So, when you children are atheist liberals, will you still love them, Bricker?
Precisely the word, “legendary”. As in myth, or fairy tale.
Honestly, this entire thing boils down to one thing for me: regardless of the merits, and the stated reasonings, it is abundantly clear that the Republican politicians who put these laws into place did so with the primary intent and desire to reduce the number of voters on the other side of the political aisle, and that’s abhorrent.
This was in place of the voter registration card. I get those from the county in the mail and trash them; one less thing to carry around. The process is the same: instead of showing the registration card, I show the DL, sign the book and vote.
This is awfully convenient for you – it allows you to ignore the most reasonable and non-negative arguments and just be critical of the ones you think are unreasonable and most insulting.
I’ll explain it again. I come to these threads to argue with people who disagree with me. I often skip over the posts that agree with me, even if they’re poorly made. Correcting poorly made arguments that are “on my side” is not nearly as much fun for me as engaging with people who actually disagree.
So quit whining about how we don’t criticize the poor arguments on our side. We usually don’t even read them – we come to this thread to engage with you. That’s all there is to it – I come to the Dope because it’s fun and enlightening to argue with those who disagree. I don’t find it fun and enlightening to comb through the posts that agree with me for mistakes.
Why not try the opposite tactic? Only engage with the reasonable and even-toned arguments and ignore the rest?
Well, not Bricker specifically. He just has a good mix of articulateness, persistence, irrationality and unwillingness to analyze his own irrationality.
He hasn’t been nearly as interesting since the brain injury.
That’s what I generally do in GD.
But why should I abandon this forum to the Idiot Brigade?
The pinnacle of Bricker’s intellect here has been the following bit of hard-won legal expertise: Decisions by courts of law are the accepted outcome of the American legal system. Neener, neener.
Gee, what remarkable insight. Note that the slices of this brilliance sandwich include such wonders as Sven, the sexagenarian sleeper vote-fraudster and "It’s perfectly acceptable that your source for voter IDs has a schedule of only being open on the 5th Wednesday of a month. If that doesn’t work for you, just drive 20 miles to the next closest location. That would only take 20 minutes.
Bricker: genius extraordinaire!
Unless you’re arguing that there are absolutely zero substantive, reasonable, and even-toned liberal arguments made in this forum, then you don’t have to abandon it.
Does the next best things, he ignores arguments for which he has no answer. And brushes aside without explanation evidence that is damaging. And, of course, pretending that the argument is about how great and popular voter ID is.
Now, he wants us all to believe that all he was ever doing was defending the right of elected legislatures to enact whatever legislation they choose because they are legally entitled to do so. Many of us who lack his legal sophistry are confused, we are of the naive opinion that this had been settled, and no, state legislatures do not have the right to hinder and oppress citizens who hold opinions they find inconvenient and distasteful. Something about some guy named James Crow. Called the Civilian Rights movement, something like that.
Will talk about Ramon Cue all you like, has no time for partisan and biased research like the GAO report.
And why, prey, is it legitimate to dangle voter ID in front of the voter as though it were a prize to be sought and struggled for in order to exercise inherent rights? Why should the state be permitted to demand effort to obtain the rights that come with having a navel?
They didn’t have to do it this way. If the warm crunchy goodness of voter ID is so marvelous a thing, it ought to be provided, the state should be eager to press it into the hands of the voter, rather than offer an obstacle course to secure the rights they were born with. There are any number of ways to provide such ID freely and easily, if that were, indeed, the point of the exercise.
They didn’t. Because that wasn’t the point of the effort. Stacking the electoral deck was the point. They could have cobbled together a voter ID outreach plan without the least taint of partisan intent.
They didn’t. Because they didn’t want to. Nobody was stopping them from doing the right thing.
At least, the very least, he has sporadic outbursts of candor, he admits that “some” Republicans had sordid motives in all of this, but reminds us that men in black polyester robes say that’s totally OK, so therefore it is. Since, of course, no set of men so attired have ever supported an injustice. OK, maybe once, Twice, tops.
And finally, he tries to pretend that the civility and politeness with which an argument is made has some crucial bearing on the validity of the argument. Which is like claiming that if one sack of shit is heavier than another, it stinks less.
Feh! as they say in Lubbock…
Right. You’re happy because the GOPers have successfully cheated to win a bunch of elections.
It wasn’t cheating; it was perfectly within the rules after they changed the rules.
We have an accepted system for changing the rules. Why do you hate America?
That was my thought, but it’s clear to me that: if it’s possible to simultaneously wallow in the mud with the IB and engage in thoughtful nuanced discussion in the same thread, it’s beyond my capacity to do so. I won’t leave Lobohan’s stupidity unaddressed.
Why not, you lie about my positions, over and over and when called on it run away like a pissy child.
You ignore my arguments, especially when they demolish your own, even when I go through the trouble of explaining in detail your own arguments to you.
You’re a coward. A timid, fretful thing that fears having his illusions of superiority laid bare.
You’re wrong Bricker. And every single poster other than the rote ideologues like Magellan and Clothy knows it. <3
Really? It’s actually quite easy. It helps to keep things personal, ie address someone’s argument directly instead of thinking they can be lumped in with some ill-defined cartoonish group and then dismissing that group.
On second thought, I shouldn’t feign surprise that you find this difficult and/or undesirable.
That’s OK, he’s feigning that he finds it difficult or undesirable. However, being Canadian, you should probably apologize anyway.
I accept this as being true. It is however a poor way to conduct a discussion. For me, it leaves the impression of condoning or sanctioning poor arguments. If a person argues that we should maintain roads becuase they are used as a leprechaun thoroughfare that should be met with opposition not because you don’t want well maintained roads, but because it’s poor argument.
But attention and posting are limited resources (for most people!). We should give attention to the smart arguments, not the stupid arguments.
Too often the temptation is to respond to the weakest arguments against one’s position. I think that’s a MUCH stronger temptation than the temptation to ignore weak arguments that happen to support your side. If anything, people on this board should spend less time addressing stupid posts.