You seem more bitter than you used to be, Bricker. I hope everything is ok.

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

You seem more bitter than you used to be, Bricker. I hope everything is ok.

Thanks for the concern. Perhaps I am tending bitter. I’d say there’s justification, but in days past I have been able to ignore it, and perhaps for whatever reason that ability has worn thin for a period.

[Abe_Babe]

@Bricker

See what I mean about choosing what arguments to engage, Richard?

So you don’t deny that you are the readers’ guardian.
veeeelllllllllly interesting.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, a Libertarian candidate took enough votes away from a Republican candidate to let a Democratic candidate become governor of Virginia. Bricker’s in Virginia, isn’t he? That could be an element. Maybe he’s bitter that not enough laws were passed to discourage (excuse me, “raise the confidence of the standards of”) third-party candidates.
Sheer speculation, of course.

[Buck_Godot]

@Bricker

AGAIN: what, specifically, are the actions you’re proposing NOW, today, in the real world? The only thing left from your quotes above is this gem:

It seems you’re trying just that. But no one’s buying your version of “truth;” because they sense “bullshit.”

So in the face of an injustice that is currently enjoying the popular support of an under-informed public, the Bricker solution is to throw up your hands and say “well I can’t do anything about it, so I should sit down shut up and never mention it again”? I assume that you also believe that no one should argue against abortion either.

[elucidator]

@Bryan_Ekers

Out of curiosity, since I don’t live in a place where this is considered an issue, was there any subtext in advocating for these laws that they were needed because in addition to illegal immigrants stealing American jobs and criminals stealing American property, both were stealing American elections? Aside from the obvious benefit of gaming the system to favour a particular party*, I can see the fear-mongering being useful, too.

• • yeah, yeah, Democrats do it too, or at least they would if they saw a potential advantage in it

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...highlight=CASA
Post 226

…I have personally heard a CASA volunteer telling people that they didn’t need papers to vote…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...A#post15254038
Post 1155

…I have personally heard CASA of Maryland volunteers telling illegal aliens how easy it is to vote…

[Bryan_Ekers]

Your links aren’t working for me, elucidator, but thanks. I was curious about public statements by officials that were arguing for the laws and if they ever slipped off the “raise confidence” message into “fear the other!” (in addition to the occasional “this will help our party” gaffe).

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

Yes. Despite the law having been passed, you appear to want to go back to the stage in which we debate if we should pass the law.

Funny how liberals thought that was a horribly unfair tactic as applied to Obamacare. Funny how we heard repeatedly about respecting the law of the during that debacle. But here, hey, what law? We’re liberals; we don’t need no stinkin’ law.

What the hell are you talking about?

Obamacare passed, and it was law. At that point, it was entirely clear that it was the law of the land, and it was the responsibility of states to set up exchanges, for insurance companies to begin to comply with its provisions, etc.

At the same time, if you’d started a thread entitled “passing Obamacare was a bad idea”, I certainly wouldn’t have somehow refused to debate, or said “well, it HAS been passed, so what are we talking about?” or anything of that sort. I have no idea where you got this bizarre idea that you’re in a thread entitled “here is my productive idea for repealing/replacing voter ID laws in various states”. As far as I know, no such thread exists. Why don’t you start one?

For this reason, especially here, i believe it’s important to engage and rebut these terrible arguments

Seems like that doesn’t fit well with your crucible plan… you go to the SDMB, where you are greatly outnumbered, so you can test your ideas against what the other side has to offer. Then you engage and rebut the weakest arguments made against you. (Although I guess that makes it flattering that you frequently fail to respond to my posts, such as 3722, 3724 and 3726 in this very thread.)

[CannyDan]

@Bricker

Errr… no.

In both posts you quote, you respond to my specific requests that you name something concrete you’d like done…and then admit that it won’t be done, which completely eviscerates your call to action:
Here, you offer an alternate plan about how you would have preferred the original laws be implemented:

…but not one word about what you propose to do now, after the fact, unless you failed to mention the design and use of a time machine to achieve the goal mentioned above.

AGAIN: what, specifically, are the actions you’re proposing NOW, today, in the real world? The only thing left from your quotes above is this gem:

<snicker> So, is that it? Your plan in a nutshell?

It seems you’re trying just that. But no one’s buying your version of “truth;” because they sense “bullshit.”

