I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Trinopus]

@Bricker

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?

Here’s a reference to the matter.

Here is another article, where the equal protection aspect of voter ID laws is referenced.

This may not be exactly what you are demanding, in which case the answer would be, “I don’t know.” But these address the matter in question, and support my viewpoint. This, at very least, serves to rebut your shit-headed dildo-licking jackboot asshole notion that I, myself, as an individual, am trying to interpret the law or that I want to be king.

The fallacy of the excluded middle is one you rely too heavily upon.

[Trinopus]

@elucidator

As much as the man annoys me, I think references to family is hitting below the belt.

Agreed. The slur against his daughter (whether or not he even has one is immaterial) bothered me. We’re liberals; we don’t do “collateral damage.”

[Trinopus]

@Bricker

Your fellow posters do not share your view:

Some of them don’t, and some of them do.

Your generalization from one instance to an unmodified set-name, which can imply the entire set, is fallacious.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

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.

I realized my analogy was missing something crucial… a “reason” for the date change. So let’s suppose that for some reason involving how expensive it is to rent voting machines and compensate poll workers and so forth, people have noticed that the town’s elections would be a moderate amount cheaper if the date were switched. So there has been some bipartisan rumbling for a while that changing the date of the election would be a good thing to do, although it’s a pretty minor savings.

So, the Republican-dominated city council suddenly says “hey, we can save money by changing the date of the yearly election, so it will now be March 17”. March 17, however, is a date that has a serious scheduling conflict for people over in the West side of town, and the West side of town is heavily democratic.

I’m happy to assume for this hypothetical that this change of date is LEGAL, because it’s just a hypothetical town and maybe its election bylaws are written poorly. And we seem to be in agreement that it’s “scuzzy”. So, and here’s the million dollar question (at least as far as I’m concerned), if this happened, and you were a Republican living over in the East side of that town, and you were honestly concerned about saving money, but you also realized that the motivation for that particular change was clearly partly or wholly a desire for electoral advantage; and this hypothetical happened, and there was a local message board for discussing town issues, and some West-side-living-Democrats on that message board started a thread entitled “I pit the scheduling-conflict-creating GOP vote-suppressors”, and in that thread they were decrying this maneuver and claiming it was scuzzy and antidemocratic, and a few of them were saying it was illegal, and some of them were using language about how “they can’t do that” which might be claiming it was illegal but might be just blowing off steam; and you decided to post in that thread and express both your opinion and your legal expertise, what would you say? Would it be closer to “I decry my party’s scuzziness, but I believe that this act is technically legal for (reasons), and I do support the putative goal of saving money, but in this case I just can’t stand being represented by people who would abuse the Democratic system so badly” or “hey, there’s a reason for it, and it passed legally, so you are all a bunch of whiney losers, I’ll be doing a happy dance come election time”?

And does your answer change depending on what the “scheduling conflict” on March 17 is? It could be:
-Yom Kippur
-Yearly Voodoo goat-slaughter day
-The big West-Side-High full-day homecoming picnic parade and game
-A day when, statistically, there is FAR more likely to be gridlock-due-to-snow on the West Side than on the East Side

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

Certainly I do.

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.

Really? I was led to believe the relevance of an IF/THEN statement rested entirely on the Boolean truth of the IF statement, and the law is not moved by the emotional weight of the individual statements. Had I realized you didn’t consider my example in the dispassionate way the law would, I might have realized it was potentially offensive. Goodness me, am I embarrassed. Please forgive me.

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

Some of them don’t, and some of them do.

Your generalization from one instance to an unmodified set-name, which can imply the entire set, is fallacious.

If I had failed to identify the poster in question, sure. But my statement was followed by a clear quoted statement showing which fellow poster was at fault.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

If I had failed to identify the poster in question, sure. But my statement was followed by a clear quoted statement showing which fellow poster was at fault.

But you used the plural, indicating you were talking about more than one poster. And you used in such a way that, as Trinopus noted, could easily be read as meaning “all those who are on your side of this argument”.

[Bricker]

@Fear_Itself

Really? I was led to believe the relevance of an IF/THEN statement rested entirely on the Boolean truth of the IF statement, and the law is not moved by the emotional weight of the individual statements. Had I realized you didn’t consider my example in the dispassionate way the law would, I might have realized it was potentially offensive. Goodness me, am I embarrassed. Please forgive me.

This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation.

I emphasized the existence of my IF..THEN construct in order to show that my willingness to name politicians was conditional on the truth of the Boolean condition.

I did not say, imply, suggest, or indicate that no possible import could be assigned to the predicate conditional statement.

Nor do I believe any person could read my IF..THEN statement, then read yours, and conclude anything benign about your intent or motive.

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

But you used the plural, indicating you were talking about more than one poster. And you used in such a way that, as Trinopus noted, could easily be read as meaning “all those who are on your side of this argument”.

True, and if apologize for that imprecision. It would have been far better to say, “At least two of your fellow posters do not share this opinion.”

