The right-wing base knows thing. Many of those things are wrong. The left-wing base knows nothing at all except that they need to keep their benefit checks coming. And Democrats make sure to remind them that if they don’t vote Democrat, they will lose their benefits.
Bare-minimum, what electoral results would it take to make you happy?
Most states have voter ID laws.
That’s it. You’re done.
This response proves you have no idea what my argument is.
This is amazing to me,because I have laid it out dozens of times.
GOP retains control of the House and takes control of the Senate.
So you won’t be happy if the results simply preserve the status quo?
First off, I have never heard of anyone wishing to abolish the Senate, but in order to do so it would require not one, but two Constitutional amendments. The first to remove the provision that states that the composition of the Senate is not subject to the amendment process and the second to actually do it. Additionally, the probability of this occurring is somewhat less than zero as it would require the approval of states that benefit from the status quo. In light of these facts, even bringing it up in a discussion about actual and ongoing attempts to restrict persons rights to vote is a red herring of monumental proportions.
Requiring ID is generally not considered a restriction on anything. Is it a restriction on opening a bank account, getting a job, or getting a hotel room?
A very odd view, this idea that an ID requirement is a restriction somehow. The reason I highlight Democrats’ views on other issues is because they favor actual restrictions and impediments to basic rights in other cases, but believe that something that isn’t even a constitutional right should be free of regulation.
That’s pretty much the modern Democrats in a nutshell. The Constitution as written is meaningless to them. Instead, they have their own shadow Constitution that bears no relation to the written one.
No. Not even close.
Campaign financing rules aren’t repealing the First Amendment. Dems want an equal playing field. The GOP wants to take a large group of Dem voters and make it much harder for them to vote.
Nobody who can jive up horseshit as fast as you can is stupid. Which means you’re just another assclown who is okay with winning via underhanded means. Not really rare, but disappointing.
No.
I won’t be sad, but I won’t be happy.
Do yourself a solid and read the thread before you make such an ass of yourself anymore.
Eh, his position is complicated enough that I don’t really care to pass judgment on it. It clearly has a lot more to do with the context and with his thoughts about what came before than it does about the situation specifically. Which just illustrates my point about the whole comparing-two-situations thing. Not only is the MA Senate thing a fairly unique situation which has only the most surface similarities to issues of voter ID (they both have to do with politics and elections), it has its own entire context which is completely different from the context of the voter ID issue.
Which isn’t to say that Elucidator is or is not reasonable for holding the position he espouses, but the position he espouses is so linked to that one specific issue in its one specific context that, even if his position seems to be the “opposite” of his position on voter ID laws, well, so what?
I’ll repeat what I think is the key point here: I’m absolutely convinced that Karl Rove is a ham-faced ultra-partisan who will always take the Republican side of any issue no matter what. But he’s also a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. If he showed up on the SDMB and started arguing in this thread, whatever arguments he made would still stand (or fall) on their own. It wouldn’t be a reasonable tactic to say “well, Karl Rove is a proven partisan, therefore all of his arguments are invalid”.
In other words, who cares if Elucidator is or is not a partisan hypocrite? How does that effect voter ID laws, unless some incredibly key plank of his argument is an explicit claim that he’s a neutral observer?
(By the way, you’re always ragging on us to spend more time decrying our more extreme liberal posters… so what’s your opinion of Adaher’s recent posts in this thread?)
The greatest part of my ragging arises from the fact that no one takes on the effort of decrying a liberal poster’s poor logic… here, there is no dearth of reasoned rebuttal.
But you’re still absolutely right.
adaher, you’ve been off base in a number of area. Frankly, I’ve lost count of your rhetorical excesses. I understand the temptation, when you’re in the Pit, and faced with rhetorical flourishes from your opposition, to respond in kind, and my own history is not free from succumbing to that temptation.
But in the end, it’s still unsupportable.
