:rolleyes: right back at you. I would ask if it were possible for you post something stupider than that, but I’m afraid you would take it as a challenge.
Which is to say, that given incontrovertible evidence that leads inexorably to an inarguable conclusion, you might, perhaps, change your mind. Maybe.
To be fair, it’s conceivable that Bricker might consider the effect, even if proven, to be less problematic than the existence of the occasional Ramon Cue. It’s not inherently bad to prioritize based on one’s personal opinion, as long as one admits that it is a matter of personal opinion and doesn’t pretend to be guided solely by reason.
No. It’s intended to address the issue. If your attention span is challenged by multiple topics under sequential discussion from post to post, then perhaps a message board format isn’t going to be easy fr you.
I have some confidence in the peer review process. Your counter-example is inapposite. A specific light working is typically not the sort of report that requires peer review. Peer review is appropriate when inferential conclusions are reached by collecting and analyzing disparate data.
Ordinary humans participating in this board are presumably as interested as I am in fighting ignorance. Since this study reaches different conclusions than that reached by prior studies, why aren’t you, as an ordinary human, interested in the reasons this happened? Why is this report automatically credited and the others rejected? Peer review offers a chance for the authors’ peers to scrutinize the methodology and the conclusions drawn. Your attack on it seems like a nod to the sort of anti-intellectualism that would be condemned if it were used in service of denying global warming.
I don’t understand. Are you suggesting that an author should earn some sort of “bye,” akin to the PGA’s allowing a star golfer to compete even if he does not make the cut in a particular tournament?
I don’t think that is his point, the reality is that the main author of the paper has published in peer reviewed journals before, that is indeed very important in assigning value to a paper that will be reviewed for sure.
I do tend to agree with others though that what I see here is just trying to stall and you do not have a good reply to it, so this is what you are reduced to.
So, just for the record, here is what the authors have found so far:
Like I pointed before to you many times in the past, who are the executors of the laws and what authorities are in place (like Arpaio and henchmen) are IMHO the main reason for the difference, it is no coincidence that the laws that we are discussing about are mostly coming from places full of prejudice. And it is important to notice who are the ones that are enforcing the new rules and how.
Cite?
It’s important because you say so?
What if I don’t agree it’s important? Why do you get to be the one who dictates what’s important? I say what’s important is what the law says. Your invocation of Boogeyman Arpaio is irrelevant.
I wish Arpaio was a boggeyman; your attempt at making the the sheriff as an imaginary thing is really silly.
Arizona has Strict non-photo ID required for voting, and the most populous county in Arizona is the one that enforces it, they are btw the ones that do vote for Arpaio as sheriff.
Anyhow, that difference between states with ID laws and the ones that are more relaxed can not be dismissed that easy as much as you like, because if it is not the result on how the minorities see the enforcement of the law, then other reasons that are related to making it hard for minorities to vote are at play.
Shouldn’t EVERY county in Arizona enforce the law?
Learn to write clearly.
Cite? Perhaps you’ve linked to such studies before, but it seems very likely that you’ve misinterpreted whatever the conclusion was.
Learn to deal with what the study said then.
After all, I do acknowledge that I have trouble with grammar, but it is in the end just a distraction on your part.
If the differences between states with voter ID and the ones that are not are clear, then the evidence is compelling; the reasons put forward by the proponents of voter ID are really just looking more like excuses to disenfranchise enough of their political opponents to influence elections.
Post 4812.
So that was just about Georgia, and it included this caveat:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/
And so the new study is pointing to things like the Obama run as a good part of the explanation why the ID regulation did not affect voting of minorities as much in Georgia then, but the recent numbers do point at what is happening in other states and Georgia too, as it was pointed before “If one person is deprived of their right to see their vote count, that’s a violation of the Constitution,” IIRC the numbers even in the article you cited for the ones that are denied the vote are much higher than the so called fraud numbers the proponents of ID voting claim that are talking place. Not good enough IMHO to justify the new laws.
Why should I care what your opinion is?
Especially why should I care when you have returned to the vote fraud issue again, despite the countless prior times in this thread that I have disclaimed an interest in voter fraud as a justification for the new laws?
It’s not just grammar. You also have a problem with meteorology and geography.
Then we should not care for yours, as the Republicans do not care for it either. Voter fraud is one of their main concerns.
Meteorology is not climatology you numnuts. And you missed that I acknowledged the issue with the hurricane in that very same thread.
Your ignorance in that subject anyhow knows no bounds. It’s also another reason why you should not trust the Republicans at all.
Yes, that’s apparently true, at least for some Republicans. But it’s not mine. So why ask me to defend it?
So now the claim is that Bricker isn’t worried about voter fraud. :eek:
[QUOTE=SDMB Search engine]
Search took 0.84 seconds. Search: Keyword(s): voter, fraud ; Posts Made By: Bricker ; Forum: The BBQ Pit and child forums … 331 results
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t click all 331 ( :smack: ) Here’s one:
Oh. So you’re not worried about voter fraud in elections where it doesn’t matter. You’re worried about voter fraud in elections where it affects the result. Got it.
Meanwhile, it’s been pointed out to you, over and over and over, that votes suppressed by Republican voter suppression laws are vastly greater than the number of fraudulent votes. Have you ever conceded this? Any “ultra-close” election in a state impaired by GOP voter suppression laws would certainly have voted Democrat without the suppression.
An academic paper shedding light on this is cited and you find quibbles, and deflect the dialog into the difference between a blogger and a journalist. (Ummm … the paper was written by a Professor, not a blogger or journalist.)
In rebuttal you refer to an article cited by you in #4812(*). That article is the one written by a blogger or journalist (did you think it was refereed? ) and, in any event, manifestly does not claim what you think it does.
(* - For future reference, you can link to a post by clicking the Quote, or multiquote button, or by clicking on the “#4812” notation itself. Maybe if you’re going to post on a message board you should learn such things.)
Okay, I’ll bite. What is your motivation?