Still, I agree: if your plan was the “shine a light,” nonsense, then, yes, I concede you identified a plan of action. Silly of me to say otherwise, really.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You asked what I’d like done, I replied ‘asked and answered’, you called me out, I showed you to be in error. Now you move the goal posts. The question wasn’t “Given the present state of affairs (neener, neener!), wadda ya gonna do now? <smirk>” It was “In any event, what solution are you proposing?” (emphasis mine) Both of my earlier replies to your very similar questions were broad enough to encompass quite a large range of ‘any events’. At the time, you seemed to agree. In the post immediately following mine ending with “Is that specific enough?” you state

@Bricker

Absolutely. Thanks!

Do you think we’re blind, or just stupid? Mine was a sufficient answer in September, you forgot about it, and now you’re weaseling around hiding behind semantic nit-picks to let yourself off the hook.

Ahh well, I’ve come to expect no better from you.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

I agree. It’s a once in a decade – hell, a once in a generation – event.

But that’s just when you need it the most. House fires happen rarely. But it’s when the house fire does happen that the smoke detectors need to be fully charged and working.

But you are only looking at one side of the equation. How many fires are you setting in order to prevent that one fire?

[elucidator]

@Bryan_Ekers

Your links aren’t working for me, elucidator, but thanks. I was curious about public statements by officials that were arguing for the laws and if they ever slipped off the “raise confidence” message into “fear the other!” (in addition to the occasional “this will help our party” gaffe).

I used that Google search technique recommended in the ATMB. Naturally, the has a liberal bias as does everything else here. Nonetheless, I have every confidence they are genuine quotes.

Makes a twisted sort of sense when you think on it. They know that America is basically conservative, or center-right, and that most American are in synch with their views. (Sometimes modified as “most real Americans”.) Therefore, they should win elections handily. It follows, then, that some nefarious skulduggery is afoot. Quod Erat Dafuk.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Yes. Despite the law having been passed, you appear to want to go back to the stage in which we debate if we should pass the law.

Is there some rule about debating the merits of an existing law? We’re not in court - and more importantly, voter ID laws haven’t passed everywhere.

Nobody has ever said you and other conservatives can’t complain about Obamacare - and certainly any such instruction hasn’t prevented your brethren from doing so. You may have noticed that the 40-something House votes to repeal the PPACA raised nothing more than mild mockery.

What pissed people off was the shutdown of the government over the fucking thing. Perhaps I missed it, but it doesn’t appear that anyone has shut down state governments to protest voter ID requirements.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bricker

We should have them because they were passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and upheld by the courts. That’s how we get laws in this country, and no one has identified any argument that contradicts this rather basic, Civics 101, fact.

So… What you’re saying is that you support:

• Obamacare
• The National Defense Appropriations Act
• The Patriot Act

What you perhaps mean to whine about is how you’re butthurt that the laws are so popular that your usual bullshit liberal whining doesn’t work. That despite your elite commentators telling the stupid populace what to think, and even consistently using reflexive accusations like “racism,” the stupid populace have stubbornly refused to adopt the positions urged upon them by the New York Times and Mother Jones.

And that’s got to hurt.

Well, I’ve come to the realization that most people in America are stupid jackasses who can’t see past their own noses to save their lives. I kinda hoped to not have quite that degree of idiocy from a forum like this, but hey - shit happens. Sometimes, stupid or dishonest [del]shitbags[/del] [del]people[/del] shitbags will simply be really fucking stupid.

@Bricker

Yes. Despite the law having been passed, you appear to want to go back to the stage in which we debate if we should pass the law.

Funny how liberals thought that was a horribly unfair tactic as applied to Obamacare. Funny how we heard repeatedly about respecting the law of the during that debacle. But here, hey, what law? We’re liberals; we don’t need no stinkin’ law.

Here, the dishonest shitbag (Asspelunker Douchefuckitus) raises its feathers and presents another dishonest argument, as if we hadn’t made it clear to him what’s going on. There is nothing wrong with debating whether or not a law on the books has merit, although it’s exceedingly hard to make debates about the merits of a bill that hasn’t even been fully enacted yet, and I don’t think anyone here has argued anything of the sort. But whereas you can make a clear case for why Obamacare is better or worse than no Obamacare based on projections and then need to wait for those projections to shape up before really having any predictive power, the issue on voter ID is completely different. Why? Well, for starters, Obamacare addresses a problem which actually exists. Then there’s the fact that we now actually have empirical data showing that voter ID lowers turnouts and that this favors the republican party, whereas any actual empirical data on the effects of Obamacare are based on a bill who hasn’t even come into effect yet.

@Bricker

Sure, sure – I’m familiar with the process.

