“Politicians take a political action for political reasons” is not exactly the same as chem trails. There’s a slight difference in assuming political motives for politicians and believing that the government is putting chemicals in the sky to control our minds.
Respectfully agree to disagree.
What’s the “it” you’re talking about here, specifically?
I don’t think describing something as bi-partisan if 98% of Republicans supported it and 98% of Democrats opposed it, even if it wasn’t totally strict party lines, is very reasonable, but I’m not sure which actual specific issue or vote you’re talking about.
Do you believe that Rachel Maddow and Rush Limbaugh are generally comparable?
From our good friends at Daily Kos, a bit of insight…
(Your correspondent from the conservative wing of the extreme left recognizes that a liberal cootie infestation at Daily Kos is entirely possible, and advises tighty rightys to proceed with the appropriate protocols. And if they are full of shit, it should be easy enough to prove…)
…if so, for give me.
"On Monday, Ohio election board Republican Doug Preisse admitted that the goal of voter ID laws are to stop African Americans from voting.
Preisse told the Columbus Dispatch in an email: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine.” He also called, “Claims of unfairness by Ohio Democratic Chairman Chris Redfern and others ‘Bullshit.’ Quote me!,” according to the Ohio Dispatch report.”
“A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.
Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.”
…"The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that “early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.”
Read more at North Carolina embraces honest elections
This is remarkably similar to my proposed ‘honest’ motivation/explanation in post #6477. Preisse said this in 2012, but I swear I hadn’t seen it before.
Preisse, and probably others, believe that things like early voting are ‘contorting the voting process to accommodate voters’.
How could he have voted to attain uniform hours across the state? Either way he voted would run counter to what some counties asked for.
If you want to offer us the proposition that Mr. Husted was sincerely committed to maximum participation, aligned with his unswerving and nonpartisan allegiance to egalitarian democracy…well, you are certainly free to do so. Freedom, and all that.
If it as it seems, that you are hoping to wedge in a nitpick with an eye towards a Scottish verdict of “not proven”, keep in mind we are not obliged as a jury to find beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Husted’s life and liberty is not in jeopardy, even less so his, ah, reputation.
It’s possible none of this will have any real effect, no swung elections come November. Personally, I think at least part of the motivation isn’t just to dissuade Democrat voters, but to energize Republican campaign workers. Grunts like the people quoted in this thread don’t get a lot of glory for the work they have to do to keep Republican campaigns viable, so if you can throw them a bone, i.e. “Hey, this nifty trick we’re using will give us an edge so your efforts won’t be blunted by the bad people”, it can keep them engaged.
Please. You and the rest of the mob here have already indicted him, drawn your jury from the Mother Jones subscription list, judged him, and pronounced him guilty.
GUILTY! Of being a politician doing things for political reasons. His sentence? Denouncement by Dopers!
That will teach him.
Hey, now, not all Dopers! Just some! We can’t know what the aggregate of Dopers thinks…
Funny you should put it that way. Haven’t actually read* Mother Jones* in at least twenty years. Obviously, I haven’t much objection to their political leanings, but for some reason every time I read one it annoyed the shit out of me. Maybe a “Bill Maher” sort of thing, don’t really know, don’t care enough to worry about it.
They *have *done some cracker-jack investigative reporting, but when they really hit it out of the park, its gets noticed, so its not lost to me. You, on the other hand, also annoy me, but don’t have any such redeeming quality.
MoJones 1, Bricker 0.
So is Mother Jones a magazine or something?
Honestly, deep in your heart of hearts, what do YOU think motivated him? If you had to guess?
Serious question or ironic? Yeah, magazine, vibrantly liberal, came of age in the Watergate era. I subscribed for a year, but let it drop. Too edgy. Very strident. Like Rachel Maddow, without the humor.
In the other thread about Griggs and Terry stops and all that, you made a little swipe about how funny it was that sometimes some people here are all for a legal analysis of an issue, while in other threads they are not.
I assumed that this was directed at least in part at me, and in reference to this thread. If so, let me respond here by saying that you are so fucking blind you cannot see the difference between these issues.
What you’re doing in this thread is not a legal analysis. In fact, nobody needs a legal analysis because there is nobody here in this thread who does not understand that if the courts of a particular state make a ruling, it will be legally binding. For you, the issue stops there, whereas for everyone else, that’s where it starts.
So, in reality, all you’ve done here is have some pretense of making a legal analysis, while actually just serving your partisan preference for Republicans to win more elections. You’ve spent your time making dumbass posts like the one I’ve quoted above, making odious and stupid comments about how people in Wisconsin could take public transit to another town to get their ID, and generally have been a douchebag.
I think that you may have managed to fool yourself into thinking you were making some kind of argument about legal principles here, and that all these dumb liberals were too stupid to get that.
Guess again, idiot. You’re actually just being simply another Shodan - a conservative who contributes nothing whatsoever of value to the discussion, but instead takes on all the “usual suspects” by lobbing incredibly stupid potshots.
No response the cites I posted, which appear to directly quote prominent republicans admitting that the strategy is designed to disproportionately disadvantage Democrats?
Were they misquoted, or just somehow not relevant to the debate at hand?