As you’ve repeatedly stated with the robotic determination of someone whose position has been destroyed but for the remaining sliver of technical correctness - the only thing needed to make any law legitimate is the approval of a legislature, the signature of an executive, and the lack of rejection by the judiciary. It doesn’t matter in the least if the law creates more problems than it solves (as this one does), if indeed the problem supposedly being addressed is trivial to the point of virtual nonexistence (as voter fraud is), or if efforts to make the law function with some semblance of rationality aren’t being made (as Republicans aren’t).
That still makes you a liar and, frankly, a bad citizen for supporting the effort.
Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why a few dozen potential noncitizen voters would be so catastrophic that it is well worth disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of citizens.
My predictive skills are a bit better than adaher, so as to the 2016 races: Hillary will be a much stronger candidate than Jeb Bush. Her pantsuittails will pull some Dems into the House, perhaps not enough to get the gavel away from Agent Orange, but it will cut deep into his caucus. In the Senate, the simple math is that there will be more at-risk Republican seats than Democratic seats plus the fact that the presidential electorate is much bluer than the midterm electorate. Not to mention that as the oldsters die off, the national electorate becomes less red.
What excuse will I make if the Senate stays in Satan’s hands? Depends on what the situation is. If a domestic terror attack mobilizes the Islamophobes or the stock market crashes, those would be potential reasons to shun the president’s party. Other than that, we’ll have to wait for the election and I will enlighten you with my theories as to how it will play out.
Obviously, I disagree. I think the support of election schemes that fail to exclude non-citizen voters makes you a bad citizen – or would, if you were a citizen of the country under discussion.
As it is, I suppose it merely makes you self-interested.
I agree with Bricker that it’s a matter of priorities: is it more important to exclude non-enfranchised voters or double-voters, or is it more important to make voting easy and accessible for all?
But placing priority on ensuring that non-citizens don’t vote just seems bizarre to my personal moral values. Over 40 states or territories have at some time admitted aliens voting rights for some or all elections. There are certainly good arguments for allowing non-citizens to vote, and in any event, they are exceedingly unlikely to affect anything. By contrast, no one thinks (or admits) it is actually a good idea–in and of itself–to make it harder to vote for old people or poor people. And making it harder for certain people to vote really does affect elections.
I can often see things from the other side’s point of view, but this is one case in which my moral empathy fails me. I just have a very hard time seeing how someone would balance the ethical issues that way.
Here’s your predictive powers November 4th, 2014, at 1:06 PM:
And your sober analysis in August of 2014:
For the reader following along: McConnell faced Democratic Alison Grimes, the Kentucky Secretary of State, in the general election. He won 56% to 41%, an over 15 percentage points victory and his second-largest margin of victory for any of his senate races. In other words, it wasn’t even close. How sweet.
You liked Colorado incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Udall’s chances against Republican then-Congressman Cory Gardner. Gardner beat incumbent Udall.
You liked the Iowa Democrats’ chances of retaining Tom Harkin’s seat, which was sought by Bruce Braley, the Congressman for Iowa’s 1st Congressional District… and he of course lost to Republican State Senator Joni Ernst.
In Michigan, the blind squirrel found the nut: your liking of Democratic Congressman Gary Peters was accurate as he won the Senate seat against Republican Terri Land.
But not in Georgia, the last of your five predictions: David Perdue, a Republican with no prior elected office to his name, beat Michelle Nunn, a Democrat with no prior elected office to her name (well, strictly speaking, perhaps “name” isn’t correct, since her dad is longtime Georgia Senator Sam Nunn.)
Remember those confident predictions? Remember how you constantly talked up the Democrats’ chances to keep the Senate in 2014? Remember how that didn’t happen? Remember how those failed predictions have cost you absolutely nothing here, and how you failed to learn anything from them and are still making specious predictions now?
…while simultaneously blocking a far larger number of citizen voters. That’s the messy reality that gets ignored in your efforts to lie to us or, more pathetically, yourself.
