Well, he did. Sorta kinda. So, that’s one.
Except not really. So it isn’t.
The boy has his moments. Too bad they are just moments. But he has them! That he has them at all is largely due to your influence. A bit of help from me.
I think they’re pretty much all from you - except when somebody quotes me. 
Let’s just agree its all** BrainGlutton** and Der Trihs. That seems fair.
The problem is equivocation: you and I are apparently using the words “the law” in two different ways. I am referring solely and specifically to the issue of requiring state-issued photo ID. You are discussing the entirety of the the package of laws.
As the Supreme Court correctly observed: “But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.”
I absolutely agree that some individual legislators had dishonorable motives in casting their votes. But when, apart from this, have we ever looked to the motive of individual legislators who approve a law in determining its validity?
There’s the minor issue of these alleged “valid, neutral justifications” being neither valid nor neutral nor justifications. But that’s been explained patiently enough already.
She hasn’t been unable to vote:
Sure. Just as soon as you name the person who has been unable to vote.
Max: after long experience with Bryan, I predict he won’t acknowledge that his example was refuted. Without admitting error, he’ll shift the conversation elsewhere.
Is that the kind of weaseling that you feel is appropriate to ignore? Because it’s the same kind of behavior I noted about elucidator before: factual assertions are rebutted and then the argument is quietly abandoned, never with an explicit admission of the error.
I see! So, you have them, right at your fingertips, just waiting for the correct moment? Can’t recall the last time you were so reluctant to prove somebody wrong. And the rest of us have to wait until Bryan meets your expectations?
Unless, of course, you are bluffing.
ETA: Oh, dear! It appears that my moral failings are crippling Bricker’s capacity to make his argument. Feel kinda bad about that.
That’s a pretty disingenuous request, as presumably the person who has been unable to vote was Dorothy Card’s anonymous next-door neighbor, who didn’t try quite as hard as Dorothy, gave up after the first attempt to get the necessary IDs, and never made it into the newspapers.
Individual cherry-picked examples are diversions from the aggregate numbers, which are what are significant. The effect on depressing turnout is about 2 percent of the total of registered voters. Which, as we all know but cannot all admit, is the entire fucking point.
Let’s review the conversation:
You can see, Max, that the entire back-and-forth with Bryan was focused on his claim that there was someone “unable” to vote. I asked him who that was; he provided a name; I showed that the woman he named was given an ID card.
Now you come along and say that the issue was never Dorothy Card. If that’s true, why did Bryan name her when I asked for the name of a person who was unable to vote?
So everyone who can’t get voter ID just needs to get media attention until someone at the office fixes it? You’re a special kinda guy, Brickle.
Not at all. For every person you name, I expect to be able to illustrate that a state official stepped in to resolve the situation, which is exactly what I said I’d support. So if you name Elvira Lemondrop, I’ll name the DMV supervisor who got Elvira her ID card. If you name Dorothy Cooper of Chattanooga, I’ll name Adam Kleinheider.
So, please tell me who is unable to vote.
If thousands of people are supposedly disenfranchised, how come you can’t name any of them?I mean, I’m not asking you to name all of the thousands. I’m not asking to name a hundred, or ten.
Name one person that was unable to vote. Just the one.
“Sure,” he says, but it turns out that one person he named was a lie.
Got any others?
(cue the sounds of goalposts, desperately moving about the field)
At the time that article was written, the election had not yet happened, but was six weeks in the future. That article laid out the claim that voting was going to be significantly more difficult for her in the upcoming election than it had been in past elections… quite possibly so significantly more difficult that she would in fact fail to vote.
So her existence is good evidence that other people exist who were in similar situations to hers. And given that people vary in their level of ability and willingness to navigate bureaucracies, it is nearly certain that there were other people for whom the additional difficulties of voting were sufficient to change them from voters to non-voters. And (and here’s the key part) there’s no reason to think that we’d have any way of knowing those people’s names. In fact, we’d expect not to.
If I raise the price of donuts from .70 to .80 I’m going to sell fewer donuts. That’s how human beings work. That doesn’t mean I’ll be able to produce the name of any specific person who would have bought a donut for $.70 but now is going to pass.
Therefore, I think a reasonable and non-weaselly response for Bryan would be to acknowledge that in point of fact Dorothy Card may have voted (do we in fact know that her vote was counted?), but to treat the exchange overall as positive for team-anti-voter-ID.
Every post you make is your own pitting.
And I’m glad you got called on the the little game a lot of you nitwits play, that if a story comes from a right-leaning source it didn’t happen. Choke on it, you fucking dolt.
Quite often that turns out to be the case, as we have seen repeatedly, indeed with tedious predictability, in the SRIOTD thread.