Finding himself buried under the weight of his lies and being eyed as the evil twat that he is, Bricker scans the horizon for a distracting issue…
Wait… can Bricker take something 'luci said and act too stupid to understand it and deflect the attention away from his utter failure for a bit?
Let’s watch and find out…
Also, who do I have to bribe to swap the B for a P in you-know-who’s username?
That voter fraud that “exists to any extent that would move a reasonable person to action” and “like you fantasize”, i.e. at levels that are significant, doesn’t exist but we can’t prove it doesn’t, much like we can’t prove unicorns don’t exist.
Does he really need to put on the qualifiers every single time “voter fraud” is mentioned, or can you train your short-term memory to retain the information?
Heck, I’ve no problem accepting that voter fraud has happened in scattered individual cases. Is it at a level that efforts to address it won’t catch a greater number of legitimate voters? Not that I’m aware of.
I’d say “yeah, so?” but that gives you another opportunity to go off on a time-wasting tangent. So instead of one vapid belief, you have two vapid beliefs. Throw yourself a parade.
Ooooooooh I like that; I’ma steal it!
That’s only neutral if we accept the assumption that substantiating one’s identity is equally easy (or hard, really) for any person. It’s like saying a law requiring every voter to jump over a two-foot-tall stone in order to be able to vote is neutral. Neutrality does not simply equal “the rules apply to everyone equally” because “everyone” isn’t the same, even if the test is.
Bricker may be delighted to learn that a Wisconsin alderman won’t answer one of his constituent’s questions about voting until she proves she’s not a terrorist.
I’m sure that, since the woman isn’t black, this proves that voter suppression isn’t racist.
(I found this via SRIOTD.)
Wait, you don’t vote by your moral code? That’s a hell of an impressive and/or scary separation of mindsets there.
Jeez, Bricker, it’s okay if you vote how you want. Nobody’s gonna question that.
Well, somebody probably would, but they’re a jerk.
But I don’t fantasize that voter fraud exists at levels that are significant.
You know that, right?
You said you understood my position to be, "“it doesn’t matter if voter fraud is trivial, the legislature passed the law, neener neener neener,” or “Voter confidence drops after close elections if voter fraud is possible.”
Those aren’t the same thing, of course, but they share a common trait: both statements impute to me a claim that voter fraud is quite low: either trivial or simply possible.
Right?
So what’s elucidator saying about what I fantasize voter fraud levels to be? According to you, he’s saying that I believe voter fraud occurs “at levels that are significant.”
Well?
You act as though I deliberately misunderstood him. What’s the real story here?
That you’re using trivial nitpicks to stall for time.
“We” don’t accept the assumption that the task is mathematically identically easy.
But we do accept that it’s easy enough for everyone that requiring it is reasonable.
Now, YOU, personally, don’t. Sure. So we agree to disagree.
Unless you’re also saying that your disagreement should mean that the law gets changed or something. Are you?
This thread has gone on for two years and seven thousand posts. What the fuck does “stall for time” mean? Is there a referee in the corner on a slow count?
How can anyone “stall for time?” It’s in the top ten most idiotic things you’ve ever said, and that, my friend, is an area of great competition.
Anyone can read a post from a week ago, a month ago, or a year ago and reply to it anew. Anyone (even you, dummy) can raise an unaddressed post from any time since the beginning of this message board and quote it and ask for a reply.
There is no such concept as “stall for time.”
Let me show you:
Well?
Maybe you could connect the dots for me here. It looks like you’re trying to equate the act of voting with “suggesting that my moral code serve as the basis of social policy.”
Are you?
You’re still stalling, but now acting indignant after getting called on it.
You’re right that stalling on message board is pointless. I suggest you stop doing that.
A necessary codicil to your point.
I don’t think I’ve actually expressed an opinion on that yet. There’s a lot of possibilities. I think I’d need to see some numbers before I was convinced of anything.
No. As to that question, it’s trickier; if I’m against abortion due to my moral code, I could still technically vote on some other basis as a matter of policy. Tricky to tell, really, even I imagine for the person themselves, but there are I’m sure plenty of people out there who hold a moral code and yet don’t vote on that basis. I’d say “and so vote against it” but I think when we get to that point the number’s going to drop sharpish. As a guess, anyway.
No, what I was saying was a reference to the first part of your post. “I haven’t once suggested that anyone follow my morality”. I would argue that voting is such a suggestion, and the issue with bases for support there doesn’t apply; all that’s required is that one votes for a result that follows one’s morality.
I am reminded of a 60 Minutes piece from the '70s about a sexist police chief who was ordered to let women on the force. So he instituted a height requirement few women can meet and said, “You want equality?! Come and get it!”
Cheating?! That identical situation occurred in the New Hebrides Open. Kaduffleblaze versus Fuddle in 19-aught-18. And what about Fradis versus Ginfritter? Bizbo versus Stoigen in the Casablanca Amateur? “Cheating” indeed. The *nerve! *
Offhand, I can’t think of any vote I have ever cast in which I chose a moral issue over a policy issue I favored for reasons other than merely moral.
In other words, there hasn’t been an election in which I have cast a vote for the reason that it follows my morality. Admittedly, no vote has run counter to my morality, but that’s because my morality and wise public policy are happily congruent.