I have asked you the same question twice.
You have answered me by accusing me of stalling.
What post contains the question I am supposedly stalling? Post it again.
Here’s the question you’re avoiding, as a reminder:
. . . Wouldn’t most people say that about their own?
I mean, I never heard an anti-choicer say anything that could be construed as, "I know we would have a healthier, happier and more prosperous society if women were free to choose abortion, but it’s just wrong!"
Actually, it’s worse than that - you’re fantasizing that voter fraud could hypothetically be significant, as in a very close election. The remedy you are supporting creates real problems on a scale far larger than voter fraud has ever been.
There’s no contradiction between “it doesn’t matter if voter fraud is trivial, the legislature passed the law, neener neener neener” and “Voter confidence drops after close elections if voter fraud is possible”, so I don’t see a problem in a person professing to believe both. In your case, you claimed the latter, then when that failed to impress anyone, started gloatingly to use the former.
And here I am, indulging your stalling tactic. Oh, well… by the way, if the phrase and concept of “stall for time” is truly novel to you, try googling it. It’s not something I made up just for you.
I think you’re right. But the fact remains that I don’t invoke morality as a reason to adopt my proposals.
That’s an interesting aspect of this debate… part of why I find your position so frustrating is that I don’t see what underlies your belief that the extra burden is trivial. Do you have some knowledge of sociology or urban demographics which allows you to conclude that the additional burden will be trivial? It certainly feels to me like your position is closer to “well, I don’t really know, so I assume that it’s trivial, and I’ll kind of shuffle that aspect of the discussion off to the side and focus on the parts of the debate I think I can win”. Granted, I can’t give you a really conclusive argument that the extra burden is NOT trivial… but I haven’t really claimed I can. Neither of us really knows for sure what the burden would be, but only one of us is supporting a position which, if we are wrong about that burden, will result in voter suppression and convenient but unethical partisan advantage.
I know the phrase. It’s properly applied when time is a factor. When it’s third and three with 18 seconds on the clock, stalling for time until,the halftime whistle blows makes sense. When the villain has you at gunpoint but you know your backup team is moments away from swarming the house, getting him to monologue about his evil plans is a great stall for time.
In the message board context, it doesn’t exist. The thread is not going to be closed in two minutes, two hours, or two years.
Seriously, how do you type shit like that and then tell yourself you’re an intellectual?
Well, time is kind of a factor here, in the sense that if you drag out the process long enough, your opponents can give up and abandon the debate at which you are losing, leaving you to claim a victory of sorts. It’s hardly a phrase worth detailed parsing and I hope to not further engage in such anytime soon. I note that though you quoted my entire post, you ignored the first two-thirds entirely.
Hah, go back to calling me “amoral”. It was just as effective at demonstrating your willingness to use empty self-serving claims. I’ve already concluded and declared that I’m smarter than you, so you’re simply unequipped to call my intelligence into question.
Meantime, voter fraud remains trivial-unto-nonexistent as a problem, and addressing it the manners proposed creates far larger problems. That remains something you cannot manage, or at least have not managed, to handwave away.
We could compromise, make a reasonable concession, just as Bricker has done. He accepts that “some” Republicans have malign motives in this sordid exercise, we can change the title of the thread to include that crucial distinction, so that we are only pitting those Republicans who Bricker has so forthrightly denounced, renounced and condemned. Or we could simply stipulate that the title only refers to the active schemers, the “some”. There! All fixed!
The rest of the Republicans, we could say, are simply the innocent and naive dupes of cunning cynics. They were misled, conned into believing that these laws would not have any unjust consequences. The poor dears.
But now with the GAO report out, the scales fall from their eyes, no doubt they are in a pell-mell rush to amend their error. As well they might, patriots all. And I stand ready to heap praise upon them, these good men. Soon as I hear some names.
This is another different statement to the one that I was looking at.
“There hasn’t been an election in which I have cast a vote for the reason that it follows my morality” is not the same as saying “I haven’t once suggested that anyone follow my morality.” As I said in the post you quoted -
[QUOTE=Me]
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.
[/QUOTE]
- I have no issue at all believing that there are people who hold moral codes but do not vote on them. I was quite explicit, I thought.
There are 57,395 empty-headed liberals on this board, and one me. The side that’s in danger of being outgunned or out posted or outwaited is not mine.
That’s not a mathematical fact. it’s an opinion: you believe one problem is larger than the other, because you discount the value of voter confidence.
Do you claim that voter confidence is an objective, measurable fact?
Do you?
What, specifically, in the GAO report says this? Not “somewhere in the GAO report.” What, specifically?
No.
But I claim that the public is allowed to weigh that intangible as they see fit.
Imagine the following poll question is asked of every person in the country:
"Your state is considering implementing a Voter ID law. Experts estimate that the number of fraudulent votes this will prevent is [fill in actual results of whatever the best study is.]. Also, a number of people currently lacking ID will be discouraged from voting, who otherwise would have voted, due to the additional impediments of time, money and bureaucracy required to get a Voter ID. Experts estimate that number to be [fill in actual results of whatever the best study is.]
Are you in favor of that Voter ID law?"
What do you think the results of that poll would be? I’m only asking for your opinion.
Bonus question: If we then asked: “Would such a law increase or decrease your confidence that the election results accurately reflected the will of the people in your state?”, how would that poll go?
And if your answer is “I can’t answer that without knowing what the hard numbers are,” please answer for the three cases where the ratios are 2:1, 1:1 and 1:2.
Thanks.
You’re being rude to the people in this thread who’ve expressed agreement with your views. It should at least be 57932 to 4.
Of course, by your oft-stated definitions of liberals, I know I’m not one of them, so maybe it’s 57931 to 4.
It’ll have to be, at least in theory, if you want me to take it seriously. Otherwise we’re debating the price of unicorn pelts. How might a drop in voter confidence manifest?
And I see you don’t even believe it yourself. Too little, too late.
Could you clarify how much of “voter confidence” is accounted for by confidence that there would be fewer fraudulent votes counted and how much by confidence that the votes of those that disagree would be less likely to happen.
Not a cite or specific numbers, just your take on the relative proportions.
My opinion is that question constitutes a push poll.
In the general public? 95% for fewer fraudulent votes counted.
So, the nagging fear that somebody may be cheating when they are not is worse than “some” Republicans actually stacking the deck? And if the majority of the electorate operates under a delusion, they have the right to punish people who have done no wrong?
What about the voter confidence of the suppressed voter, here? You expect that such a voter, having been openly and legally insulted by his legislature is encouraged? He is reassured that the Republican Party values his citizenship, and that everything else is fair and square, he just has to take this one *little *bite of the shit sandwich?