You would know that, if you understood what my theory was.
I have explained it. You have ignored the explanation.
I have asked you to summarize what you understand my theory to be, so that I could point out where you are mistaken. But you have simply refused to do this.
It’s pretty clear to me that you don’t have any interest in doing that because it would rob you of the chance to keep lying about what I am saying. You don’t want to get pinned down admitting you understand me perfectly, because then you’d be forced to acknowledge it in future arguments.
No, it did not evade the question. As I clearly explained, no state requires any person spend five hours and a weekday in order to get ID in order to vote.
The answer is yes. A person unwilling to spend five hours once, over a two year period… that is not a burden that I would call onerous. I am comfortable in saying their unwillingness to expend that effort means they have chosen not to vote.
I don’t know about the word “deserve.” The government is not handing out rewards to those who deserve them. I have no idea. Who “deserves” to vote. That term has no place in law in this context.
Well, you asserted that no state requires you to only go on a weekday to get an ID, you later said that you meant in order to vote.
Okay, now that we’ve established that you think a five hour vote tax is acceptable. Is an ten hour vote tax? I’d just like to nail you down on particulars.
Can you tell me what particular hour of toil would push the ticker on to onerous? Also, would you support a hypothetical law that 1: made likely conservative voters spend 5 hours chasing down some paperwork in order to vote? 2: upheld voter confidence?
I suspect you’d say yes, but I think that you’re only willing to say that because the hypothetical is unlikely.
Well, people rarely get what they deserve, since we don’t live in a just universe. We should, however, try to construct a society that smooths out the bumps your Carpenter friend left on His creation.
I cannot. Any year I answered with would be a lie.
See how easy that was?
Now, you’re welcome to answer my question any way that conveys the accurate answer: what judges have ruled the federal Equal Protection Clause was implicated by any Voter ID law?
Yes, because what I asserted was in response to your statement about needing IDs to vote. What good is the QUOTE feature if you ignore what I am responding to?
Are we talking about ten hours spent standing in line, with no bathroom and people poking you with sharp sticks? Or ten hours waiting for the mailman to arrive with your replacement birth certificate?
If the law upheld a valid state interest, and was passed by the legislature, and was upheld by the courts as being not overly onerous? Yes.
Except that according to you, voter fraud’s impact on voter confidence is a valid state interest. Despite the fact that in person voter fraud, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Would protecting the public from unicorn stampedes be a valid interest? Would protecting the public from the* fear* of unicorn stampedes be a valid interest? Does a thing need to actually exist to be a valid state concern? Or are we obliged to protect the citizenry from fears based on their own ignorance?
You are fraught with concern over dreadful consequences in super-dooper ultra close elections. I present you with Minnesota’s Coleman/Franken election. Super dooper close, voter id laws you describe as too lax, and no problem. Doesn’t prove anything, according to you. Leastwise, nothing you acknowledge.
But then if Georgia has experienced no negative impact on minority voting after installing voter id restrictions, according to you that renders any argument about negative impacts on minority voting…how did you put that?..“paranoid hysteria”, I believe it was?
In one instance, the experience of a single state is ignored, or at least not regarded as crushing your case beneath the weight of fact. But in the other example, the experience of a single state, without even considering any other factors, utterly destroys your opponents argument, renders it akin to a mental illness.
Seriously? Is this how you argue in court? And that works for you?
Well, it was wrong of any voter to place stock in the efficacy of pig blood. But other than that kind of “wrong,” no.
Not illegal, but slightly scuzzy.
The more the needle moves from an ad hoc event to a regular religious observance, away from the agency of the priestess, the more weight the council should give it, and the more scuz attaches to their exploitation of it.
Can I also choose “funny?” Still not illegal, as far as I can see, although I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Very scuzzy on the part of the briber and the priestess; no change from my answer for (2) with respect to the city council.
Same answer as (3) – except now one member of the city council is also the briber, so he is tarred with the “very scuzzy” brush.
The difference us that – for whatever reasons – society is prepared to recognize Orthodox Judaism’s strictures in a way that they are not prepared to recognize the voodoo. In some measure this relates to the lack of an ad hoc nature surrounding the Jewish beliefs at issue and the lack of human agency involved in the situation.
The election resulted in a seven-week court trial in which hundreds of witnesses were called to testify. Franken was not declared the victor until June of the following year.
This was “no problem?”
I don’t discount anything. I don’t agree that Minnesota’s experience in an ultra-close election was fairly described as “no problem.”
I am suggesting that your particular IF condition was offensive, even as an IF condition – that is, the entire reference is problematic. I am fully aware that parsing the IF..THEN statement you offered results in a nullity because the IF condition is not a Boolean truth. But in order to evaluate the truth of the proposition, it had to be considered, and that activity itself was unpleasant. Moreover, as elucidator said: “I think references to family is hitting below the belt.” You can hardly deny that your IF..THEN construction references my family, can you – regardless of the fact that the conditional predicate is not met.