I admit I’m working from the position of not knowing exactly what a party-hired election judge does (or prior to a few days ago, not knowing that party-hired election judges were even a thing), but these people got confusing calls from an apparant authority who they likely felt had no reason to lie to them. Not all of them were fooled, but some were. I’m not inclined to call them stupid or throw other insults at someone who was naively trusting. If they fall for it TWICE, of course…
I find it amusing that I’m in the position of defending Republican supporters to you. You’re just a big sack of contempt, aren’t you?
Which federal court do you imagine is going to read that report and start invalidating laws? Wanna bet?
Of course not. You love to predict and hint, and be soothed by the bleating of your fellows, as you all look around and declare how correct you are.
But when it comes to actual results, the well is pretty dry. And when it comes to any actual negative consequences for your predictions, you suffer none. No betting for you, of course. And when the reality continues to diverge from your expectations, you don’t wince a bit. Ask a liberal to choose between reality and ideology, and ideology wins every time. Woolly-headed dreamers, the lot of you.
You’re not even attempting to discuss this rationally. I didn’t say or even imply the behaviour of the election workers was smart, I said I was not inclined to call them stupid for trusting an organization for which they had volunteered and which there probably wasn’t any prior reason from whom to suspect deception.
I’m willing to be the adult here - although I might occasionally attribute this odious stunt to “the Republicans” as shorthand, my opinion barring new evidence is that this was hatched by a few individuals within the Illinois chapter specifically.
And after your “shorthand,” is highlighted, you retreat – er, “advance towards the rear,” – and say you’re willing to be the adult?
Well, good. I appreciate your willingness.
But if your opinion now is that it’s deceptive to say “the Republicans,” and acknowledge it was some people who presumably wanted to give an illicit advantage to the Republicans, as opposed to the “Republicans” as a whole – why did you do it?
I said exactly why I might say “the Republicans” when I’m aware the perpetrators are likely a small subset of Republicans. Meanwhile, you’re eagerly throwing around “liberals” (and “Mother Jones readers”, apparently) as indiscriminate labels of contempt.
Now my willingness to be the adult is mooted; I’ve become the adult by default. Grow up, please. This has become sad.
This should be required reading. The one sane far-right conservative on this board, and he’s a piece of filth.
An un-repentant liar too. Remember when you lied about my position on the Mass. state legislature changing who appoints replacement senators? Good times.
Certainly not those brave and ethical men who voted against it! No, by no means would we renounce and denounce such splendid people! As well, those Republicans not in a position to vote yea or nay, but spoke out forthrightly and firmly against such, ah, sordid goings-on.
We stand ready to heap praise and approval on them! Got any names? How about name, singular? Or you, for that matter!
…is ambiguous enough that it could refer to election judges.
You’re wrong either way.
Either you meant that:
Braindead people got tricked into not voting; or,
The only people affected by the robocalls were the braindead judges who were tricked into not showing.
But neither of these statements are supported by the facts on the ground. In fact, intelligent and diligent voters who did not get robocalls were nonetheless unable to vote, through no fault of their own.
(I’m assuming, since you are so busy accusing me of lying and nitpicking my rhetoric, that you tentatively accept the actual facts of the article as written? Someone else pointed out that we only have a single source at the moment–I’m open to discussing the specifics of what actually happened, if you can get over your automatic presupposition that all liberals are lying idiots.)
If you meant something else by the “flummoxed” statement, go ahead and clarify. But I doubt it.
I’m not convinced either, Rey. Too much that doesn’t hang together.
People who decide to take on the dreary and needful task of volunteering for poll work are into this shit, they know what days are what days. All these people getting these calls, and nobody gets suspicious, nobody makes a couple calls? I don’t get it. A naive and trusting political junkie in Chicago?
Minneapolis is for nice, Houston is Calcutta meets Oakland, and Chicago has corrupt politics. Trey duh, may no?
By no means do I doubt the skulduggery that throbs darkly in the Republican heart. Just not this one. And single source? If that’s so, and I don’t know that it is or isn’t…well, gonna have to put this on the tentative maybe list.
Well, at a guess, the goal wasn’t to drive off all the volunteers, but losing five or ten percent of them could have a significant effect on voter totals. Similarly, tougher voter ID laws that catch maybe one percent of the population are trying for an edge, not a blowout.
What happens, in the hypothetical, if the Illinois Republicans can’t get any volunteers in 2016, or at most a greatly reduced number, because of antics like this?
I stand corrected; at least two sources (AP and Chicago Sun Times) have reported on this independently. There are dozens of articles on the subject; many of those are copy-pasted from one or both of the investigative sources, but two independent and reliable sources makes it pretty clear this happened and was harmful.
Well, he can’t argue on merits, he can only cling to “liberals believe this, and since liberals are always wrong, what they believe must be wrong” even if he shows an at-best childish understanding of the people he calls “liberals”.
Anyone unable to stand in line for 7 hours to vote. Noting of course that these were unforeseeable delays, too, so the sneering claim that these people should have been less “braindead” and planned around the delay won’t be compelling.
The issues are kinda separate, but not really. There has long been pressure to make voting access more democratic. Its disgusting that voting is more convenient for people who live in areas where the tax base affords numerous voting machines in convenient locations. Do we stand for equal voting rights, or don’t we?
It has not escaped my notice that such conditions favor the white and comfortable voter. And that equalizing voting access would likely result in more participation from the demographics that are neither. And also aware that there are people who would prefer if that didn’t happen. In the sense that they are willing to set their hair on fire and roll around on the floor screaming to stop it.
Why do we even permit such a state of affairs? What, voting booths are complicated, difficult and expensive to build?
Have I partisan motives? I’ll ask if **Bricker **will loan me his big brown innocent eyes for me to bat while I say…
“Why, no, of course not, I simply want to ensure that the poor, latino or black Republican voter has an equal opportunity to express his approval for Republican policy!” Bat bat bat…
After all, in a really super dooper close election, how would they know whether they may have lost because a few inner-city Republicans suffered a walker malfunction, and couldn’t wait five hours! I mean, c’mon, that’s totally non-partisan! Bat bat bat…
Incidentally, Bricker, a message board is a terrible place for dishonest quote-mining, since anyone can click the “back” button and see what you snipped. Here is a section of your post (snipped, but I haven’t left out anything topical)
And here, out of the same post from which you quoted me, is a bit you left on the cutting room floor–accidentally, I’m sure:
You quote fallacies at me, lecturing me for failing to consider more than two possibilities, after excising the part of my post where I acknowledge more than two possibilities. And yet, you still have the temerity to call me dishonest.