The second poster who deserves mention:

@BrainGlutton

@Fear_Itself

I am not a programmer, so I welcome the chance to learn a skill. Let me try:

“IF **Bricker’s **daughter is a prostitute, THEN her cunt smells like spoiled mackerel.”

Do I get a gold star?

Not until you fish it out with your tongue.

You take issue with my post, because it could possibly have been taken as painting with too broad a brush, and I agree and correct it: At least two of your fellow posters do not share this opinion.

Meanwhile, the two posters that actually said something unambiguously vile are not rebuked by you? You have any comment about the honesty of Fear Itself’s defense?

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

Some of them don’t, and some of them do.

Your generalization from one instance to an unmodified set-name, which can imply the entire set, is fallacious.

Agreed. My mistake. As noted in my previous post, I should have said, “At least two of your fellow posters…”

My bad.

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

Here’s a reference to the matter.

Here is another article, where the equal protection aspect of voter ID laws is referenced.

This may not be exactly what you are demanding, in which case the answer would be, “I don’t know.” But these address the matter in question, and support my viewpoint. This, at very least, serves to rebut your shit-headed dildo-licking jackboot asshole notion that I, myself, as an individual, am trying to interpret the law or that I want to be king.

The fallacy of the excluded middle is one you rely too heavily upon.

Your first link makes no reference to the Equal Protection Clause, and involves a judge deciding the issue on the Wisconsin State Constitution.

Your second link says:

In July 2006, Georgia’s earlier attempt to implement photo identification cards for voters was challenged by the ACLU and other voting rights advocates, who filed a motion in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction, arguing that the bill authorizing the cards violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that it constituted a poll tax in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. Unlike the original law, SB 84 would have provided free voter ID cards. However, the statute was challenged for imposing burdens on Georgia citizens without increasing protections against voter fraud.

Unfortunately for your claim, the ACLU did not win. So no judge decided that the Equal Protection Clause applied.

As a reminder, here is what you said:

@Trinopus

And whether the difficulty is assigned to one class of people more than to another, which violates equal protection requirements.

@Bricker

Do you mean the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution?

Or your own personal notions of equal protection?

@Trinopus

The Constitution matters.

My opinion…and yours…don’t.

Why do you even ask this kind of question? Are you seriously this mentally ill?

@Bricker

Would you say the US Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution means?

Because they don’t agree with you. They say that even if a somewhat heavier burden is placed on a limited number of persons, even persons of only one class, as long as the burden is not excessive, it is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause.

So…were you talking about your opinion of what the Equal Protection Clause should mean in your world, or were you trying to discuss what it actually means as laid out by the Supreme Court?

I ask because what you said is wrong as a matter of law, so I though perhaps you were just announcing what the clause means in Trinopus Pretend Land.

@Trinopus

Voter ID laws have been struck down in Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. That was what I was referring to.

Lesser Federal Courts also get to decide what the Constitution says.

@Bricker

What lesser federal court agrees with you?

The Texas law was overturned bya federal court, yes, but the Supreme Court overruled that lesser court by deciding Shelby County.

So again I ask, Trinopus, what Equal Protection jurisprudence you’re talking about.

[elucidator]

At least your grievance is more valid than your argument. An improvement. Sorta kinda.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

You take issue with my post, because it could possibly have been taken as painting with too broad a brush, and I agree and correct it: At least two of your fellow posters do not share this opinion.

I didn’t take issue with your post. I was explaining Trinopus’ post, which you didn’t seem to understand based on your response.

Meanwhile, the two posters that actually said something unambiguously vile are not rebuked by you? You have any comment about the honesty of Fear Itself’s defense?

There’s a lot of vile stuff posted here that doesn’t get rebuked. If it really matters to you, I agree with what elucidator said.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

I realized my analogy was missing something crucial… a “reason” for the date change. So let’s suppose that for some reason involving how expensive it is to rent voting machines and compensate poll workers and so forth, people have noticed that the town’s elections would be a moderate amount cheaper if the date were switched. So there has been some bipartisan rumbling for a while that changing the date of the election would be a good thing to do, although it’s a pretty minor savings.

So, the Republican-dominated city council suddenly says “hey, we can save money by changing the date of the yearly election, so it will now be March 17”. March 17, however, is a date that has a serious scheduling conflict for people over in the West side of town, and the West side of town is heavily democratic.

I’m happy to assume for this hypothetical that this change of date is LEGAL, because it’s just a hypothetical town and maybe its election bylaws are written poorly. And we seem to be in agreement that it’s “scuzzy”. So, and here’s the million dollar question (at least as far as I’m concerned), if this happened, and you were a Republican living over in the East side of that town, and you were honestly concerned about saving money, but you also realized that the motivation for that particular change was clearly partly or wholly a desire for electoral advantage; and this hypothetical happened, and there was a local message board for discussing town issues, and some West-side-living-Democrats on that message board started a thread entitled “I pit the scheduling-conflict-creating GOP vote-suppressors”, and in that thread they were decrying this maneuver and claiming it was scuzzy and antidemocratic, and a few of them were saying it was illegal, and some of them were using language about how “they can’t do that” which might be claiming it was illegal but might be just blowing off steam; and you decided to post in that thread and express both your opinion and your legal expertise, what would you say? Would it be closer to “I decry my party’s scuzziness, but I believe that this act is technically legal for (reasons), and I do support the putative goal of saving money, but in this case I just can’t stand being represented by people who would abuse the Democratic system so badly” or “hey, there’s a reason for it, and it passed legally, so you are all a bunch of whiney losers, I’ll be doing a happy dance come election time”?

