Actually the most dishonest poster here is Bricker.
But that said, voter ID isn’t inherently bad. Just using it to target likely Dem voters is bad. And you pointing out how other nations have national IDs is meaningless, if it’s not gonna happen in the US.
Naturally, I’m pleased that your review endorses my clarity of expression.
My question about how much trouble it is would depend, though, on whether Trinopus has changed his opinion.
I viewed this as similar to the tests James Randi would propose to deunk various claims of supernatural powers: he would get the claimant to agree, in advance, with the test protocol, and thus inoculate himself from any post-hoc claims that the test wasn’t fair.
So I’m very pleased that both you and Max spoke up and your views, but unless that swayed Trinopus, I’d rather hear what test (if any) he’d accept as good evidence he was mistaken.
Right. The US can’t do something others have done successfully. A nation of retards or some other explanation?
We can’t figure out how to use the metric system. What do you think?
No. The very same party that is trying to institute the voter ID laws would filibuster a national ID card. It’s not 50/50 here. Because of the Senate, something like 30% of the population can stop something the other 70% want.
True dat. The advantages of a national id card are arguable but worthy of serious consideration. For me, it still gives me the galloping Orwells. But my reaction is mild in comparison to some of our fringier citizens, who would lose their shit.
Funny. Used to be, you’d expect it to be us in the DFH community/hive mind. Now its the guys way over on the other end. OK, maybe “funny” isn’t quite the word.
I’m not sure I agree. Have there been some public statements from Republicans against a national ID card? I think the opposition would be civil liberty type folks on the left.
For example:
Firstly, I don’t regard myself as an example of much of anything, let alone “civil liberty type” of “lefty”. Not quite sure what that means.
What I mean by the phrase is an emotional, even atavistic repulsion for the idea of a national id. I am not pretending I’m all logic and gears, I have no ambition to be an adding machine. The fact of the matter is, the very thought gives me the dreads and the willies.
But, analyzed apart from that, there is no good reason…necessarily! Such technology mindfully managed by persons of good will need not be a threat, it is not inherently evil. It would require transparency, scrutiny, and the aforementioned persons of good will. But it could be done in such a way as to be a positive boon.
So could voter id, done the right way. An outreach program, couped perhaps with a voter registration drive, the “once and for all” id (so far as the state is concerned). Add sweeteners. The confirmed id will be acceptable evidence that the id’d person is a citizen. Put crudely, if you have one of these id’s and you get hassled by La Migra in front of Home Depot, you walk. They tip their hat and call you “Sir” and thats the end of that.
But they didn’t do it right, didn’t try to do it right. Didn’t do anything that reveals any intent other than the obvious, in fact, bent over backwards to make it worse. Now, one may say that intention is irrelevant, that ill intentions do not necessarily impact the consequences, and that one ought not dismiss beneficial results simply because the intentions were malign.
True enough. Or not, who cares? The point is that intention, and what that intention reveals about character. Who these people are, what mischief they are up to, whether or not they are to be trusted.
And, they are not.
I’d support national ID in the abstract if polled in a separate thread (though from a practical standpoint it shouldn’t happen now with a major party so intent on getting illicit advantages). I’ve never understood the American aversion to such a convenience, especially since “Big Brother” is already looking at us with various other databases. Millions of young modern Americans have exposed their details on Facebook, so I’d guess national ID would have much less opposition these days.
Strong concern for the freedom of anonymity and privacy exists at both ends of the political spectrum. I have such concerns too, but the privacy toothpaste is already out of the tube.
In the case of Counsellor Bricker, he feels no conflict between liberty and efficiency, because neither matters to him. If it were the Democrats proposing nation ID, he’d write 1000 posts in opposition. Compare him with a criminal defendant’s attorney who needs to be pro-sodomy one day, pro-burglary the next. Here’s a study with experimental confirmation that people like Bricker are purely partisan: switch the (D) and (R) labels, and he’ll switch his position.
Of course. You wouldn’t still be arguing such drivel if you agreed.
Of course they are. But your position depends that they are not. I throw a switch and fewer people end up voting for one party, of course throwing that switch is weighable against the number of people who commit in-person voter fraud.
I know.
Of course you are. You made a broad claim and now you want to backpeddle when you find out it isn’t correct.
Bullshit. You just had the stupid idea that it must be easy to get an ID, so everyone who doesn’t is lazy. And you were so confident in that, that you made a stupid pronouncement.
Yes. And if I passed a law requiring that all GOP polling sites were on the third floor or above in buildings without elevators, that would also discourage voting. I’d be against that too.
But not you, dear Bricker. You think that putting up a day or three at the DMV as a tax to vote is the bee’s knees, as long as it mostly effects Democrats. When you factor in that the activity solves no real problem, we are left with nothing but a blatant power grab, and you in your cheerleader costume waving pom-poms.
Of course you don’t. It’s not like this discourages people you give a shit about from voting.
