Upthread, I mentioned how much I admired his taste in music, and wished he and I could interact more in Café Society. That’s sort of a verbal hug – and I meant it. I still do, and I mean it well and kindly.
His political opinions are the devil’s own dogshit, but his musical tastes and knowledge are admirable.
People are complex that way.
By you? No. Really, was there ever any danger of that?
But in the spirit of good fun, have you posted anything other than opinion in this thread? Doubtful.
To answer the particular point that I was referencing about facts. No, democracy will not be damaged by voter ID. Why? Because many places around the world require it and have higher voter participation rates. Now if you had read the rest of my post you were responding to you would should have understood that the low participation rate is far more detrimental to your democracy than implementing an ID system that might affect, at most, 2% of the population (even if you believe those numbers). Small potatoes compared to the 52% that can’t be bothered to vote now.
So, your ‘fact’ is nothing more than your opinion.
Could be worse. Open my wallet, and, among other things (ACLU, Democratic Party, San Diego Natural History Museum) you’ll find this card.
You … You do get that it isn’t, though, yes?
Not entirely, because my standards for what is reasonable are pretty close to our society’s and our civilization’s overall consensus. I’m really pretty damn moderate (for a liberal) and my idea of “reasonable” is, seriously, pretty damn conventional. You probably wouldn’t disagree anywhere near as much as you’re thinking now.
I’m pretty “Madisonian” in overall Constitutional interpretation. I don’t like either Hamilton or Jefferson so much.
I’m reasonable enough to know I wouldn’t be a good king!
Trinopus might, but you don’t.
First of all, doesn’t it seem logical that as more voter ID laws come into play, more of the very tiny number of people that attempt in person voter fraud will use fake IDs, therefore the second very tiny number will eventually approach the first very tiny number?
Are you seriously saying that someone who is willing to walk into a polling place and commit a felony by voting in someone else’s name is not going to use a fake ID because fake IDs are primarily used to illegally buy liquor?
That’s just stupid.
I’m also unclear on how requiring ID will make it easier to prosecute voter fraud. Seriously, if someone votes in my name, EXACTLY how does an ID requirement make it easier to prosecute them? You keep saying this, but you have never explained the mechanics.
Even when polls aren’t pushy, the way they’re reported often is. I once saw
“Poll shows Indians support racial tolerance!” (Only 45% support pogrom against Muslims)
Or, closer to home one of your fellow travelers wrote something like
60% of Americans want to repeal Obamacare! (30% oppose it, 30% want stronger public options.)
Meanwhile, you do seem cognizant enough of your own deficiencies to know you can’t answer my comments:
You’re obviously intelligent, yet so confused about questions, let alone answers, that something is wrong. Either you’re a troll, grinning as your train of thought gets deliberately stupider and stupider, or you really should consider psychological consultation.
One might institute a real-time serial-number monitoring system, so that if the same serial number pops up a second time in one day, you know that something bad happened. This seems agonizingly resource-intensive, and would also be a huge obstacle to the legitimate serial-number holder’s right to vote.
So…yeah. What are the proposed mechanics here? How do we protect the franchise from all threats?
Bricker doesn’t give a shit about legitimate voters, or all threats.
I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept that he believes his ideas would improve the validity of elections. I don’t feel comfortable deciding for others what they believe, and what they give a shit about. Bricker made that blunder, big time, when he tried to tell me what I wanted. We should better than that, and ought not to go declaring what he wants.
Bricker’s primary problem is his unwillingness to engage in straightforward, clear, concise, communicative English. His posts are fuzzy, opaque, cluttered, confusing, and hard to decipher. In over a thousand posts, he has never actually made his viewpoints clearly known to us.
I was just musing on situations where this wouldn’t apply.
-Someone admits he doesn’t fully understand the reasoning behind a law (i.e. it’s reasoning is not his reasoning, but accepts the law since it seems to work. This would be a good opportunity for someone versed in law but also skilled in unbiased communication (i.e. not Bricker) to offer to explain the legal reasoning.
-Someone who is largely indifferent to legal reason entirely, figuring he prefers a simpler life and not thinking about stuff like that.
-Someone who says a particular law is not what they would have voted for or approved, but recognizes such laws as a natural result of the democratic process, where not everyone can be satisfied all the time.
The impulse to call such a person a would-be dictator is way down my list. They would have to say something more specific like “Good ol’ Hitler wouldn’t put up with this!”
Yet our society does – at least generally – support Voter ID.
So what mechanism are you proposing to scuttle these laws? You earlier announced that laws should meet your standard of reasonableness – was that merely an aspirational thought, or were you setting forth some plan, framework, or method?
Oh.
From a current GQ thread:
Our society has been heavily lied to, told there’s a major problem and that this would solve it. The facts have not had nearly as much exposure, there being less of a well-financed and well-organized campaign behind the truth than there is behind lies. Now, who is doing that lying, and why? Hmmm…
So you got nothin’. You’ve had your chance to support your silly claim and have failed utterly. Now go grow the fuck up, just a little, that’s a good lad.
So your proposed solution to the low turnout problem is to lower it further. :rolleyes:
Well, maybe someone can teach most of the time but his occasional episodes of compulsively trying to convince students THAT THEY’RE A BUNCH OF GODDAM LIBERAL HYPOCRITES WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW GODDAM STUPID THEIR GODDAM LIBERAL HYPOCRICIES ARE AND GODDAM IT I’LL EXPLAIN TO THEIR GODDAM STUPID LIBERAL FACES UNTIL THEY GODDAM GET IT might get in the way.
I have no idea where you’re getting that from. The guy clearly has excellent command of the language and of the ability to construct a clear paragraph.
No, his problem is with *content *. He habitually, perhaps even unconsciously, misrepresents and filters facts and misuses logic in his attempts to present his advocacy for the Republican Party and his church, to whom his loyalty is absolute and unquestioning, as neutral analysis. When shown his errors, he ignores what he’s being told, and simply repeats his claims or simply denies that he’s done so, no matter how obviously dishonestly and amorally he’s done so. It’s a pernicious way of spreading rather than fighting ignorance, worse because it’s largely simple trolling as well.
Helpful hint: When you see **Bricker **posting “I don’t agree”, that’s merely his way of saying “You’re right, you got me, and I’m out of ways to weasel out of it, but I’m certainly not going to admit it to the likes of you intellectual peasants”.
So, favorite Bricker tactics? Mine. (Note for Dopers with humor anemia, a condition of irony-poor blood: the following is parody, no direct quotes are used or implied, and the current standards of jurisprudence are not referenced…)
“So, who are these Republicans who criticized their party for this repulsive maneuver.”
“Why aren’t you sufficiently upset about the Massachusetts Massacre?”
“What does that have to do with anything? You got an answer, or don’t you?”
“I’ll tell you just as soon as you answer my question.”
“They don’t have shit to do with each other, and besides, I asked you first.”
“Maybe. But I said King’s X, called shotgun and had my fingers crossed.”
“What the hell does that mean?”
“Means I win.”
How could we test this claim?
I don’t agree with it. I think your inability to understand my posts does not arise from any real lack of clarity on my part. You, obviously, disagree.
So how could we test this theory, objectively?
Ah, glorious disingenuity. Of course there’s no objective test for an opinion, just a consensus, and that can be easily dismissed by saying the whole message board is liberal biased.
