Yes, isn’t it though? :rolleyes:
I’m not, Counselor. You suggested that Minnesota’s lack of valet voting “discourages” some voters.
Perfect nonsense either way, as you well know. In spasms of defeat, you thrash about in spastic fury.
What’s your opinion of schemes that add costs and get no results?
There’s probably little point hitting Bricker with double negatives. When pressed, he’ll equate “innocent until proven guilty” and “guilty until proven innocent”, so I’ve no doubt that he’ll steadfastly claim blocking someone is equivalent to not rolling out a red carpet for them.
Sure – using the word in the same way it’s been used earlier in the thread discussing Voter ID laws’ supposed effects on minorities.
You had no problem, apparently, with that use of the word, even though the Voter ID laws were extant at that time and therefore didn’t “discourage” anyone, according to your peculiar sensibility concerning the word.
Should we bother noting a distinction between a requirement for ID and adding an additional requirement for ID in the absence of any indication current ID standards were insufficient?
I don’t know what planet you’re discussing. Here on Earth, in the several United States, there were indications that currents ID standards were insufficient.
You just found those indications unpersuasive. But enough people who matter disagreed with you.
Must we leave it to the Republicans to tell us which people matter, and which people don’t?
Well, he is a Catholic.
All people matter.
But for the purposes of voting for Texas political candidates, the people of Tierra del Fuego matter very little.
For the purpose of creating Texas law, the people that matter are Texas legislator and the governor of Texas.
They, not you, decide what indications are persuasive in the context of passing Texas law.
A lot of stolen elections, were there? A few? One?
Oooh, appeal to authority and popularity. A two-fer.
I cannot recall having ever seen Bricker say anything to support the idea that he agrees with your statement.
ETA:
See? I don’t recall that Bricker has ever said that he thinks that more people voting is a desired part of our country’s culture.
But this is a spurious argument. IF there was a state in which the long-standing voting method HAD been door-to-door limo service with hors d’oeuvers and hand jobs, and then all of a sudden one party was like “oh, man, we really need to cut costs… let’s go to having polling stations like all the other states do”, AND we noticed that demographic analysis suggested that making that change would result in a larger drop in turnout among that party’s opponents, then we would have every right to be just as suspicious of that change as we are of the change from not requiring ID to requiring ID.
In both cases, there’s not some objective fashion in which either the pre- or post- state is ideal and correct, it’s the CHANGE that is suspicious and which therefore, ethically if not legally, should be subject to extremely strict scrutiny.
Most of his policy positions are informed by a sneering contempt for those less fortunate than him. It’s a feature, not a bug!
Bricker has never admitted fortune has anything to do with success in life. Everything he has achieved has been through hard work and innate talent, he has never had a lucky break in his life. Anyone who is poor is just lazy, stupid or both.
“Indications” are not limited to stolen elections.
Ultra-close elections that raise the spectre of theft are also indications.
Nope. Merely listing names of fallacies is useless when you don’t understand the gravamen of the fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
In this case, the legislature is an acceptable authority for the creation of law.
What I have achieved is, in fact, precisely due to hard work. Growing up, I had very little. My family was poor. No one came to our house with sacks of money and said, “Here you go!”
I obviously disagree.
And so does the legal system.
So why should you be entitled to declare that your ethical system holds sway over mine?
And nowhere along the way did you have even a single stroke of good fortune! Thanksgiving must be kind of awkward when you say grace.
You were lucky. That you don’t see it, shows you’re arrogant.
You simply don’t work harder than many, many poor people. That’s just a fact.
Was your dad a professional? I’m guessing he wasn’t some ignorant dirt-farmer, right? He had a trade? Well lucky for you.
He had the money and opportunity to leave his country? Well lucky for you.
You went to a good primary school? Lucky for you.
You had the money for college, right? Lucky for you.
Your parents passed onto you the skills and ambition necessary to tackle a career like law? Lucky for you.
You had the native intelligence necessary to pass the bar? Lucky for you.
You managed to grow into an insipid, arrogant prick, while possessing a meager amount of personal charisma? Well, too bad for you, on that one.
You are the end result of many lucky breaks, and hard work. Hard work without opportunity isn’t much of anything. There are people digging ditches in the sun right now, who are sons of your father’s generation, who weren’t lucky enough to get a plane ticket to America.
I should mention that I was born to endemic poverty. My great grandfather came here from the Philippines to work the plantations in Hawaii. My grandmother lived in poverty her whole life. My mother, until recently, as well.
I’m smart enough, but without the skills necessary to advance, I didn’t have much chance. As it happens, I married a lady who was smart enough to buff off my edges, and now we make a pretty good income. Did luck play a role? Of course, only a fool like Bricker could think otherwise.