Nonsense. The Democrats are not trying to “repeal the 1st amendment.” They contend that money contributed to candidates and in support of political speech can be limited without infringing the First Amendment. And so does the Supreme Court – they have held that individual limits for direct donations to candidates is consistent with the First Amendment. The Court has not agreed with other, more attenuated limits on donations, and I agree with the Court, but no one is trying to repeal the First Amendment. That’s hyperbole.
Unsupported generalization. Undoubtedly there are SOME Democrats who are taking this position just because it helps their party. Many others take the same position because they have a good faith, partisan-free position that more participants in voting makes for a stronger Democratic republic. This is too broad brush to be correct.
This is too complicated a topic to dismiss so easily. Voters’ “rational ignorance,” of the issues is a result of the size and complexity of government, and even a reasonably well-read and politically active voter cannot be said the have mastered even a fraction of the knowledge necessary to fully understand all issues in play in any given election. Ilya Somin has written several essays on the issue; I recommend browsing the Cato Institute for more detail.
Obviously I agree with you on the value of Voter ID. But I don’t agree with the “flinging poo” approach to debate, recognizing that I’ve been guilty of it myself more than once.
Your post is appreciated.
In what way would it not be correct, other than that it is better for the apathetic not to vote? How is democracy weakened in any way by embracing and enabling the participation of those who take the responsibilities of citizenship seriously and want to exercise the most important one?
You have supported your view *only *in terms of “voter confidence”, no matter how loud the laughter gets about its non-connectedness to the world of reality. Do you have a *true *“good faith, partisan-free position” other than that to show us?
To have to do that would be cruel and inhumane punishment.
If they were serious, they’d get themselves ID. And round the Mulberry bush we go!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
False. Elected officials need to be educated. The public only needs to know in general terms what it wants or doesn’t; officials work out the details.
[/QUOTE]
No, the public should know enough to determine who’s feeding them a bunch of crap from the right or left. It’s great to promise people a chicken in every pot, but it does cost money that has to come from somewhere. I’d much rather have people voting who understand the nuances and not just because they like chicken. It seems to me that those who can’t figure out how to get an ID (like the majority of people can), and can’t get to the polling booth at the allotted times (like the majority of people can), is a simple, if crude, filter keeping them from noising up the election. It is just too bad that these sorts of people are primarily supporters for the democrats. Now, if we can figure out a filter for the religious whackos on the right, I’d be all for that as well.
Cheese Louise, Uzi, not only do you not get it, you think up new and interesting ways not to get it!
And this crap about being “serious”? Da fuq? People stand on line for hours to vote, is that “serious” enough for your ass? Take a wild guess who those people are, go ahead, take a stab at it. Residents of gated communities? Try again.
We can fix that, we can extend voting hours and voting days, make access to voting equal for everybody. Wanna guess who doesn’t like that idea, which political faction is most opposed? Take your time, we know this sort of thing isn’t easy for you…
Making voting easy and convenient for every citizen isn’t that hard a problem, rocket neurosurgery it is not. And if it happened tomorrow, the Pubbies would get totally creamed. And they would roll around on the floor, set their hair on fire and rub turds in their ears to stop that from happening.
Now, there are some people who are sincerely worried about voter fraud, in the context of people voting who have no right to. Those are mostly the people who know that America is a conservative country, that all Real Americans align with the Republican Party. How do they explain their losing? Well, illegal aliens are voting, that must be it. (I have seen otherwise intelligent people sidle up to that notion, on these very pages.)
Equality of voting rights doesn’t mean much without equality of access to voting. Make voter ID easy and convenient for every citizen, you got my vote. But that isn’t what this is about. They don’t want to provide quick and easy voter ID for every citizen and then demand it at the polls, they want to demand it now, and put off that stuff for later. After the next election. Or two. Three, maybe. Four or five isn’t out of the question.
Though I do notice something of a shift in your rhetoric. Planning on dressing up as a centrist for Halloween?