Sure you do.
But notice that you reserve to yourself the right to determine what counts as “blatant voter suppression.”
:smack:
The Republicans have admitted, in so many words, that many of their programs are deliberate efforts to reduce turnout by Democratic-leaning groups.
Idiot.
What concept would that be? I get that invoking Cue and Waters rebuts the idea that voter fraud never happens (assuming, again, that Cue and/or Waters are guilty) but what else, if anything, does it demonstrate?
That it’s perfectly possible for a non-citizen to register, vote, deny having done so, and avoid prosecution for lack of sufficient evidence.
“Many of their programs?”
What do I care? I’m talking about Voter ID. Go right ahead and criticize other programs. Knock yourself out.
How it that different from “it is not true that voter fraud never occurs”? You’ve added details of the process but the outcome is the same.
(assuming, still)
This is one of them. :rolleyes:
I am saying that you (and Uzi, and Velocity, and the various other people on this forum) should change your mind. That you should stop being wrong. At the same time, I’m trying to make sure that I’m right. That I haven’t made a mistake. That I don’t need to revise my position before I go trumpeting advocacy for it. Jesus christ, what mechanism do you think I would use to remove these laws? Convincing other people in the democracy! That’s the mechanism here. I’m trying to establish “are these rules right”, and once that’s been done, convince others of my position. This is rational discourse. This is the entire point of the Great Debates section of this forum and analogues on any forum ever.
I’m reminded of back when I was arguing about the official ruleset for Super Smash Bros Brawl on Smashboards. I wanted Pokemon Stadium 2 to be a legal stage. Not a whole lot of other people did. I was not a tournament organizer, nor was I a member of the smash backroom (the guys who make the “recommended” ruleset, which a few people follow). I had no personal ability to make these things happen. So what happened? I made my case, I made it well, and I convinced other people. And for quite a while (I stopped playing smash, I dunno if it still is), Pokemon Stadium 2 was legal in all tournaments in Germany, throughout much of the midwestern US, and Canada. Not because I waved a magic wand and forced every tournament organizer to agree with me, but because I made good arguments and convinced people it was a good idea.
So to respond to your asinine question: by means of convincing you and everyone else that these laws are a bad idea that need to be stopped, and letting democracy take its course. The entire point of debating basically anything on an open forum. Me posting here isn’t going to make Thor come down from the heavens, wave his mighty hammer, and make voter ID laws go away. But it might convince some people, and that’s the goal. That’s always been the goal of rational discourse. At some level you must get this - otherwise, what the hell are you doing here? Waiting for Thor to show up?
And of course “by what mechanism” is still and always will be a disgustingly weaselly smokescreen. We want to know if it’s a good idea. Not if it can be implemented. This is easily the third time I’ve told you this, and if you weren’t such a dishonest little shit, you wouldn’t be continuing to argue that topic.
Who’s knocking himself out? You’ve written one thousand five hundred posts (yes, that’s Thousand with a T) in a thread about voter suppression and now announce that that topic holds no interest for you.
Is this all practice for a stand-up comic gig? If not, I’m having difficulty reconciling your behavior here with rationality.
I think debate should be a required subject for high school graduation.
In one case, I am rebutting a claim someone else has made.
In the other case, I am advancing a claim of my own and providing a proof of the conceptual truth of the claim, which, as the person advocating the claim, I have the burden to support. This would be an example of “anecdotal evidence.”
And a good number of those posts have been me, announcing that my intention was to defend Voter ID only.
The rest of them have been me, defending Voter ID only.
Some examples:
Perhaps I should spend my posts in this thread defending the consumption of apples as a turn-about hijack.
I do realize you have so many opponents in this thread you probably conflate them, but my position has also been consistent. I’ve repeatedly denounced you for hijacking a thread about GOP voter suppression to a discussion of what a hypothetical GOP might do in a Fantasyland to improve voter integrity.
In simple fact, as has been explained to you in hundreds of posts, voter fraud in America ranks somewhere between vampire attacks and rabid unicorns in importance. Everybody(*) knows why the GOP devotes so much attention to the issue. If your pretense about the issue isn’t stupid, I don’t know what “stupidity” means.
(* - I’d guess that even you understand this. I’m not sure though. My initial impression of you when I came to SDMB 5 years ago was of intelligence. But you’re on an ever-descending trajectory and I’m concluding that “Bricker is stupid” has changed form hyperbole to fact.)
You used the pejorative and diminishing term - “gratuitous assertion”. Assuming that is a deliberate effort to minimize importance, I point out that one of our founding principles is a “gratuitous assertion”. And it is, it even recognizes itself as being such, we say this is true, and we ain’t gotta prove shit!
From there it follows that the single most significant human right is the right to vote, and that right must be equally accessible to all citizens, to the extent that is humanly possible. An effort to restrict that access runs counter to our founding gratuitous assertion and ought, therefore, to be viewed with skepticism. That any such effort ought not be justified with a flimsy rationale, but only permitted if there is irrefutable and convincing facts that it is necessary.
Which you do not have. In its place you offer odd and unusual circumstances. And, of course, court decisions you find agreeable. As if no American court had ever upheld an injustice. Your case is a flimsy construction of interlocking rationalizations, the slightest breeze would blow it away.
Then my advice to you is stop replying to any post of mine that defends Voter ID. Gird your loins and prepare to spring, cat-like, on the first post I make that defends “GOP voter suppression.”
You don’t get to decide what’s important.
I think the three thousand guys that died of starvation, frostbite, and disease at Valley Forge will be dismayed to learn that we actually didn’t need to prove shit. If Sylvia Browne were here to channel one, he might inquire what the fuck he and his buddies were doing there.
You are, of course, absolutely wrong. We had to prove those assertions. And sweet reason was off the table.
Let’s say Group X declares:
“Problem A is a real concern.
To address Problem A, we impose Solution 1, Solution 2, Solution 3, etc.
These solutions will incidentally benefit Group X.”
Truth be told, at this point I’d be wordering how much I should trust the premise that Problem A is a real concern. Group X has a potential conflict of interest. That Solution 1 might have some obvious negative effects is gravy.
Wondering, too. Autocorrect is a fickle and occasionally illiterate mistress, I am learning.
OK. I already know you don’t trust Group X at all.
The problem is that Group Y is also suggesting changes that – shockingly – benefit (incidentally) Group Y.
So it seems to me that the correct approach is to evaluate the proposals on the merits.
Cutting voting hours? As long as the state can afford to maintain the extended hours, I’m against cutting them, on the merits. Don’t really care which Group proposed the idea. It’s Group Y, and amazingly, extended voting hours will likely benefit Group Y. But that’s OK, because regardless of their partisan motives, the idea is a good one.
Requiring Voter ID? I favor it, on the merits.
Etc.
You’ve made over 1500 of them in this thread already.
He didn’t say what’s important, he said what’s real. Something has to actually exist before it can be important, hmm?
If you’re holding gamely to your claim that two dubious incidents, two, so rare that you can name them individually, are important if real, while tens of thousands of suppressed votes are not, then that constitutes an assertion so far beyond gratuitous that you really ought to understand by now how abjectly futile your efforts to support it have been.
And, of course, “the benefits to Group X” are not incidental, they are obviously* the entire fucking purpose*.
That doesn’t even get into your repeated lie that a “valid neutral justification” is all you need to support a law, when even Scalia only says it can’t be ignored.