Nope. Funny how it’s your side (and you,of course, specifically) who keeps lying about the arguments – and hilarious how, after all your claims that these laws would depress minority turnout, they haven’t done that at all, leaving you scrambling for the best way to ignore that inconvenient factoid.
It’s okay. Everyone can see it, so your denials are nothing but pathetic squeaks. Mouse farts, really.
Truth be told, I’m willing to let Nate Silver be the judge on the actual effects, since he strikes me as a plausibly reliable authority. In any case, the legislation opens up avenues for potential abuse while addressing a near-nonexistent problem, and that should give any reasonable person misgivings.
I represent no side, aside from the stone cold reality that you reject and paint over with high-gloss partisan horseshit.
They pissed off people and that drove people to the polls.
So because the halfwits you vote into office fucked up on their evil plan, it isn’t evil anymore? Someone call Hitler, Bricker has an argument to get him out of hell!
Rage can only last so long, and by keeping it up, you’re not gonna get the increased turnout that’s fighting the cunts you vote for.
Sure, sure. “Everyone.” BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Liberal math skills.
Excellent. King Nate the First, Protector of the Faith?
See, I’d rather govern our country by representative democracy. I know you libbies are hungry for a modern-day Stalin to tell you what to do to continue the People’s Revolution, but that’s just not what I want.
It is a phrase brought to these boards by a scurrilous hippy, a blackguard, scoundrel and despoiler of maidens. Happily, his name is lost to history and the phrase can be cheerfully co-opted by a paladin of candor and virtue.
Why on earth would you interpret him as saying he wants Nate Silver to decree the law?
He’s saying his opinion on the matter will be principally informed by Silver. That’s completely different.
I know this is the Pit, but geeze. It’s not clever or interesting to deliberately misinterpret your critics.
But, of course, they did not. Not enough evidence to prosecute.
Again, I note that while he deliberately misinterprets me, repeatedly, you remain silent. But when I return the favor, you remonstrate me. Why is that, Richard?
Honestly though, what else does he have?
He knows that he’s logically and factually wrong. So he either gloats (as in his post above with the poll), or misrepresents others. He’s got nothing else to do.
Earlier in this thread he said that specific posters wanted illegal alien votes, which is why they were against voter ID. Then he said specific posters wanted partisan gain at any cost and would support the laws if they helped their side.
Neither of which was true, at least of anyone I’ve seen post in this thread. But true doesn’t matter. Remember, Bricker as a lawyer doesn’t have to make logical arguments. He has to make arguments that sound logical in real time, and are hard to refute without a moment to think about them.
I don’t accept the notion that close elections should have anything to do with the issue. It happens sometimes- a large state has an election decided by a few dozen votes. When it happens, we count them again as best we can and move on. We don’t screech “OH MY GOD MAYBE SOMEONE VOTED WHO SHOULDN’T HAVE!” That would be nuts. What the Republicans have done is twirl their mustaches and cackle “heh heh heh… if we can prevent enough of those people from voting, we can win more elections.” Thus the voter ID scam was born. Of course they hide behind a phony rationale about faith in the electoral process. Yep, the people that brought us Diebold autovotes for Bush are suddenly all concerned about fairness in the process.
Sure, you ask the average guy in the street if people should have ID to vote and he’ll probably say yes. That’s the kind of uninformed consent that the GOP lives on. When you point out to him that the people who have trouble getting those IDs are likely to be poor, elderly, and minorities he might change his mind, particularly if you then go into detail of the obstacles that must be overcome to get that ID and if you explain how miniscule the “problem” actually is. But thanks to the Reich wing monopoly of AM radio, there are going to be a lot of uninformed people who think voter fraud is an issue worth addressing.
I’ll believe Republicans care about the integrity of elections when they start to insist that voting machines are equitably distributed on election day. And when they stop the chickenshit tactics like Ohio did a few years back, tossing voter registration requests that weren’t printed on the correct weight paper. And when they insist on a verifiable paper trail on electronic ballots. And when they stop trying to purge the voter rolls of what they consider to be democratic-leaning voters. And when they agree to fund an aggressive campaign to put free photo IDs in the hands of all voters and set up well-advertised mobile offices to help people register to vote and get the required ID BEFORE they even think about requiring those IDs. That’s what a fair-minded person would insist on- get the people the help they need to get those precious IDs BEFORE they steal their right to vote. Until Republicans prove they actually care about fair elections, they should shut up and stop with the transparent efforts to steal elections.
Well, if that’s what you want to call him, be my guest. I just see him as a statistician with a good track record.
Do you realize that every time you try to be sarcastic, you sound like a moron?
In this instance, because you are ridiculing an opinion resembling my own, and also slurring a group that includes me.
But does it matter? Let’s say I’m just being unfair to you because I think your nose is ugly. So what?
Earlier, you said “Yet records show [Ramon Cue] repeatedly voted.” Your current site says he might have voted “once in 1996”.
Is this your idea of a crime wave?
Further, the citation offered does not substantiate the claim that the prosecutors declined due to “lack of evidence”. They might have considered the matter too trivial to pursue.
My mistake. I was remembering Neville Walters and Ramon Cue, and incorrectly recalled which illegal voter voted only once, and which more than once.
But the issue is: it happened. It’s a proof of the concept.
Voter fraud too trivial to pursue? Impossible.
Then I’d say, “It’s not clever or interesting to be unfair to someone because you think their nose is ugly.”
And I’d point out that you claimed, at least by inference, that participants here should care about being clever and interesting.
Ok. And I would laugh at the notion that only non-malicious calling out of complete bullshit can ever be interesting or worthwhile. Like this: Hah hah hah.