And does your answer change depending on what the “scheduling conflict” on March 17 is? It could be:
-Yom Kippur
-Yearly Voodoo goat-slaughter day
-The big West-Side-High full-day homecoming picnic parade and game
-A day when, statistically, there is FAR more likely to be gridlock-due-to-snow on the West Side than on the East Side

Max, this generally asks me why wouldn’t I act much nicer than the people around me. Why, it asks, wouldn’t I respond with calm and even-handed analysis even though I am surrounded by people that are “blowing off steam.” John Mace, above, takes me to task for imprecisely phrasing a post that might have been interpreted to apply to a larger set than the two posters it did target. But the two posters who actually and unambiguously post vile sentiments get no attention at all.

So to answer your actual question… I guess my response would be based on the vitriol and savage emotion to which I was responding. The more logic-free content, the more specious claims made in the process of “blowing off steam,” the more poor argument uncontradicted by others, all of whom supposedly share some interest in valid argument…the more of that that’s present, the more likely my response is closer to (2) than to (1).

But the reason for the scheduling change would also influence my reaction. The more that reason contained a valid, neutral justification, the more I’d be equananimous about the change, even if there were also crappy motives in play.

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

I didn’t take issue with your post. I was explaining Trinopus’ post, which you didn’t seem to understand based on your response.

There’s a lot of vile stuff posted here that doesn’t get rebuked. If it really matters to you, I agree with what elucidator said.

It really does matter to me. Thank you.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

You would know that, if you understood what my theory was.

I do.

I have explained it. You have ignored the explanation.

Your explanation is critically flawed, and I won’t ignore that.

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.

Shall I enlighten you as to why? Let’s say I write up a 500 word essay called “The issue according to Bricker, according to Bryan” and even if I make a Herculean effort to summarize what you have expressed in this thread in the most neutral possible terms, you’ll always be able to find trivial nitpicks. Anyone can for any explanation with a smidgen of imagination and a boatload of pedantry. And then for the next ten posts after that, our chat becomes about the nitpicks and nothing else. And if I dignifiy the nitpicks by rewriting my mini-essay, you’ll just say “Aha! So you admit you didn’t understand my explanation (and still don’t because I just found another nitpick).”

Here’s my one-sentence summary of your view, which I think is about half a sentence more than it deserves:

“Voter confidence drops after close elections if voter fraud is possible.”

If you say that’s wrong without clarifying, I’ll just declare victory, as I should have done after our earlier exchange:

You: I bet there are 200 fake votes out of 3 million cast.
Me: I’ll take that bet.
You: No fair!

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.

Right?

I already admit I understand you perfectly. I’ve been admitting it for quite some time.

[elucidator]

…It really does matter to me. Thank you.

Well, ain’t that the shit! You work and you slave to get some nod of recognition from the foremost paragon of moral rectitude and rhetorical excellence, only to see John Mace get thanked for agreeing with me! Shit, its like winning MVP for an assist!

Oh, bitter Fate, how cruelly you mock me!

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Well, ain’t that the shit! You work and you slave to get some nod of recognition from the foremost paragon of moral rectitude and rhetorical excellence, only to see John Mace get thanked for agreeing with me! Shit, its like winning MVP for an assist!

Oh, bitter Fate, how cruelly you mock me!

Very true, and I apologize for failing. Your rebuke came without prompting and I ignored it, and it meant a great deal to me. I should have said so, and I do now, twice over. That was a very decent thing to do, and I thank you. I’m sorry my ire directed elsewhere caused me to gloss over what you said without any reply.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

“Voter confidence drops after close elections if voter fraud is possible.”

Yes, that’s fair. As fair as you can get in one sentence, anyway, but there is no serious flaw there.

Ok. Thank you.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, there’s no serious flaw in the summary but the premise has at least three.

-“Voter confidence” is not defined in any meaningful way.
-In a close election, the scrutiny has always been on the people counting the votes, not those who made them. The idea of “voter fraud” affecting the undefined “voter confidence” is a new one, just of the last few elections. Arbitrary determinations about how the votes should be counted are several orders of magnitude more significant than any plausible impact of voter fraud.
-There’s no consideration of what to do about an election that may have had some voter fraud. If the margin is five votes and there are ten known cases of voter fraud, is there a do-over? What if the certified winner has been in office for a year or more when the fraudsters are convicted? Recall? Nullify any legislation that winner may have voted for or sponsored?

And that’s well before exploring how to combat voter fraud and the unintended consequences thereof (which may turn out to not be all that unintended after all).