Bullshit. It doesn’t matter at all in this instance. AFAICT, Bricker pointed it out because he wanted to try and poison the well in advance of actually looking at the information, just like you’re doing.
And I’ve posted this link before but take a look at what counts as acceptable ID. I count 40+ options there!
And if you somehow can’t provide any of those forms of ID here’s the option to have another registered voter swear that’s you’re legit.
Sam, scroll upthread several thousand posts. You’ll see that most of us who object note first that “identification of citizenship” and suchlike proofs should (and typically are) required at voter registration, not at the poll on election day. So it isn’t that we want no such controls at all.
Further, most of us stated that our objections would be dramatically reduced or even eliminated if the new voter ID laws provided for assistance and education directed at those being impacted, and the requirements were phased in over a sufficient time for the heavily impacted people to obtain their ID’s. Finally, financial subsidies should be available for people for whom obtaining ID poses a genuine burden. Instead, ID’s were in many cases made more difficult to obtain by the closing of drivers license stations and other governmental offices.
It really isn’t supposed to be about allowing or not allowing the “kind of person you want voting” down here on this side of the border. Our pesky Constitution thingy gets in the way of us setting such criteria for exercise of the franchise.
Is your lefty friend Canadian? If so, he should know that the voter ID requirements in Canada operate in a context somewhat different than that of the U.S.
If you’d been paying any attention at all, you’d know we handle that at registration time already.
There’s a whole thread right here, and others in GD and Elections, that would enlighten you. Please feel free.
One thing you might come to learn is that, for many, it isn’t minimal. Another is that the effects are disproportionate. Then, you might realize that (A) that is antidemocratic, and (B) the entire fucking point of these laws.
Come back when etc.
Or maybe you *wouldn’t *understand the point about democracy after all.
A blog is a writer’s personal thoughts, and “a Washington Post article,” is the result of editorial review from one of the nation’s premier newspapers.
What percentage of Canadians don’t have such an ID. Are those Canadians from specific minority groups?
How much effort does it take to get such an ID?
Maybe think about stuff before you get all hot-and-bothered about yappin’ at the lefties?
So what?
The first posted link was a research paper.
The second posted link was the source that originally reported on the research paper.
The source that originally reported the research should only impact one’s initial, provisional acceptance of the article–and then only moderately. It should have no bearing whatsoever on one’s actual analysis of the paper’s findings.
It’s not bullshit. You admitted on your own (post #8397) that you have trouble telling the difference between news and opinion. There is a large distinction between the two.
Posters who don’t know that are a problem on message boards, especially one dedicated to “fighting ignorance”.
No, I didn’t admit that. I said nothing even close to that.
No, lying sacks of shit like yourself are the the problem around here.
I didn’t ask you to explain what the difference between blog and a journalistic article might be, did I? Why not just answer the question I asked?
My answer is: yes, it does matter.
I then gratuitously explained why it mattered.
I thought that would be helpful to you, given your confusion over the difference.
Bo,
You seem genuinely unable to tell the difference between journalism and opinion. I know that you’re not stupid, but what’s up with that?
You’re not from around here, are you? Narrow-minded right-wingers will adopt any excuse to avoid educating themselves. If any of the cites have the word “blog” in the URL (or any of the authors have a French surname :rolleyes: ) they’re happy to reject any post in its entirety.
So, have you acknowledged that there was a 2nd link presented in the post you’re fulminating about? If so, have you read the research paper?
Yes, I have acknowledged there was a second link, and I followed the link and read the paper. In post 8391, I said:
Yes, it may well. For example, the paper targets the states with the most strict voter ID laws; assuming I agreed with its methodology and conclusions, I most likely would favor less strict voter ID standards.
You said:
You were also unable to notice the conversational tone of the blog post, which immediately signals that the piece is not an article, at least not one the Post would publish as an article.
These facts make it at least fairly arguable that you are unable to determine the difference between news and opinion pieces.
OK. So I guess your continued focus on whether the other link – the irrelevant link – is by a journalist or by a blogger is just a distraction, a case of picking on a weak irrelevant matter rather than doing what the intellectually honest do.
And BTW, you either have more confidence in “peer review” than I do, or are just throwing that out as another distraction. This is a behavior pattern that may be appropriate for lawyers but won’t endear you to ordinary humans.
“Your honor, my client should not be found guilty of jaywalking because the signal light may have been broken. Yes, prosecution has submitted a report that the light worked 24/7, but that report was never peer-reviewed.”
Have you ever conceded, or even grasped, that the chicanery for which you’re paid in a “court of law” is not the way sincere people debate serious matters of policy?
And BTW, although that working paper may not yet have been refereed, the lead author’s webpage claims that over a dozen of his papers on related topics have been refereed.
HTH.
On reflection:
What exactly is justifying the imposition of extra “steps” at this time? The imaginary waves of voter fraud?
Notably, we Canadians have a government agency whose main purposes include making it easier for us to register and vote. The Americans don’t have such, or seem interested it setting up such.
What exactly is justifying the imposition of extra “steps” at this time? The imaginary waves of voter fraud?
Notably, we Canadians have a government agency whose main purposes include making it easier for us to register and vote. The Americans don’t have such, or seem interested it setting up such.
[/QUOTE]
Notice furthermore that it seems NOT “to be clear” to Sam Stone that “this is such a huge issue in the U.S. precisely because the” RIGHT gains an electoral advantage from selective voter suppression.
I write “selective” voter suppression because the legislatures enacting voter suppression do have a clear purpose and write their laws accordingly. Some states, for example, accept concealed-carry permits as ID, but not student ID cards. (Gun nuts are most likely to vote Republcian, while college students are more likely to vote sanely.)