I ask you what mechanism you propose to resolve the disagreement. I don’t accept your judgement that the Voter ID laws are immoral; you don’t accept mine that they are not immoral.
Here is where we go off the rails. What, if anything, specifically, are you proposing?
It seems to me you – and I use “you” in its indefinite sense – are proposing some mechanism whereby the immoral law is scrapped, because it is immoral. But this is never specifically admitted. Instead, your response is to continue to inveigh against the law, the supporters of the law, and continue to announce how to law “can’t be” accepted unless your conditions are met.
So SPECIFICALLY, what are you proposing?
ETA:
Is that in fact what you’re proposing?
OK.
Well, the normal constitutional processes end in the federal sphere with the Supreme Court. They have already spoken on the issue. What else, if anything, are you proposing on that front?
Seriously, Bricker, if you ever say you’re fighting a lone battle, you’re really doing a disservice to your, well… “ilk” is so over-used on this board so I hesitate to say it.
I’m not saying Bricker shouldn’t have opinions, or shouldn’t disagree with orthodoxy. I’m saying that when you’re entering a passionate debate full of upset people and you actually want to meaningfully communicate your position and opinions rather than just getting into the umpteenth consecutive shouting match, there’s some benefit to making very clear exactly what your opinion is, and what its limits are, lest people leap to the conclusion that you are saying something more combative than what you are in fact saying.
The problem with this blanket assertion is that it fails when we see how strong the public support is for Voter ID laws. It is not I in the minority on this position: it is you. My position is consistent with a strong majority. So your claim is demonstrably false.
Of course, my responses that have been tinged with anger – and they certainly exist – have not once crafted conditionals that involve the smell of the cunt of the daughters of my opponents. So, there’s that.
Now, to your main point: this is a area for debate. Yes, of course I emphasize the areas in which my disagreement lie. It’s my forlorn belief that people should be able to advance their respective positions without recourse to these kind of vicious cycles you describe. And your request that I moderate my initial entry into the debate, when I am faced with an OP that reads:
It seems you expect the liberal side of the debate to be children, and are aghast that the conservative isn’t the grownup. Why are you directing this guidance at me, and only at me?
I trust you are not asserting that public support is the be-all and end-all. Because if you are, you are going to find yourself “clarifying” like a motherfuck.
So once the Supreme Court has spoken I (in the indefinite sense) am supposed to shut up about it? And if I don’t then I am appointing myself king?
What I propose to do is to continue to inveigh against it until enough members of the polity agree with me to overturn that law and put a legislature and executive in place that will overturn it and – eventually, through the slow process of appointments – put a majority on the Supreme Court who will overturn that decision.
Because regardless of what the political system has produced for now, I still believe that the law is immoral. It just happens to be constitutional … For now.
That’s what happens with every political issue. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.
And it’s exactly what the anti-choices do as well. So who is demanding to be king in this scenario?
I disagree. At its heart, the question is always: what do you propose to do to fix the problem? Express or implied, that question is the natural antecedent of nearly every discussion here.
You would have every right to enter a Roe v. Wade thread and ask such a question. And guess what, Max? That’s essentially what people do here in Roe v. Wade threads. Virtually every abortion thread is, at some point, trumped by some variant of “…and that’s the law.”
As well it should be.
Then what’s your proposal? How do you say we should resolve debates over how to modify election laws, if the normal process of law making and resolution is somehow invalid?
Are you suggesting that it is – unconstitutional? Undemocratic? Anarchical? – to argue that there are people holding political power who act with bad intent?
Because I believe that. I believe that the large proportion of Republicans who have supported these laws are acting with bad intent to fix the election system. And to the extent that there is any broad support for these laws or any broad lack of confidence as you describe – it is because people with bad intent have perpetrated lies and propaganda to effect such.
You might disagree with me but do you really mean to say that my attitude makes me wish for kingship?
Personally, I suggest you be more Canadian about it. Giving elected officials direct control over how the electorate is defined and qualified and delineated and exercised is a recipe for corruption and manipulation. Turn election regulation over to a nonpartisan agency with the limited mandate of making sure voters are convenienced and votes are counted accurately and districts are defined solely by population density.
Your “normal process” has given you a congress of near-lifetime incumbents and their natural inclination to want to stay that way. I think the Tea Party is a bunch of buffoons, but at least they shook things up a little by exploiting public discontent that was otherwise being gerrymandered into silence.
But I cannot help but notice that your rhetoric in support of your position does not spend much, if any, effort carefully delineating the steps you describe above. Instead, you, and others sharing your position, offer much more confusing statements that are easily read to say that you are not simply pushing for change of existing law but somehow claiming the existing law is itself unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise anemic.
And because I wish to deny you the use of that particular rhetorical technique, and force you to explicitly argue for the change to an existing valid law as opposed to confusingly denouncing a law ina way that leaves your audience unsure of the law’s validity, I will continue to point out every single time you, or those with you, employ that tactic.
People support Voter ID, not tailoring it to dissuade one party from getting votes.
Your position, that putting hurdles in front of poor people for partisan reasons is perfectly fine, is almost certainly a minority one. I’ve said several times, I’m not against Voter ID, I’m against using it as a hammer to beat down the weaker among us. So no, people don’t agree with you. They agree that Voter ID in concept is laudable. Much like I can like bananas, but I don’t think you should poke them in people’s eyes.
Also, because of liars, like you and the people you vote for, people have the misguided belief that voter fraud is much more common than it is.