I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Bricker]

@Fear_Itself

That was my conclusion as well. When he said that, I pretty much knew I had won that point, and all I need to do was let that turd stink. When your adversary can’t justify his position other than to say “it’s special”, you know they are boxed.

Same question as my previous post.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

On what possible objective scale might we weigh the issue?

Why are your feelings that voters must be given every incentive to register and vote a matter of established and scientifically verifiable fact? Or are they?

Why is my rhetoric on the point empty, and yours full of factual verifiable goodness?

Those aren’t my feelings. Would you like me to describe my feelings, with a listing of my axioms (concepts I take for granted even in lieu of objective proof - and, yes, I freely admit I have some) and my reasoning (concepts I accept based on evidence, including comparative results among various venues with differing registration/voting standards)?

[elucidator]

Don’t see any reason why his intuitive assessment of voting is any worse than anyone else’s. By the same reasoning, no better either.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Those aren’t my feelings. Would you like me to describe my feelings, with a listing of my axioms (concepts I take for granted even in lieu of objective proof - and, yes, I freely admit I have some) and my reasoning (concepts I accept based on evidence, including comparative results among various venues with differing registration/voting standards)?

Do what you feel baby.

[elucidator]

Ooh. Snap.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Don’t see any reason why his intuitive assessment of voting is any worse than anyone else’s. By the same reasoning, no better either.

Bryan says he has concepts he accepts based on evidence, including comparative results among various venues with differing registration/voting standards.

Be interesting to see those.

Now, I should point out now, lest I be accused of moving goal posts later, that if his evidence is: “Lower turnout tends to favor Republicans, and is therefore bad,” or something else that amounts to circular reasoning, I’ll be unpersuaded.

[elucidator]

Ruining his otherwise excellent chances of persuading you? He may have to just live with that. As best he can.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Ruining his otherwise excellent chances of persuading you? He may have to just live with that. As best he can.

I have previously shown a willingness to reverse my position based on sound argument.

And I’ve shown a willingness to admit error.

You seem to believe that any explicit retreat from your position amounts to a betrayal of the sacred oath you swore on Michael Harrington’s dog-eared copy of “Labor and Freedom.”

So from you, I won’t hear one word about how I am supposedly impervious to reasoned persuasion.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Do what you feel baby.

@Bricker

Bryan says he has concepts he accepts based on evidence, including comparative results among various venues with differing registration/voting standards.

Be interesting to see those.

You’re presenting mixed signals.

Now, I should point out now, lest I be accused of moving goal posts later, that if his evidence is: “Lower turnout tends to favor Republicans, and is therefore bad,” or something else that amounts to circular reasoning, I’ll be unpersuaded.

I’m not sure that IS circular reasoning, but my description, if presented, will not contain any references to the Republicans. It will be a summary of the overall thinking that forms my view, and not specific to the actions of modern Republicans or Democrats or, for that matter, past Republicans or Democrats. Afterward, I might venture opinions on specific issues and controversies, past and present.

And it if happens, it will be when I am back at my computer and not on my smartphone. This may be several hours.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

I have previously shown a willingness to reverse my position based on sound argument.

And I’ve shown a willingness to admit error.

You seem to believe that any explicit retreat from your position amounts to a betrayal of the sacred oath you swore on Michael Harrington’s dog-eared copy of “Labor and Freedom.”

So from you, I won’t hear one word about how I am supposedly impervious to reasoned persuasion.

Boy, you have to keep bringing that up! Already, my cheeks burn with shame over my failure to live up to your glowing standards of candor and reason!

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Boy, you have to keep bringing that up! Already, my cheeks burn with shame over my failure to live up to your glowing standards of candor and reason!

I doubt you really understand shame over making poor intellectual arguments, or saying something untrue, elucidator. Your statement above is a clear and obvious lie. You don’t feel a bit of shame over this.

[septimus]

@Bricker

… if his evidence is: “Lower turnout tends to favor Republicans, and is therefore bad,” or something else that amounts to circular reasoning, I’ll be unpersuaded.

Ignoring any relationship between turnouts and Goodness™, do you now stipulate that GOP-sponsored legislation tends to reduce turnouts? Did you make this concession 8000 posts ago and I missed it, or is this news?

Or do you stick by a claim that any reduction in voter turnout is due to fraudulent votes that GOP pro-Democracy rules have prevented?

If you do stipulate that GOP-sponsored legislation reduces turnout, do you have any hunch which party is favored?

…

Or, are you still stipulating to no such things, but preparing a bamboozlement that any contrary evidence would be “circular” or “unpersuasive”?

(Apologies if your 2045 (! :eek: ) posts in this thread form a coherent Manifesto which clearly answers my questions. I only click the thread when “Bricker” appears in the “Most recent” slot, and then just read your most recent.)

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

I doubt you really understand shame over making poor intellectual arguments, or saying something untrue, elucidator. Your statement above is a clear and obvious lie. You don’t feel a bit of shame over this.

You lied about my position on the Mass. Legislature for over a year, repeatedly. So get off your high horse you fucking stooge.

[Bryan_Ekers]

California has adopted automatic registration, I just heard on NPR. California Republicans opposed, apparantly.

[Slash1972]

@Bryan_Ekers

California has adopted automatic registration, I just heard on NPR. California Republicans opposed, apparantly.

Every Republican state Senator voted no. I still haven’t heard any valid reasons for this.

[elucidator]

Critics predict new California motor-voter law will flood voter rolls with...

(I just linked to the Washington Times. I shoulda worn a condom. Two.)

California motor-voter law will flood rolls with non-citizens, critics predict

Do I really need to quote any of it? You guys know the drill.

[elucidator]

Kris Kobach files to prosecute three voter fraud cases in Kansas

**Kris Kobach files to prosecute three voter fraud cases in Kansas **

Three. Count 'em, three. Finally, some action is taken on the dread threat of voter fraud in Kansas! Yessiree, Bob, three! Hoooo, doggies!

[The_Lurker_Above]

@elucidator

Three. Count 'em, three. Finally, some action is taken on the dread threat of voter fraud in Kansas! Yessiree, Bob, three! Hoooo, doggies!

And unless I’m reading the article wrong all three cases involve people voting in two states; how are voter IDs going to prevent that?

I also note that all three are Republicans, or at least registered as such.

[Lobohan]

Okay, maybe they didn’t get any in-person voter fraud. But look at it from their perspective: The GOP are evil-assholes who want to win even if it means disenfranchising poor people.

From that point of view it’s perfectly reasonable.

[Bricker]

@The_Lurker_Above

And unless I’m reading the article wrong all three cases involve people voting in two states; how are voter IDs going to prevent that?

I also note that all three are Republicans, or at least registered as such.

The prosecution of the cases will be easier if the voters presented ID.