You misunderstand. It’s not me. I’m trying to let you know that other people don’t have your level of intelligence, education, mobility or leisure. Some people will be working two jobs, and voting, if it entails a day at the DMV will just not be a priority.
Some people will not be able to figure out how to get the documents they need. Or will have some roadblock to getting them.
Or a million other things. The one thing those people and you have in common, is that they deserve a say in how their country is run.
No, you have the problem where if it’s a law you agree with, you assert that the argument is over.
I don’t know if the laws are constitutional, that’s up to five puckering assholes in black robes. I do know that the laws, as written, are designed to keep demographics from voting that are typically against those that pass the law. And that’s such a betrayal of American ideals, that it deserves scorn. Not your disingenuous batting of eyelashes and coy, “but it’s legal” mewling.
They may be legal, but purposely suppressing the vote of people you disagree with is odious, and you should be ashamed of glad-handing it. But you don’t really have shame, do you? As long as you can sit back and chuckle while people less fortunate than you get fucked, all is right with the world. After all, God gave you all of this, right?
I’m not insinuating that the laws are evil. I’m saying it explicitly. And as for undemocratic, I’d say that making it harder for voters who disagree with you to vote, under the guise of solving a virtually non-existent problem, is pretty undemocratic. YMMV.
[Quote=Lobohan]
YMMV.
[/quote]
Mendacity? Misanthropy? Malevolence? Malignance? Moral turpitude?
I would be completely in favor of such a program.
I absolutely deny that.
And I defy you to point to a single example of any policy, any program, any ANYTHING, in which that’s true. I have posted here for over fourteen years, through both Democratic and Republican control of both the White House and each house of Congress. I can point to plenty of examples from people here who have switched positions based on who benefits: filibusters, for example. But I have NEVER done that. I always argue from principle, never from party affiliation. Show me even one example to the contrary.
I don’t deny that many on the right do that – “states rights” are a great thing until the issue is medical marijuana or assisted suicide. But so does the left.
Not me. That’s an absolute lie, and the best evidence you’ve got for it is a study of “people like Bricker?” Bullshit. Fourteen years plus. Show me one position where I did this. One.
By the way: that study seems to say that what it claims is true for both liberals and conservatives: BOTH supported their party’s supposed program no matter which one it was.
But I say again: that has never been me. I generally support conservative causes because I generally believe in conservative principles. But I can point to plenty of times I have supported the D candidate’s position over the R.
Can you point to any situations where you can say you supported the R candidate’s position over the D’s?
Lobohan, you said: “Also, do you think that the people who can’t find five or so hours and a weekday off to stand at the DMV don’t deserve to vote?”
I replied: “In two years? And why a weekday? What state’s ID can only be issued during weekdays? So I reject the premise: no state requires such a thing.”
Such a thing refers to a state ID that is required for voting, not simply a state ID.
Your response:
No. I quoted the exact post in which you said what you said. It’s right here in this thread. Here you are:
And here I am:
Actual quoted links. How much more clear can it be?you asked about people who don’t deserve to vote because they can’t get ID. I said no state requires that of people – stars which require photo ID to vote are states which don’t limit their issuance to weekdays.
It’s right there. Linked and cited.
I love how you guys just throw accusations out there, then abandon them without ever admitting error. Still waiting for Trinopus to comment on an acceptable metric for my poorly written posts that show such a poor command of the language. He’s just going to ignore that now. Pushing the issue and someone might reluctantly admit that he was being weasely but that no one has any responsibility to correct it.
So don’t worry – everyone sees you’re in error, but the most you’ll actually get is a tepid hand wave of condemnation.
How could you possibly know that this was true? How can you know how you would actually react if this EXACT situation were happening with parties reversed?
It’s one thing to say that you make an honest and good-faith attempt to judge situations in a party-neutral fashion, it’s another thing entirely, and I’d say fairly arrogant, to claim that you ALWAYS succeed perfectly in that attempt.
It’s easy to say “I opposed misuse of public funds. So when a politician misuses public funds, I oppose them, be they R or D”. And I can believe that you do generally act like this. But we don’t have 90 page debates about whether or not it’s bad to misuse public funds. We have 90 page debates about complicated and subtle situations in which there isn’t much hard data and there are many competing issues struggling against each other. I defy ANYONE who is an actual human being to be certain that their opinions of such situations, and how they debate them on the SDMB, is 100% non-partisan… in fact, I’d go so far as to say that that’s not really a possible goal, nor even necessarily a goal worth striving for.
I supported the GOP with the Clean Air Act, and its 1990 Amendments. (Of course these also received Democratic support.) I agree with some of their education reforms in principle (though realize their purposes include reducing funding for poorer districts, promoting private schools, and forcing anti-science agendas on public schools). I’d be happy to see Roe-v-Wade overturned and abortions rights left up to states individually.
