God you’re a whiner.
No, I’m going to spend my time doing fun things – engaging with people who disagree – not poring over past posts to see if someone’s goofy insult is warranted or not.
Whiner, yes. And also so steeped in fear and loathing he’s confederated most of his liberal interlocutors into our own brigade. Since Dunning-Kruger confirmed the value of any random incompetent’s opinion on the skills or knowledge of others, I’m not quite as disturbed as Bricker might have me be over the sobriquet “Idiot” he’s assigned me and my fellow supposed travellers, but good for him for having a coherent world view.
Sure, but if we both agree that there is some level of difficultly short of outright impossibility which is impermissible, then why do you keep bringing up whether or not voting was actually made IMPOSSIBLE for people in various examples we’re discussing?
assuming that by “the people that get to decide what the impermissible point is” you mean the courts, well, they have spoken, and quite a number of voter ID laws have been struck down. That means that the ones that remain are, by definition, legal. But it ought to give you pause if you’re evaluating them. “This one was found legal even though similar ones in other states were not” isn’t a rousing endorsement, and it should also give you pause before you mock someone who argues that the remaining laws ought to be invalid.
Well, except to the extent that I would attempt to convince you (and of course the possibly-imaginary undecided observers) of the moral and ethical correctness of my position. Which is the fundamental reason for my involvement in this thread in the first place.
Because “impossible,” is a standard at which there’s no question: we need not analyze the burden to determine if it’s acceptable.
At the level that actually exists, which is permissible, there’s no problem.
It doesn’t give me pause.
The courts are only a part of the process. The process starts with the legislature, which is the mechanism by which the people express their will.
I have no idea what this paragraph of yours means. “This one was found legal even though similar ones in other states were not,” simply means that although they were similar, it was their differences which were important. It is a perfectly rousing endorsement of those which remain. And it’s a fine basis on which to mock those arguing that the laws should be invalid, since they’re not.
Obviously, I am not convinced.
The bulk of your audience already agrees with you. You’ve chosen to preach to the converted.
We KNOW the level that actually exists? Oh, did someone do a really comprehensive study that I missed?
Let me restate my point: it’s possible, I suppose, that you are right and everyone else in this thread is wrong, and that the total benefit to democracy from these laws outweighs the detriments, and the burdens are all small, and so forth. However, we note that many many judges, even ones who ended up in minorities writing dissents, agreed with the liberal side of this argument. That suggests that if your side is correct it is NOT because of some ludicrous and mockable error on our side, but due to a close and difficult to assess balancing of priorities. But I’ve rarely felt that your argument was anything like “yeah, I agree that what you’re saying is troubling and substantive, I just think that this other thing is MORE important”. Rather you’ve been saying “haha, they can’t get IDs? What are they, morons who believe in voodoo?”. Granted, part of that is almost certainly due to the tenor of this thread. But in a moment of calm here, DO you agree that there are meaningful reasons why sober and honest people would be concerned about this whole issue, even if you think that on the whole those concerns aren’t sufficient to invalidate the various laws?
I don’t see how repeated attempts to argue with specifically you, to the extent that I pretty much ignore posts by people other than you, which is part of why I don’t spend a lot of time pointing out their logical flaws, can possibly be considering preaching to the converted. It’s exactly the opposite, in fact. Unless your claim is that I’m arguing with you purely as a form of grandstanding… fodder for my “poster of the year” campaign in 2015?
The Texas legislature. The Wisconsin legislature. Etc.
In other words, “we know” means that the people who need to be convinced are convinced. You ask for a study that would convince YOU. You’re not someone who needs to be convinced.
Of course. The entire discussion is about balancing the need to identify voters with imposing potentially onerous requirements. That’s clearly subjective. There are plenty of reasons people would choose to place greater weight than I do on access to voting, and consequently come down on the other side of the issue.
But just as I admit there’s not an objective, measurable method of weighing competing coals here, surely you cannot claim there is an objective, measureable answer here either. I say that preventing cheating is more important to our society than ensuring we make it as easy as possible for every person to vote. You seem to want to take it as a given that our first priority is to make it as easy as possible for every single person to vote. I say “nay nay.” I say that the goal of making it easy should be balanced against the goal to not have bad votes, and that the second goal is more important than the first.