Sure. Watching Americans inflict harm on themselves out of fear is I cheerfully admit a bit of light entertainment for me. Like a freak show, kind of.
And yet I assume you’d quickly concede that the Democratic party would not be wise to adopt, as an open platform plank, extending the vote to non-citizens.
Yes?
So it seems to my personal moral values that this is an area in which you’re content to advance your personal moral values by stealth, in a manner of speaking.
I’m certainly happy for you that you have enough time on your hands to conduct such thorough research. There are a few worse ways to spend your time, perhaps keeping up with the Kardashians would be one.
Anyway, the 2014 election was an anomaly. Democrats decided to run away from a popular president and paid the price. 2016 will be different as presidential years are.
Still waiting to hear why we need fear a smattering of votes from noncitizens so much that we should be willing to prevent scores of thousands of citizens from voting.
By August, and certainly by November 4th, it should have been clear to you that the Democrats were “running away from a popular president.” How come it only became clear to you after the election results were in that this was the price that they would pay? Why weren’t you saying on November 1st that the Democrats were doomed because they ran away from the popular president?
Did they only run away Monday night, too late for you to properly comment? When did you realize that Democrats’ running away was so deadly to their chances? What date, specifically?
Obama was a “popular president” in Oct/Nov 2014? Doesn’t a president have to, at least, have a favorability rating > 50% to be “popular”? That certainly was not the case prior to the last election.
I am familiar with the parable of the prodigal son. (For any reader that may not be: in brief, Jesus analogizes God’s forgiveness to the story of a man with two sons, one of whom asks for his inheritance, leaves and squanders it, and then worries about whether he could possibly return home; the father is so overjoyed to have him back that all is forgiven).
But that’s not really relevant here. I am asking you when you realized that the Democrats were doomed because they ran away from the popular president. They “ran away” during the months leading up to the election, yet you were saying as late as November 4th, 2014, at 1:06 PM that the Democrats would retain control of the Senate.
Of course you are (or a least are taking actions whose predictable and likely outcome is to do so), as you have admitted at previous times in this thread when repeatedly questioned so that you were forced to face up to the actual implications of your position.
It’s perfectly reasonable to use the word “prevented” to mean “added sufficient obstacles, short of absolute impossibility, that the affected party no longer took the action”, particularly with respect to the actions of masses of people.
I also don’t see what pre-election prognostication has to do with the ethical correctness of voter ID laws.
Of course that’s also true. But even accepting the obvious blindness that would cause anyone to say Obama was a popular president during the lead-up to the 2014 midterms, the rationale BoblibDem still falls flat.
To take this matter first, it’s because Lobohan sought rhetorical advantage by saying, “It’s amazing anyone still votes for these cunts.” I pointed out that he can hardly claim it’s rare; the GOP controls both houses of Congress. BoblibDem then confidently predicted this would change in the next election, and I countered that by showing in detail his previous equally confident, and absolutely wrong, predictions.
I have never “admitted” that the word prevented is a fair or reasonable choice to make in describing this outcome. Have I?
No. I’m saying, I expect rational people to have some level of humility about whatever moral judgment they attach to allowing non-citizens to vote, since this is not by any means a universally-recognized wrong. I would expect the same kind of humility in people’s judgments about, say, the morality of smoking marijuana. And because of that moral humility, I would expect people to be reluctant to trade stopping non-citizens from voting in exchange for some nearly-universally-recognized evil, like making it harder for poor people to vote.
Obviously, the flaw in that model of how people do moral reasoning is that many people don’t have any humility about their moral judgments. It’s a non-factor for a lot of people, such that their belief in the wrongness of, say, abortion is just as intense as their belief in the wrongness of arbitrarily murdering your brother in his sleep.
I just have trouble putting myself in the shoes of such a person who does not discount the weighing of moral principles about which they should be objectively less certain. Which is a problem with my empathy skills, of course.
And who was to say that at 1:07 PM the Democratic candidates wouldn’t have repented and pledged to work tirelessly to promote the Obama agenda? I know that’s what I would have done.