Absolutely untrue. To the contrary, you lied, forgot, forgot you lied, and/or lied about forgetting. It’s an amazing record of duplicity and incompetence, but you’re equal to the task.
The value to the citizenry of Texas in ensuring that person who vote in Texas elections are who they say they are.
Do we have any guidance from the courts or Justice Dept. as to what would qualify as a “trivial reason”? Or are we, once again, reliant upon your authority?
Also, is “voter confidence” a legal term of art not commonly known to us lesser beings? That is, it is only correctly applied in questions of a voter’s concern that her vote has not been fraudulently negated?
So, then, a voter who’s confidence is shaken by the experience of having his legislature putting hurdles and impediments in his path to the voting booth…one further insult after generations of insult…he is not privileged to invoke the sacred power of voter confidence for his confidence?
Or is it that his confidence is a trivial matter, in comparison to the millions to one chance of the super-dooper close election that turns on voter fraud? Is he expected to “man up” and take one for the team, when the team is comfortable white Republicans. Because it is a “trivial” injustice, not an important injustice?
You forgot to compare it to the burden on the individual. There’s no other way to ensure this that doesn’t impose this burden on him? Why doesn’t every state require it then?
Why is it not—using the terms you deprecated—a general or standard or common or routine obligation to have to pay to have your name legally changed?
I try not to lie, Bricker. It’s something you might want to strive for yourself.
In this thread you are a man on his knees pummeled by blows all around and blindly feeling for some weapon, a rock, a stick, with which to fend us off. Every rock and stick is another useless pedantic tangent, a diversion from the central message of this thread:
That you’re more than willing to endorse bad policy, that actually makes a problem worse, in order to ensure lasting electoral advantage for the shitty people you vote for.
You clutch at diversions, but the punches keep coming. You’ll lie, as you did when you said I didn’t understand your argument. You’ll assert victory when shown to be a fool, as you did in the quoted post. You’ll do anything so that your sense of arrogant superiority isn’t tarnished by the fact that you’ve lost this argument.
And you lost it years ago.
[Cue neener-neener response in…]
It seems that if a state is going to have a voter ID law, it’s reasonable that the state craft their policy as to ensure that each person vote once, right? To that end, having everyone vote with only their legal name seems to be the simplest way to realize that outcome.
Why do you care? I thought this wasn’t about the legal aspects – it was just your complaints about the morality of the law?
Why do you care what the courts think is, or is not, trivial?
It doesn’t matter, does it? You don’t have any care for legal standards in this matter, remember?
yeah, I know, that claim was a crock of shit. Right?
You don’t understand my argument, and have made that clear. You also don’t understand or like representative democracy,and have made that clear.
But Voter ID laws endure. That’s a great thing.
The bald assertion fairy hath shat in your mouth and you do dribble his issue copiously. Amen.
Totally called that. Neener-Neener.
Choice (A): convincing the empty-headed liberals here that Voter ID was a net positive, but losing the laws in real life
Choice (B) failing to convince you but retaining the laws in real life
Hmmm… not really a tough call.
I bet you’d rather lose the laws in real life, too, eh? I mean, you must be thrilled with your self-proclaimed victory here, but I bet you’d trade it for a real-life victory, eh?
Well, that’s something. Can we put that entire line of argument behind us then, until/unless some liberal poster actually makes a post which very clearly and unambiguously endorses imposition-of-beliefs-by-fiat?
My argument over yours is a real-life victory. In that it reflects the reality of the situation and the stuttering failure of your position. I’d prefer that people like you didn’t try to steal elections, yes, but I can only vote to try to fix that.
Well, vote, and show others how dimwits like you don’t have the capacity to defend their drivel.
Even if I agreed with every bit of your analysis, there’s a big difference… a situation in which ultra-close election’s results are likely to be regarded as illegitimate does not in any way provide one party with an inherent advantage over the other. If I’m right and you’re wrong, the damage that is done is basically a form of politically-targeted and arguably-racially-aligned voter suppression. I’m I’m wrong and you’re right, the damage that is done is that sometimes very close elections will have results that people have somewhat more justification for questioning than they otherwise would.
