To be fair (since I like being fair when possible), I said “unable to vote”. Since voting only happens at most (generally) once a year for Americans, with some only voting every two years and many only voting every four years (and of course, many never voting at all), what I should have said “unable to vote or get the legislated-necessary ID to vote”, since leaving off the extra phrase gave Bricker pouncing space.
On that, I admit my error. I guess it should have occurred to me at the time, but it seemed sufficiently obvious that being unable to get the ID (or, in anticipation of another nitpick, being required to invest a burdensome and considerable amount of time and/or money in the process) implied being unable to (eventually) vote.
In any case, Bricker is on record as considering the possibility. I’m just wonder if he (or anyone) knows of a pro-ID politician who has done the same, especially since as Bricker’s pointed out, it’s only the opinions of legislators that really matters.
Perhaps it is simply a misunderstanding on our parts. I think that most of us assume that refusing or evading a pointed question is symptomatic of a weakness in an argument, that the advocate evades the question like a matador evades the bull’s horns and for similar reasons.
But perhaps this is not so, perhaps there is a very sound reason for this “special snowflake” exemption. I freely confess that this reason eludes me, but then I am a boor of little brain, and subtlety escapes my grasp. Perhaps you will deign to share this with us. Is it the “SDSAB” under your username, does that confer some status as a referee, empowered to decide which questions must be answered by whom, and the order of precedence? At first glance, it seems rather unfair, but there might be a very, very good reason. As I said, I cannot understand why it might be, but that might simply be a failure of imagination on my part.
Are you ennobled, the Count of Monte Bank, the Duke of URL? Is it recognition of some impairment, a special “booster chair” to compensate, to give your spastic and retarded arguments an equal footing? Is it equivalence, an effort to give a conservative argument equal standing with a soundly reasoned one? Perhaps it only seems an unfair advantage, but it is really the SDMB equivalent of a participation ribbon, an “attaboy!” compensation to bolster your confidence so that you can fairly compete?
Liberal hypocrisy, perhaps, and the resultant moral turpitude?
If you might just take a moment to explain the reasoning behind your special status, your many, many fans will surely be pleased and gratified. And the rest of us will at least have a better understanding of our failure to meet the exacting standards required of us.
I don’t understand why this is so hard for some to follow. Bricker said that if there were a material number of people unable to vote as a result of these types of laws, he would be fully supportive of installing the resources to remove those barriers. “Oh, yeah? Then show me one GOP politician currently supporting such measures” is a non sequitur. It’s not evasiveness, it’s logic, that leads to the counter, “Um, show me a single person who is unable to vote.” You may think that’s unfeeling, that even if people are able to vote, the burdens are still undue burdens for some, and politicians of good conscience should be removing those “pains.” You’re entitled to that opinion. But Bricker doesn’t appear to share it.
If one would like politicians to be supportive of such measures as a proactive effort, in the absence of any current evidence that it’s required, great. That wasn’t Bricker’s position. The fact that GOP politicians may not be currently advocates for such actions–or that Bricker can’t point to anyone (or needn’t, in answer to what he asserted)–is not a gotcha or evasiveness or whatever. Not relative to what Bricker said.
As well, it evades the central point, which is that these laws were designed to hassle and impede, to make it difficult. Arguing that we must prove that they actually forbid voting is changing the central premise of our compliant.
Its as if we were discussing the rules for a marathon race, with some arbitrary authority insisting the a certain subset of runners must wear a backpack with a bowling ball inside. We object, it is unfair, unethical to burden some of the runners in such a fashion.
An argument that insists that we must prove that those runners cannot run *at all *evades the point.
That’s a fairly impressive display of verbal gymnastics, but I have no idea what point you think you’re making. Among the many sins Bricker is guilty of (which certainly number among them the fact that he has completely failed to respond to my last two posts in this thread) I don’t see any that involve attempting to involve special status or privilege for himself. Could you spell out a bit more precisely what you are saying here?
Heck, we’ve got public statements that the goal is to tip elections. Call me crazy to ask after statements to the effect of “we won’t let that happen because it’s obviously immoral and counter-democratic.”
So for, say 15000 voters, you are confident every single one will be okay? If even ONE gets caught up, then by your own liberal estimate of the number of fake voters, you have failed.
Bricker claims that he can refuse to answer a question that he does not want to answer on the grounds that someone has failed to answer a question of his. Or that a question about the ethical vacuum of Republicans can be refused because the questioner has not proved to his satisfaction that he is sufficiently outraged by some Democrat action (i.e… the infamous Massachusetts Massacre).
I thought the quoted passage from him made that clear.
Really? Do you, personally, also assume that refusing or evading a pointed question is symptomatic of a weakness in an argument? And if so: were you wrong in what you implied about the Washington Times? That’s a pointed question.
And if you finally answer clearly and concisely that yes, you were wrong – can you explain the existence of your earlier answers that were in fact characteristic of “refusing or evading?”
No, that’s not my central point. Maybe it’s yours. But:
[Quote=Bryan Ekers]
Umm… “yes?”
[/quote]
It wasn’t the point I was responding to.
It must be frustrating to read me continuing to stick to the argument I was making rather than allow myself to be drawn in to defending the argument you wish I were making, huh?
So let’s be clear: “Arguing that we must prove that they actually forbid voting is changing the central premise of our compliant,” is untrue. He said “unable;” I asked again for emphasis, and he replied in the affirmative.
Except, of course, that the reliability of the Washington Times is in no wise relevant to the argument about voter id laws and their impact on the electorate.
Besides which, even if you did thoroughly demonstrate hypocrisy on my part, what about the others here who think you are full of beans? Oh, right, forgot: they failed to denounce, renounce, and condemn, thus proving that your argument is airtight and the only reason they fail to grovel at your triumphant feet is liberal hypocrisy.
Nonetheless, I do not retreat an inch from my opinion that the *Washington Times *is a crapulous rag unworthy to provide a target for a puppy to pee upon. They got one right? Whoopity-fucka-doo.
Interesting that you ask that. Since upthread I asked you, “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?”
And your evasively answered that, “Nuh-Uh, they can go on the weekends!” Was that useless tangent meant to evade the question?
It’s genuinely interesting how utterly without self-perception you are. Which, I suppose, is a trait most arrogant pricks share.
Extra points for answering this question, “Do you think that someone who can’t find five hours or so out of their schedule to stand at the DMV doesn’t deserve to vote?”
I imagine you’ll huff and say, “In two years? Of course! Lazy Dems! [moist farting noise]”
So is there a practical difference between being unable to vote and being unable to get the necessary identification to vote? A I recall there are (or were) some provisions about being able to fill out a sworn statement or have someone vouch for you. Are those preserved in all or most of the proposed Voter ID laws?