I realize that’s not much, but on so many issues it’s really as simple as ‘Democrats rational; GOP loony or duplicitous’. :eek: Listing issues where you, Bricker, take the Democrat side is pointless – it just shows that sometime you take the rational position. Instead indicate your support of the GOP positions on these topics:
Health care: Repeal ACA; no plans for replacement.
Veteran’s Administration: Despite that this provides good healthcare for many Americans less expensively than the private sector, let’s reduce funding and conduct witch hunts.
Regulations: Funding for regulatory bodies has been continually reduced over three decades, and roadblocks placed in their way. As they are increasingly unable to do their jobs, blame them, place more roadblocks, and reduce their funding even more.
Budgeting: Do pointless shenanigans to reduce sovereign credit rating, in order to help Americans hate their government.
Foreign affairs: Start stupid wars, deflecting attention from more important concerns. Use juvenile idealogues to mismanage the wars.
Social security: Privatisation is a sham in many ways. Start a new thread if you don’t understand why. Brainwash the American people into thinking SocSec is bankrupt.
Voting integrity: Lie about Acorn, etc. Use every shenanigan to disenfranchise likely-Democratic voters.
Campaign finance: Increasingly move power from people and labor unions to corporations and the super-rich.
Deficits: Cut taxes to emasculate and starve “the beast”, all the while lying and claiming “fiscal conservatism.” Use what federal spending remains to hire expensive contractors allied with GOP.
Minimum wage: Each of the Koch brothers earns in one hour what a minimum wage earner makes over 70 years, yet a high priority for the Koch brothers is to eliminate even that low minimum wage.
Other issues: Rant about #Benghazi.
How many of these GOP programs do you support, Bricker? What other wonderful GOP ideas do you think are worthy of consideration?
Can’t this thread be about election manipulation and not Bricker?
Well, so far as I can discern, I am an actual human being.
And so far as I can discern, I always approach an analysis of any policy standard from principles.
So that means that even if, unknown to me, there is some subtle variation in how I might approach some pair of complicated and subtle situations, it’s so complicated and subtle that it is hidden to my best, most searching self-appraisal. That jeans, in turn, that I am very confident that no posts of mine here would reveal anything blatant enough to justify the confident conclusion septimus posted.
Interestingly, though, you ask me how I could possibly know this – when I at the least have 14+ years of posts that at least make a prima facie case for the proposition – and fail to ask septimus how he could possibly know this about me! when his evidence was “a study about people like Bricker.”
Of the two of us, I supported my case with thousands of examples. And yet it’s me that you ask for further rigor. Why?
That’s good evidence – although I don’t recall seeing you say either of those things before. Not doubting you, but just curious – did either of these come up here on the boards before?
Isn’t the question currently in play, “Would I support contrary position if it were championed by the contrary party?”
Health care: Repeal ACA; no plans for replacement.
Agree, and would if the Republicans had passed the ACA.
Veteran’s Administration: Despite that this provides good healthcare for many Americans less expensively than the private sector, let’s reduce funding and conduct witch hunts.
Um… In general, I support funding the VA and oppose witch hunts, and I would hold that position no matter which party was offering it. In the current thread on the VA, I post in support of the President and in derogation of the idea that this represents some failure on his part.
Regulations: Funding for regulatory bodies has been continually reduced over three decades, and roadblocks placed in their way. As they are increasingly unable to do their jobs, blame them, place more roadblocks, and reduce their funding even more.
This is too broad a category to answer. But no regulatory funding, for me, would depend on what party was pushing it or what party was appointing the regulatory officials.
Budgeting: Do pointless shenanigans to reduce sovereign credit rating, in order to help Americans hate their government.
This is simply poisoning the well. I oppose “pointless shenanigans” regardless of which party offers them. I opposed the Republicans’ debt ceiling standoff: my position was that it is possible to make a principled stand at budget time, refusing to pass a deficit-laden budget…but not to refuse to pay obligations that the passed budget would incur. However, I also said there was no Constitutional bar to doing that: it was just stupid.
Foreign affairs: Start stupid wars, deflecting attention from more important concerns. Use juvenile idealogues to mismanage the wars.
sigh I oppose the starting of stupid wars! no matter which party does so. I oppose using juvenile ideologies to mismanage wars, no matter which party does so.
Social security: Privatisation is a sham in many ways. Start a new thread if you don’t understand why. Brainwash the American people into thinking SocSec is bankrupt.
I don’t agree that privatization is a sham. I would support privatization no matter which party proposed it.
Voting integrity: Lie about Acorn, etc. Use every shenanigan to disenfranchise likely-Democratic voters.
I don’t support lying about ACORN.
Campaign finance: Increasingly move power from people and labor unions to corporations and the super-rich.
This has degenerated from “Would you support the same programs if done by your party?” And turned into “Do you support the Democratic Party ideals?”
Answer: mostly, no.
Do you have any examples to support that claim you made about me placing my support based on party instead of idea?