I don’t know what the aggregate Republican motive is.
There’s always the possibility that the worst explanation happens to be true, of course.
That’s fine. I don’t know for sure either. But I’m comfortable making a tentative decision so far, based on the information out there. If there’s more information that comes out, I’ll take it under consideration. For now, I think this is an immoral action taken largely to hurt Democratic turnout.
OK, not that it means much, but I have my doubts.
The truth is out there. I know I want to believe.
Yeah, good luck with that. In this particular case, the worst explanation is too plausible to casually ignore.
But comparing this to chemtrails or anything like that is just silly. The difference is, those types of conspiracy theories are basically making something up out of nothing, and then every time an argument against it is made, they’re wiggling around and denying basic logic.
In this case, something DID happen. There WERE laws enacted to require stricter voter ID. There WERE laws enacted to remove Sunday voting days.
If I say “Obama is a lizard person”, you might not be able to PROVE that he’s not, but my claim is clearly so extraordinary that the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate it. If I say “hey, remember that action that was taken BY POLITICIANS a while ago, that we both agree actually happened? My belief is that they were motivated by a desire for partisan advantage” that is anything BUT an extraordinary claim. It’s quite the opposite in fact.
The other thing that is, to me, strong circumstantial evidence (if not proof) is the reaction that so many knowledgeable people and groups have had. Suppose the Republicans action was in fact totally non-partisan and was not going to have a disparate impact. What would be the incentive for a bunch of random liberal groups, full of people who actually follow and study politics and elections more or less full time, to suddenly start screaming bloody murder? Why would they pick some innocent non-partisan voting regulation change and suddenly get all butthurt over it if there weren’t some justification? Again, that’s clearly not proof, but since neither you nor I is an expert in the kind of political science, sociology, urban studies and statistics necessary to really do an exhaustive analysis of what the impact of these laws is going to be, I don’t have much choice but to listen to other people who are more informed than I am about the situation.
Seems to this old country boy that if there were no political consequences of picking the day, there wouldn’t be much of a fight about it. If any.
So, there are such consequences. I’m willing to go way out the speculative limb and think that the Republicans know that, because they pay a bunch of guys pretty good to tell them stuff like that.
Sure, its a big leap to suggest that Republicans might be inclined to do something about that. But I’m willing to go radical conjecture on this, and think they probably would. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, I’m entirely willing to accept this as the likeliest scenario.
Yeah, I know. I’m a wild man. Crazy shit, huh?
Indeed. This isn’t tinfoil hat territory. It’s barely tinfoil sandwhich-wrap territory.
Sounds very bi-partisany. Except, if parsed. Parsed, it can be read that this was the only plan that has garnered support from some Democrats and some Republicans. So, if it received unanimous and enthusiastic support from Republicans and only a couple Dems, that would fit the description just as well.
For instance, the constipated gridlock in the House, with an obstinately obstructive Republican Party refusing anything with a vague scent of Obama about it. If some many as two Democrats ever voted with them, they could assert the same standards of bi-partisan harmony.
Which would be horsesiht.
Nother thing. The memo from Husted is dated February 25 of this year. Nonetheless, a quick Google splat will show a whole lot of legal fuss and feathers afterwards.
For instance: In Ohio, The Subtle - And Not-So-Subtle - Strategies of Voter Suppression | HuffPost Latest News and Supreme Court Blocks Ohio Early Voting Extension | HuffPost Latest News and so forth.
So, if this was such a super wonderful fair and reasonable plan given the official okey-doke by Democrats, howcum they kept going to court about it?
Why is it necessary for all the counties in Ohio to have the same voting schedule, and that it be one all counties could afford? What if one of the counties is small and centralized and can get by with just two days of advanced voting and declares that it can only “afford” (i.e. they don’t want to pay for anything further) that much? Would all of Ohio be affected by that, including counties with larger, more decentralized and less affluent populations?
What difference does it make, once the ballots are finalized? The day that’s done, then I figure any county that wants to start early voting should be allowed to do so. The state could set some minimal standard, but beyond that, let the counties do what their citizens want.
Just curious.
Well, now, if the more affluent counties could afford more early voting days and the less affluent could not, that would be unfair and unequal. So, they make the more well to do counties adhere to the same restrictions! What could be fairer than that?
Could, I suppose, extend hours to all and sundry, and support the poorer counties with assistance from the state government, but that would be imposing big government authority on local elections! Which would be wrong because freedom.
That’s what’s happening here.
Yes, with bipartisan support. Yet, the Pubs are still evil lying racist elitist vote suppressing bastards and the Dems are simply… wrong. This is a basic CT tack and VERY popular on this board. If both groups agree to something, the friendly party was duped, stupid, lied to, tricked etc etc by the racist lying criminals of the evil side.
CT theorists base their inferences of “evidence” based on their preconceived beliefs and have LOTS and LOTS of evidence to prove their preconceived beliefs on things that have actually happened but interpreted in such a way as to diraw lines to the conclusions they have already made.
I can look out in the sky and see the lines created in the sky. You can stand there and agree with me that they exist. How they got there and why they are there is all going to be based on what we believe. I can, making it up, think they were created by jet exhaust or have no explanation but think them benign. You might think them evidence of nerve agents being left by the government in order to keep the population drugged, semi-passive and thus suppressing national revolt and anarchy.
In this particular case, I think a cigar is just a cigar. I think this is state-wide bi-partisan (for a change) budgetary administrivia. YMVCV.
First it was not a unilateral decision made by the Republicans. It was bi-partisan. Secondly, ANYTHING political will be dissected and analyzed and met with screaming and much need for Preparation H. That’s the world we live in.
That’s why Maddow and Mathews and O’Reilly and Limbaugh have national platforms from which to inflame their respective masses. The Republican side will cheer the Republican actions and deride the Democratic actions and vice versa. Bi-partisan actions receive the same kind of hysteria with handwaving for your side and excoriation, derision, wild leaps of logic and, yes, conspiracy theory like motivation assignment for the other.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Asked but not answered: if bi-partisan harmony was the case, why did the Dems continue their court cases? If they were perfectly content with the outcome, why did they keep fighting?
Because obstructionism is the newest party game in Politics. It’s like Trivial Pursuit was back in the day. Everybody agrees to sit down and have a friendly game but inevitably, some asshole ends up flinging the board against the fireplace because they confused Bill Pullman with Bill Paxton.
That’s my theory anyway. The lizard men told me.
Oh, I see. So, the vast majority of Democrats were perfectly content with Mr Husted and his strictly non-partisan approach to the issues at hand, it was merely a few scattered malcontents who kept up their hissy-fit.
You have, of course, some citation and evidence to support this notion?
Of course, from a strictly neutral site www.chemtrailssuck.com/everydemwasinsupportofthisbutthetrivialpursuitflingingasshole.html
Are there wizards and unicorns? I prefer fairly tales with wizards and unicorns. Trolls, however, are not desirable.
I hear ya, 'luci, but you’ve made quite a career of it at the Dope.
I mean what do you want from me? A fucking cite for an off the cuff speculative opinion? Do I need to publish an editorial in the Akron Penny Saver and provide you a link?Here’s my cite. My opinion and speculation is that politics have gotten nasty as fuck. Unprecedentedly nasty. Obtructionism is the way the game is played. Deals are made and broken with every breath.
There’s your fucking cite.