Which of course doesn’t prove anything either way… but it’s something interesting to think about.
In any case, here’s what I find particularly troubling and arguably contradictory about your position in this thread: I believe you have agreed that if voter ID laws DID impose a non-trivial burden, then they would in fact be illegitimate (presumably both legally and ethically… that is, they would both fail to pass constitutional muster, AND they would be something that you would denounce and renounce). Agreed?
At the same time, your general attitude towards the liberal position espoused in this thread has been a combination of: dismissive, snide, arrogant, neenery, mocking, taunting, claiming-we-want-to-rule-by-fiat, and a variety of other such things.
However, if you agree with the first paragraph there, then it follows that as long as liberals honestly believe that voter ID laws are (or could be) non-trivial burdens, then you would basically agree that the voter ID laws were unethical. So why is your approach one of “you guys are all (lots of insulting adjectives) who hate democracy and we’re winning and you’re losing” yada yada yada, as opposed to “well, I understand your position, and I agree that it’s legitimate for you to hold it based on what you believe, but I think you’re mistaken on one very important underlying assumption”?
I don’t want to come off here as scoldy about your basic tone, because I do agree that being massively outnumbered in a context like this doesn’t naturally lead to polite and civil rhetoric. But isn’t it in fact the case that the liberal position is one that you DO sympathize with, if we just start with one different assumption to begin with? And that there’s NOT one single piece of obvious massive factual data that we are all somehow willfully ignoring, rather we’re just making different assumptions from a general lack of data?
Furthermore, and this again is something that irks me, I don’t feel like you really have much evidence for your claim that getting an ID is so trivial. Maybe you’re right… maybe if we actually did an exhaustive survey we’d find that for 98% of people without IDs the amount of extra time and money required to get one is sufficiently low that we’d all agree it qualified as “trivial”, and for another 1.99% it was “small”, and for only 0.01% it was “moderate” or higher, or some such thing. And if that were the case, then hey, it would turn out that we had been alarmist for nothing. But how can you so cavalierly assume that that is NOT the case. Are you familiar with the practical realities of actually getting a voter ID if you live in a rural county in Texas? And how should we proceed when the legitimacy and fairness of a proposed law is based on information that we just don’t have?
So, then, if somebody else asks these questions, you would answer, but I don’t deserve one?
Odd, really, usually if you can smack me upside the head with a law book, you don’t hesitate. Must be that I was just recently declared unworthy. Yeah, that must be it, only other possibility is that you don’t have a good answer.
See, seems to me that the only reason voter confidence is so important is that it is an element of a bedrock principle, the right to vote. That is what is ultimately significant, that is the crux of the biscuit. It is a fundamental right, it goes with the navel, one each. And its possession does not require proof of ardor or determination or a willingness to endure indignities, it is native, it is inborn.
If voter confidence is undermined, it is not undermined by the incidence of voter fraud, which is numerically puny. It is undermined by those who exaggerate the threat of voter fraud for their own ends. Voter confidence is degraded by those pretending to defend it, by those who rely more on fear than reason.
Had your super dooper close election, right here. A few hundred votes. And, Lordy, what an outcome, lawyers gathering to feed, recounts and challenges and careful examinations galore, and… Minnesota just dealt with it. Big hassle, yeah, end of the world, no. Total collapse of voter confidence? Not that anyone seems to know about. Not a Big Hairy Ass Deal.
One of the older tricks in the book: sell the fear, then sell the cure.
Wow.
Well, congrats, then.
Why thank you. Shall we away to the yacht club for crawfish and totally-hetero-spooning?
Not worth the time. It used to be, but then then you disclaimed any interest in the legal issues. Was that claim untrue?
As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. I mean, even more than usual. Not so bad when you talk over my head, but sometimes you talk right through it!
How dare you cast aspersions on his asparagus!