I have no sense of obligation to assist you in your diversionary tactics, nor to help you develop your long-standing theme of the oppressed conservative outnumbered and belabored by hypocritical liberals and scurrilous lefties.
You have already stipulated that many, if not most, of the Republicans supporting this nasty piece of work are motivated by malign intent. That is the OP and central theme of this Pity party. Your efforts to change the direction towards the valid neutral justifications for voter id are irrelevant and your new! improved! theme of equivalence is not an improvement.
You are welcome to assume, for the purposes of discussion, that only those Republicans complicit and/or cooperative in this malicious legalistic machine are subjects for our contempt. Further, you have already been invited to bring to our attention those Republicans who are innocent and unstained by complicity. Or even, wonder of wonders, those who have proven themselves honest conservatives by their forthright opposition to such skulduggery.
For whatever your reasons, you have ignored this invitation. Naturally, my suspicion is that you have very few if any to offer. Of course, you still have the option of destroying that perception with evidence otherwise.
Context matters. I’d feel the same way about a 30 year-old who was a demonstrated sadistic sociopath.
Of course, we’re in the slightly amusing situation where your country has the death penalty (and you’re determinedly against it on moral grounds) and my country doesn’t have the death penalty (and I’m provisionally in favour of it, though the pragmatic issues of implementation cause me to recognize the problems of reinstating it).
Basically, while I’m okay with the issue in the hypothetical, I don’t trust government officials to apply the death penalty in a manner I find acceptable based on historical evidence. I’m not sure why you’re so casually trusting of government officials applying voter regulations in spite of historical evidence, but that’s debate for you.
If you choose to resume ignoring me, using my capital-punishment stance as justification, that’s your prerogative.
Those of us who have failed to meet the Counselor’s daunting and strict standards for moral behavior are gathered over on the Group W Bench. Of course, the press of numbers requires that we move it to the Group W Stadium, as it has ample parking space to expand. We may yet be compelled to expropriate the surrounding neighborhood.
I think we can all agree that the one moral message that can be taken from a careful reading of the New Testament is, “Fuck poor people, and don’t let them get a damn thing.”
Bricker has a single-minded tenacity for that overall guiding principle that would bring a tear to they eye of Jesus Himself. Perhaps several tears. Along with a sad shaking of the head.
“Ignoring you,” in this context, has two possible meanings: choosing not to respond to anything you write, or choosing not to be persuaded by your so-called wisdom or moral appeals.
In this case, I don’t intend to repeat what really was a foolish move on my part by failing to respond to your posts. But I am also unmoved by your invocations of a moral authority for various reasons, not the least of which is the revelation that whatever guides your morality is sanguine at the idea of putting a thirteen year old criminal offender to death.
Nothing in anything I have written is fairly summarized as you have done, and you yourself regard Jesus as either entirely fictional or an insufficient source of moral authority. What possible reason would I have to be guided by your warped view of what Jesus would want?
I don’t think Jesus is really supernatural. You do. You just don’t think His teachings apply to you. If you think Jesus would support putting barriers in the way of poor people voting, while making the problem those barriers were enacted to combat actually worse, you have a worse opinion of Him than I do.
If He existed, I would grant He was probably a good man. Good men don’t agree with your craven nonsense. Supporting voter ID isn’t bad. Supporting voter ID enacted in such a way as to be a cudgel to beat down poor people, well that doesn’t seem in line with Jesus’ teachings as I read them.
The issue with that example, though, is that the law is intended to grant emergency powers to a particular person, for a specified length of time and a specific emergency. It is intrinsically tied to a specific person or group of people.
I don’t agree that general purpose legislation, intended to exist over long periods of time and multiple office-holders, suffers from the same infirmity.
It’s not. Or at least, no more shady than many other aspects of electoral politics.
Right, in the long run we can’t necessarily expect abuse of a law to persist, or fail to even out. But, (A) maybe it will to some extent, as sometimes behaviors become institutionalized, and (B) there’s the still the short-term to worry about.
I’m not quite sure how to argue this. The idea of trying to win elections by keeping the other side from voting – even on a small scale – is extremely offensive to me, and in practical terms I think a worrying precedent. More so even than gerrymandering. I guess there’s just not much to say if you don’t feel similarly … except that I think that’s weird.
People vote but are gerrymandered, so their votes have a lessened effect. People do not vote, because they are discouraged from doing so, so their votes do not exist. And you have some trouble making a distinction?
Yes. Because the net effect is very similar. A close election might shift in result.
So returning to your attempt to search for my use the phrase “liberal hypocrisy.” Can you explain how you expected that to result in some evidence of my failing to condemn Republicans at the same time I condemned Democrats for the Massachusetts expedient-law-switching?
Not that I want to stick up for gerrymandering – which is itself despicable – but at least in that case the votes are actually counted, and the results of gerrymandering are not so certain as to make those votes worthless. While it does skew the probabilities on upcoming elections, if there’s a shift in demographics or opinion gerrymandering can sometimes backfire when it turns out the controlling party has spread their support too thin when a fair redistricting would have left them with more safe seats. (To say nothing of the fact that gerrymandering doesn’t affect Senate or Presidential elections.)
Voter suppression just strikes me as the more fundamental sin. YMMV.
Is this the part where you attempt to divert the thread from your utter failure into a distracting tangent for a few pages?
Nah.
If you want to hang your hat on the idea that Jesus would support your gladhanding and pom-pomming of the GOP attempting to keep poor people from voting, well, then I guess I’ll see you in Hell.
I’m referring to the *intent *to suppress voters, whatever the means, as compared with the intent to tweak district boundaries to yield a likely advantage. Admittedly we’re pretty far into the ether here trying to draw a distinction.
If i live in the country and have no Way to get to the voting booth other than to drive my truck there and I must drive said truck down the highway am I not required to have an ID? Am I not required to have insurance on said truck placing an unfair burden on me?
