I asked, “Sure…because I am expected to always be the grown-up and remain polite in the face of a ceaseless barrage of calumny. Right?”
I’m saying that those precise kinds of all-encompassing generalizations that you complain of from me are hurled AT me on a regular basis.
I’m therefore asking why it’s remarkable when I choose to do it, when no one seems to find it worth much of a negative comment when it’s done about conservative targets and directed at me.
Who cares? Not me.
Because I have never argued that pervasive voter fraud exists. Remember?
This is a strawman.
States that choose to not enact Voter ID laws are fine with me. You may imagine that I’m somehow upset that Colorado, Oregon, or Pennsylvania won’t have Voter ID laws. I’m not in the least.
Why?
Because I believe that the voters of a state should express their will through their elected representatives. And I support this system when they agree with me – and when they don’t.
I mislike your efforts to blunt the ability of voters who disagree with you and piously support the ones that do.
If I think the issue is of great concern to the left, it’s absolutely hyperbole to say that only far-left loons care about it. That’s actually the definition of hyperbole.[sup]*[/sup]
[sup]*[/sup]See what I did there?
In all seriousness, what you describe is sometimes directed at non-conservative posters, but conservatives are more likely to be the target, because this board leans liberal.
But this shouldn’t be a surprise at all, to anyone. We’re human, and a group that’s mostly liberal is going to be more likely to criticize errors and poor arguments from conservative posters than from fellow liberal posters. So what? Why would this be notable? Why do you and others complain about it, when it’s obvious this is the case for any group that leans in one ideological direction or the other? Do you honestly expect people to pay as much attention to bad arguments from those they agree with as they do to those with whom they disagree?
For threads about politics, philosophy, and the like, I don’t come to this board to engage with people who agree – I come to argue. Arguing is fun. Disagreement is fun. Agreement is often not much fun. I often gloss over the posts that agree with me, because sometimes it’s boring to read stuff I agree with, and scan to the ones that disagree with me. That alone would explain the greater intolerance of poor conservative arguments – more people are focusing on the conservative posts, because more people disagree with them.
I find this whole post very confusing. It seems to be shadow-boxing a whole bunch of positions I did not take. In particular, you seem to think that I think you wouldn’t like that PA has no voter ID. But that wasn’t the point at all. The point was an example of how people who care about voter “disenfranchisement” do indeed have power. They just elected a Governor in a swing state, in part as a response to efforts to prevent voting.
The position you took is that no one with power cares about voter disenfranchisement. I guess what you meant is that the GOP doesn’t care, and they currently have power in a bunch of states. If that’s all you were saying, fine. That’s true. But I don’t think that makes much sense in the context of your insults directed at Shayna.
To remind you, you said: “What do you expect when you say things like, ‘Our nation’s AG is well aware that the bulk of such calls are bunk; he finds it politically expedient to join the chorus?’”
You suggested, in other words, that such comments were directed at men because I said something so outrageous.
Now you appear to acknowledge that such comments will come my way regardless, because I’m espousing a conservative view.
My comments were intended primarily to refer to Texas, and similarly situated states. I readily grant that California is stocked to the brim with people passionate about letting voters vote without asking them for ID.
Sigh. No, Lobo, I am not. I live in the real world, where thinking people realize that the whole showing a picture ID to vote “issue” is nothing but pure bullshit, propagated by morons like you.
Yes, I think that was a foolish argument.
No, I’m saying that any foolish arguments you make are more likely to be attacked than foolish arguments made by liberal posters.
The whole point of this issue is that there is NO issue. Texas has allowed people to vote by showing a picture ID for nearly 20 years now. And yet I hear whinging about how 600,000 people couldn’t vote because they didn’t have a picture ID. If that number is even remotely correct (and I doubt it), I have no sympathy for them whatso-fucking-ever. They have known about the elections for months. They could have gotten an ID for free. They chose not to. There it is; deal with it.
Oh, and Bryan - fuck off. On my worst days, I have toenail fungus smarter than you on your best days. Deal with that as well.
Ummm, no. I actually came prepared instead of acting like a liberal.
Huh? Your point was that in states where the GOP is in power, no one in power cares about voter disenfranchisement? Well, no shit. That’s the whole complaint.
But your original insult was that Shayna lives in some kind of fantasy world in which something bad is happening but no one who matters cares. That assertion doesn’t make any sense even as you’ve now revised it, since the GOP still hasn’t been able to do away with the federal government.
And yet we have this…
And no shit: that was the whole answer.
She complains about Voter ID laws in Texas. What the fuck do I care that Pennsylvania elected some douche who doesn’t like them?
Yes: Shayna lives in some kind of fantasy world.
What state’s Voter ID laws has the federal government erased, even with Captain Holder flying to the rescue?
She complained about voter obstacles, neither limited to Voter ID nor limited to Texas. That’s some kind of weird thread revisionism that you’re engaging in even though we can all just scroll up.
Again, Texas. You aren’t counting that, because the Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed the decision. But that’s a really bizarre way to think about it. You’re saying the AG doesn’t have any power over Texas because his successful effort to stop Texas voter ID was put on hold by the Court of Appeals.
It’s like saying that the US doesn’t have any military power because it lost in Vietnam. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s like saying the US doesn’t have any military power because it hasn’t yet defeated ISIS.
And from your seat on the short bus everybody can get that picture ID with no problem.
Of course, that would be a completely different sort of problem (if it is a problem, which it isn’t, if you’ll watch the video closely – I’ve seen it before), having nothing to do with and not preventable by a voter ID requirement.
Tell you what, Richard. You start demanding the same standard for accuracy to liberal posters, I’ll take up this conversation again. Why should I be the only one here that has to hew to this line?
Your toenail fungus DREAMS of being as smart as me.
You do too, probably, but you should keep your expectations reasonable. Work on beating your toenail fungus at checkers first.
I have to confess, I find this to be a very weird viewpoint. Certainly I too believe that the voters of a state should express their will through their elected representatives. But I don’t see why this would invalidate the notion of being upset if people chose something I disliked. I’m capable of being both happy that the will of the majority has been followed and unhappy that the will of the majority isn’t in tune with me.
It just seems very strange to me that if I am in support of a decision-making process, I would not - even could not - be unhappy with the actual decision being made, whatever it might be. Am I just misunderstanding you?