It being the only problem that voter ID laws would actually address, if it actually existed, hell yes it’s the issue.
IOW, you’re conceding the central point right up front, and acknowledging that the rest of your argument and the grounds its based on are imaginary.
Another thing you’re imagining is that those engaging you are too dumb to understand your claims for what they are, when in fact their unanimity should suggest to you that they’re actually too *smart *to be fooled by the likes of you. Gotta be frustrating as hell for you, I know, but that’s the price of intellectual honesty, something you’ll never know.
But it is! You see, the only reason Bricker can’t prove his case is because they can’t be prosecuted! So, put laws in place to prevent illegal voting and then there would be no illegal voting! Which would prove that there was illegal voting, because now its gone!
Not in the post you responded to. Look, I get it. You fucked up, and then that asshole Lobohan and those other liberals called you on it immediately.
It sucks. I get why you’re doing this. I just want you to know it isn’t working.
This being the anonymous internet, I can say whatever I’d like. The truth is, I’m not a CEO of a major company. I don’t own a private jet. I do have a job that pays significantly over the average wage in the US. I have a wife that makes nearly twice what I do.
I have a beautiful daughter. I don’t have expensive hobbies. I drive a Nissan Leaf, not a BMW. I think I might get a Tesla next. Because of luck, and some reasonably hard work, I’m not doing that bad.
But none of that makes a difference. If I were struggling at a minimum wage job, I’d still be right, and you’d still be wrong.
Although, this post does show what utter contempt you hold the poor in. It pretty clearly demonstrates that you’ve mistaken your luck with superiority.
I gotta say that in this case, at least with respect to that one exchange, you are the one being weaselly.
The exchange basically went like this:
Elucidator: Here is a new paper I found which claims that he only found a total of 30 allegations of voter impersonation ever (note that post 5814 specifically includes the words “voter impersonation”) Bricker: I reject your claim due to the political leanings of the author (note: this is not in and of itself a ridiculous thing to say) Elucidator: (exact quote) He’s lying, or he’s wrong about the numbers? OK, prove it. But aren’t you somewhat obligated to do a better job of it than just exposing his unsavory political leanings? Bricker: Adaher’s link shows over 100 in one state.
In context, your post clearly appears to be referring specifically to cases of voter impersonation. At best, it was a careless miscommunication, and not owning up to that is poor form.
It’s certainly also the case that plenty of times in this thread you have made the (not ridiculous) argument that voter impersonation MIGHT in fact be an issue, but we don’t know, because how would we ever know that successful voter impersonation had happened, which is why you want voter ID laws, to help prevent that (and other such things). So don’t act as if the number of cases of voter impersonation that have actually occurred is just totally irrelevant to your position.
I don’t see why the guy testifying one way or the other is particularly relevant. If the guy who runs the polling place is trained to check for IDs, and in general is observed always checking for IDs, and we see that someone named Joe Bob signed in and voted at 3:45 p.m., then the default position is that “Joe Bob” provided an ID and the guy running the poll checked it. Whereas if there is no ID requirement, there is no such default position.
That’s not proof of anything, and a lawyer could argue that it’s possible that poll-guy might have failed to check the ID carefully, etc., but it’s still certainly the case that the defendant is much better off with everyone agreeing that no one checked anyone’s ID because no one ever checks anyone’s ID, than having to argue that the guy running the poll, whose job it was to check all IDs, might have screwed up in that one particular case.
Again, not proof in and of itself, but far from irrelevant.
Or the more cynical view is that the legislators never cared either about the more obvious voter impersonation issue, or the more subtle easier-to-convict-and-thus-raise-confidence issue. Rather, they just cared about suppressing democratic votes, and chose voter impersonation as their bullshit cover story of choice.
And if, from the beginning of the thread, you had wanted to, you could quite clearly have said “oh, you know what the guys who ARE ON MY SIDE in the legislatures are saying about voter impersonation, the thing they’re using to sell this? Well, I think they might be entirely wrong. Instead, I support these laws for entirely different reasons…”. You certainly don’t tend to go out of your way to clearly spell out precisely what your position is. Which I think is a good debating tactic, not so good as an actually-convincing-people-of-your-position tactic.
Because if it happened a lot, you would be rubbing our faces in it?
Because that clearly establishes that you have stopped referring to the quote in reference to which you specifically started the exchange. I see where you say “I’m not talking about voter impersonation, like I quoted, but am now talking about voting in general.” Okay, that was sarcasm, to clarify for Bricker.
A moral person would feel shame. A slimy weasel would keep fucking that chicken.