But I wonder if you are. To repeal a law, the side seeking the repeal has the burden to persuade.

You seem to want to propose a repeal, and then begin the repeal discussion by asking me to prove that the law is what we want.

No, that’s bullshit, we started the repeal discussion by discussing, at length, how there was:

• Virtually no voter fraud
• A large number of voters without ID
• Extreme difficulties for some people to get ID

In fact, you were there for all of it, so there’s no excuse for you to lie like this.

So – reacquaint yourself with the repeal process. The side seeking repeal has to persuade the legislative body to pass a repeal. It cannot sustain that burden by demanding that the other side persuade it of anything.

Well, seeing as you’re the other side, and it’s been shown throughout this thread beyond any doubt not only that you’re wrong, but that you’re willing to be a lying, pedantic shitbag about it, there’s not much more to do here other than constantly hammer home just how much of a dishonest lying shitstain you are.

[Bricker]

@CannyDan

You asked what I’d like done, I replied ‘asked and answered’, you called me out, I showed you to be in error. Now you move the goal posts. The question wasn’t “Given the present state of affairs (neener, neener!), wadda ya gonna do now? <smirk>” It was “In any event, what solution are you proposing?” (emphasis mine) Both of my earlier replies to your very similar questions were broad enough to encompass quite a large range of ‘any events’. At the time, you seemed to agree. In the post immediately following mine ending with “Is that specific enough?” you state

Do you think we’re blind, or just stupid? Mine was a sufficient answer in September, you forgot about it, and now you’re weaseling around hiding behind semantic nit-picks to let yourself off the hook.

Ahh well, I’ve come to expect no better from you.

It’s specific enough.

It’s just useless.

Which is pretty much the liberal motto.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Hey, anyone else find it telling that for the last at least 10 or so pages (probably a while longer), Bricker has made a very clear point not to debate the merit of voter ID laws? Man, you’d think that’s just a little telling, wouldn’t you?

[Bricker]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

So… What you’re saying is that you support:

• Obamacare
• The National Defense Appropriations Act
• The Patriot Act

Support?

No.

But please find me one post in which I suggested that Obamacare, or any of those, are illegitimate.

In fact, when states began suing to overturn Obamacare, I repeatedly and specifically said that while I disagreed with the wisdom of Obamacare, it was certainly constitutional, and I did NOT wish to see it overturned by the courts.

You and your ilk adopt, or abandon, rules and processes as you see fit to advance whatever cause you favor. If the courts are ruling in your favor, they’re a wise and necessary bulwark against tyranny of the majority. When they don’t, suddenly they’re a partisan influence of no legitimacy. If the laws are the ones you like, democracy is revered, a hallowed and sacred institution. If the laws fail to meet with liberal orthodoxy’s approval, then they are the tyranny of the majority, and the stupid people don’t know what’s good for them anyway.

Now you try to attack a law that requires people to go get a free ID and a picture by somehow claiming that such effort is akin to a climb up Everest wearing flippers and Vaseline, and are shocked, shocked, when the country doesn’t buy it.

Then there’s the fact that we now actually have empirical data showing that voter ID lowers turnouts and that this favors the republican party, whereas any actual empirical data on the effects of Obamacare are based on a bill who hasn’t even come into effect yet.

Stop the presses.

Where is this empirical data? You have actual data showing lowered turnouts? Bullshit. The actual turnouts in states are not lower. You have wishful thinking from people that have shown, in great detail, why the turnouts will be lower – much like the apocryphal engineer who proved that bees can’t fly. The actual data, much to your annoyance, doesn’t show any such lowered turnouts.

Does it?

No. Why did you lie?

[Bricker]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Hey, anyone else find it telling that for the last at least 10 or so pages (probably a while longer), Bricker has made a very clear point not to debate the merit of voter ID laws? Man, you’d think that’s just a little telling, wouldn’t you?

I’m too busy refuting your lies about having empirical data.

You have to lie in order to defend your point; you’d think that’s just a little telling, wouldn’t you?

[CannyDan]

@Bricker

It’s specific enough.

It’s just useless.

Which is pretty much the liberal motto.

Useless! Because sufficiently propagandized people support them, legislatures passed them, governors signed them, and courts validated them. We heard you! Useless!

And so it is equally useless to debate Obamacare, at-will abortion, or the Patriot Act (among a host of others). I’ll be sure to bookmark this post, and remind you whenever you yourself indulge in useless wastes of verbiage. I’m positive you’ll thank me.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So Bricker’s totally out of ammunition, then?
Of course he started out with blanks anyway.