Fair enough; I wouldn’t have thought of that, and am glad you did.
(See? This is our side policing itself and exposing our own errors.)
Hell, this is the Pit. He can say “Fuck you all, I’m right” and live up to the standards of debate that prevail here. But if he’s going to be at all persuasive, he needs…to be a bit persuasive!
As a matter of federal law, the US Supreme Court has found Voter ID legal. I have cited the case so often that elucidator starts pulling his hair out when I mention it: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). Again, that’s the United States Supreme Court.
Some state courts have rejected some state attempts. Others have approved other state attempts, based on specific provisions in those individual state constitutions. For example, in Arkansas, a circuit court ruled that the state’s law Voter ID conflicted with the Arkansas Constitution. (See Pulaski County Election Board v. Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners, Case 60CV-14-1019, Pulaski Cir. Ct. 6th Div., 2014).
However, the Arkansas Supreme Court overruled the Arkansas Circuit Court in that case: Pulaski County Election Board v. Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners, 2014 Ark 236 (Ark 2014), and found that the Circuit Court had overstepped it’s authority.
So while it’s true that in Arkansas a court has ruled Voter ID unconstitutional, the highest court in the state overruled that lower court’s ruling.
In other states, different frameworks exist. I like New Hampshire’s idea, although it’s probably not workable in larger states: New Hampshire requires a photo ID to vote, but if the voter does not have a photo ID, he or she can execute an affidavit right at the polls: swear under penalty of perjury as to his or her identity in writing, and cast a regular ballot. The New Hampshire Attorney General’s office then verifies, after the election, the identity of each voter who used the affidavit option.
What states were you thinking of, Trinopus?
No.
Nor did I ever make such a claim.
This is a long thread. I did say that. I later clarified that.
Do you mean the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Or your own personal notions of equal protection?
And this is another example of the difficulty of me against the horde. I have pointed out ill-considered and hyperbolic statements made by several of my opponents here, and called for condemnation of them. “Meh.” “Not my responsibility.” “I am here to have fun.”
My hyperbolic and ill-considered statements are dredged back up, a year after I subsequently disavowed them, and averted to be my true feelings.
To what? Liberals need the votes of violent felons?
Incidentally, the corrupt political structures of the south of the 1950s that routinely put barriers-to-voting in the ways of blacks were (without exception I’m aware of) made up of Democrats, in case it comes up that the past is being forgotten or romanticized.
Do not bat your eyes and claim that you have merely been arguing the legality of the matter, and then get butthurt when people observe that you are lying.
And quit being such a huge pussy about everything. Have you no sense of shame?
Bullshit. You wrote
Do you need a link to Webster’s entry for “depend on” or can you do that all by yourelf?
And … you didn’t answer the other question.
Ah, that word! “Clarification”! A very useful term, especially when applied to annihilate and erase a statement that has become an embarrassment. Alas, we are not in a position to analyze this clarification. Somewhere, about a year later, was it?
But we do have** Bricker**'s self-admitted position as the very paragon of scrupulously correct behavior! That, coupled with his spotless reputation for candor and honest dealing, ought to be enough to satisfy even the most suspicious mind. Never happened! Well, it sorta kinda happened, but then was clarified. At some later, unspecified date in one context or another. So, poof! Gone!
Well, that certainly settles that!
Yes. But I didn’t mean that you depend upon the felon vote TO WIN.
Liberals regard the felon vote as reliably Democratic.
See the difference?
Liberals depend upon the African American vote – whether they win or lose an election, liberals count on the fact that the African American vote overwhelmingly favors them.
There’s fifty of us, one of you, you’re not allowed to use weapons and we’re using lead pipes to beat the shit out of you. But quit being a pussy and complaining about it!
You stopped reading the thread? Your browser blacked out my posts?
How are you “not in a position?”
And you still haven’t made any comment about your claim that the Washington Times article was fabricated. That, too, was “…a statement that has become an embarrassment.” Which you deal with by not ever mentioning it, and your ideological allies facilitated by never mentioning either.
Oh, boo-hoo. If the “horde” is too much for you, make a short list of people to whom you will respond and ignore everyone else. You could even stop responding to ME if you wanted, though I will certainly ridicule you for it. Even more than I am already, maybe.
And we’re under no more obligation to police each other than you are to police comments by adahar or Uzi. For a guy who loves to accuse others of hypocrisy, you sure are fond of it yourself.
Your participation on a discussion board is like being beaten with lead pipes? Yes, when you say stuff like that, you look like a ginormous pussy! Go find a fainting couch or nut up. Find some kind of sense of fortitude or at least some kind of sense of shame about crying about how mean people are to you.
By the way, I scrolled through to post 2700 without finding any semblance of “clarification” regarding felons.
I did find this gem from you along the way though:
So, care to “clarify” your statement that you’ve been arguing for the legality of voter ID?
Quit being a pussy and making shit up. The “weapons” at our disposal are exactly identical to the “weapons” at yours and you are not alone in your arguments.
Though if you WERE alone, it might be that you’re a modern Galileo but it’s more likely that your position is just wrong.
So we’re counting on felons’ votes, but not to win? What other reason would there be?
No, we’re not counting on felons’ votes. Sure, there are are states where being convicted of a felony results in lifetime loss of suffrage. What this liberal objects to are systematic purges that are on the surface for the purpose of getting felons off the voting rolls, but have the side effect of disenfranchising many people who just happen to share names with the ones that are the targets of the purge. Purging names off the voter rolls is a very serious matter and needs to be conducted with safeguards to protect against the inevitable false positives. Purges that Republicans undertake lack such safeguards by design.
“Counting on:” confident that the vast majority of felons’ votes will be for you. Felons love liberals. And vice-versa. 
And your opinion on this practice?