I admit my lack of full understanding with the circumstances, but I’m not inclined to describe the workers as braindead, or impaired in any way. They got phone calls from someone of apparent authority (enhanced by the fact that they had the worker’s phone number in the first place, suggesting access to official information not available to some random schmo) and it may not have been clear how to verify the information or time to do so. Further, they’d have no reason to assume someone from the Republican Party would be lying to them. I can see their confusion being the result of trust, not stupidity.
It’s the betrayal of that trust that has me curious about ramifications for future elections. If you were fucking with the people who agreed to work for the other party, that’d be a dirty trick, but the Illinois Republicans are fucking with their own people, unless I’m wildly misreading the situation.
And 84 times, it’s been fucking bullshit. It’s just your faBrickation. Some kind of bizarre extension of some bullshit you’ve claimed about passing bad checks.
We all know of Ramon Cue. You’ve mentioned him 84 times as well, because he’s all you’ve got, you night school attorney.
Of course not. To a liberal, the concept that an election judge would get a call saying he had to vote a certain way to serve as an election judge makes absolutely perfect sense. Liberals are so easily duped that detecting that such a statement might possibly be false is viewed as well-nigh impossible.
Did they say that voter ID was OK? Yes. Did they say that a partisan and unjust application of voter ID was OK? That would be interesting, to say the least. Where, exactly, was this written, that its OK for one party to use a legitimate concern to stack the electoral deck in their favor?
Its OK for the Republican Party to bugger the minority voter, so long as they don’t stick it in all the way? Is that what the courts said?
Did they say that voter ID is so gosh-darn wonderful that no partisan warping and corruption is possible? Was the GAO report entered in evidence at the time? Might it not be possible that the court might not consult you as regards to its evidential value, and might fail to agree with you?
It would have perfectly possible to craft a voter ID law without any taint of partisan advantage. They didn’t do that. They didn’t do that because: they did not want to.
Actually, as a CANADIAN, the idea of election judges (or indeed any official whose absence would dramatically slow the process) being provided by a political party is something that bemuses me.
But as I understand it, the people duped by the calls weren’t liberals, but people who were to work on behalf of the Republicans to, I guess, judge that the vote was being run fairly.
If that is not the case, what do YOU think happened, and who were the people getting this bad information? A close reading of your post suggests the entire story is false and no such calls were made. I thought you’d already acknowledged the contrary.
Yes. (According to you, anyway: you contend that the current Voter ID laws are partisan and unjust, right? They said those laws were OK, as you concede above.)
Of course, the current laws are not unjust, although I suppose they are “partisan.” And the Supreme Court has specifically said that partisan laws – that is, laws supported only by one party – are OK.
That’s it. Battle over. Liberals lose. Voter ID wins. It’s done. Go back to singing protest songs about Walmart.
That’s not my understanding. If it were in the interest of the Republicans to assign those jobs to people that would simply not show up, they could have hired Solyndra employees.
Or their own loyalists, with instructions to feign various obstacles.
The people that got called were volunteers who were supposed to manage the activities at polling stations. Various strategems that no normal person could see through, like being told they had to vote for a particular party before they could serve in this capacity, were used to ensure they did not turn up. Undoubtedly other calls were being readied in the same spirit of plausibility, with some election judges being told they would have to wrestle a bear or defang a cobra while naked before serving. (Why the cobra was naked would be left tantilizingly unexplained).
No, no. It sure sounds like the kind of thing liberals would fall for.
“You have to vote for this person or you can’t be an election judge.”
“Okay dokey!”
Liberal Battle Cry:
We’re the dumbest! Now let’s vote! We’re the dumbest! Now let’s vote!
The possibility (indeed strong temptation) for work-to-rule slowdowns is a large reason the whole idea strikes me as odd, if not baffling.
So these were people who volunteered to the Republican Party, to manage the activities to ensure that party would be treated fairly? Is that the gist? If so, would they be inclined to think the Republican Party would deliberately lie to them?
I suspect some are now so inclined, which has me wondering about Republican short-sightedness. Low-level grunt workers are necessary, no? I wouldn’t personally be inclined to burn through them in this manner, because I might need them later.
You realize you’re calling these people stupid for trusting the Republicans, right?
Anyone who received a call claiming that their service as an election judge was contingent on how they voted, and believed it – that person I’ll happily call stupid.
And in fact, if anyone got a call with outlandish claims and trusted it because the caller claimed to represent Republicans, then sure: stupid.
He has kind of started ignoring me, hasn’t he? Well, I’m not here for anything other than to debate, with a huge side order of smacking down stupidity, so I’ll keep responding to his offerings either way.
Not the question, as I’m fairly sure you know. Did they actually address the partisan effect of the laws, did they put the courts legal “OK-doke” on using the laws to create a partisan advantage? Because if they ignored that issue when ruling, then they did not address it. Now, my understanding is that they glanced at it, but decided that there was no objective evidence on which to base a decision, so they ducked.
Which was before the GAO report came out. From a governmental agency who’s province is to supply objective number crunching. Who says, besides you, that such a report cannot be offered, and accepted, as evidence?
Very slippery, Counselor. No cigar. Certainly a law can be legit when it is supported by one party and not the other. It only becomes…scare quote! “partisan” /scare quote…when it offers an electoral advantage to one party over another.
So, anyway, nice try. I’m probably not as smart as I think I am, but thank the Lord I’m not as dumb as you think I am.
If only your insults were clever, they would be more forgivable. Voter ID was only your issue, as we have noted before, the partisan misuse of voter ID is ours. See the title of the thread, that word, “suppression”? Look closely, its there.