You disagree.
That’s fine.
I’ve said those exact words before, Max.
“It’s not my fault other people keep hitting you during our sparring match. I’m not even paying attention to those people punching you.”
Shall we take our discussion to PM or e-mail?
Perhaps I am only indulging morbid curiosity but…
Your backhanded dismissal of the GAO report…does that have any support? Scholarly criticisms by experts in the field? Not that I am inclined to doubt someone who’s towering intellect transcends the limitations of ordinary men, no, no, of course not! But I would be curious to know how long it took the rest of them to catch up. Or are they still lagging behind? Because you neglected to advise them?
Perhaps we should defund the GAO? After all, what need have we of a bunch of bumbling bean counters when we have you? Have you written out a critique of their methods and conclusions, something that might offer these mediocrities some insight, point out for them the shining path to truth?
No, it isn’t. Perhaps that is the argument you would like to have. Our argument, as outlined in the title of the thread, is about using such requirements for a partisan advantage, to stack the deck.
And you still don’t get that? Seriously?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
“It’s not my fault other people keep hitting you during our sparring match. I’m not even paying attention to those people punching you.”
[/quote]
If I were Bricker, I might use this statement to draw a general conclusion about all conservatives being complete wussies.
[Quote=Bricker]
Shall we take our discussion to PM or e-mail?
[/QUOTE]
I wish you wouldn’t, because then all the rest of us would miss out on these admissions that MaxTheVool is pulling from you. You keep clearly articulating that there is no point in our discussing this topic once the authorities have decided. I would never have expected such a bald admission of your pure authoritarian approach to ethics, but there it is.
We would also miss out on observing your pathetic response to the observation that not all authorities agree on this.
In short, run away if you must, but realize we have all seen your pleas for mercy here.
To be fair, Bricker’s mentioned the will of the people in terms of “that’s decided, end of” just as much as he has judicial opinion.
I don’t care that you think that’s happening.
What can you do about it? Nothing, except try that folk song protest tactic I generously tried to help you with. That’s what lefties know: singing protest songs. Get to it.
The GAO report says nothing that helps your position.
Ah! Well, that certainly settles that!
**
Congressional study: voter ID laws lower minority turnout**
Something called The Jurist, of whom I have never heard, but can be assured they are an ignorant bunch of lefty moonbats.
**
Voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee dropped 2012 turnout by over 100,000 votes**
-* Washington Post*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/gao-voter-id-laws-in-kansas-and-tennessee-dropped-2012-turnout-by-over-100000-votes/
Voter ID laws suppress turnout? Of course they do!
- Boston Globe, (editorial)
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/10/17/voter-laws-suppress-turnout-course-they/B4MKc4Xmq2PMYmi1JaZhDL/story.html
Want more? Oodles and gobs available. Page after page after page. All a bunch of lies? We have this on your authority?
Google is my friend. But your enemy.
That’s not a primary source. You’re citing a reporter that has no idea what he’s reading. What does the GAO report say?
I just read it - it says Bricker is a schmuck.
Before handing out homework, will you accept the GAO’s findings or simply dismiss them?
I only ask because you’re not very honest.
First off, those are just four I picked out, like I said, there’s a bunch of them. And I tossed aside such as Daily Kos and ThinkProgress to comply with the SDMB Accord on the Weaponization of Liberal Cooties. At any rate, there are at least four. so your use of the singular “a reporter” is misleading.
But let me see if I’ve got this straight: you got the goods on these guys, you got da facts, you can nail their shit to the door, no prob, just like Martin Luther’s 95 Feces. Its a slam debunk for the World’s Foremost Authority.
But you won’t. You’re shy. Reticent. Deeply concerned with the feelings of others, you don’t want to embarrass anybody. Or be seen as showing off.
Before we go any further in this story, will there be unicorns and wizards? I like the ones with unicorns and wizards.
But … Ramon Cue !!!
To quote the greater debate expert Lauren Cooper, I ain’t even bovvered.
No. I just refuse to do your homework.