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

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

That’s why we have courts.

If one side contends that a change is disguised as purely procedural, but in reality creates an unacceptable barrier to a particular group, they ask the courts to invalidate it. Indeed, in a couple of cases, courts have done so. And I am perfectly sanguine about that.

In other words, I accept the result of the workings of representative democracy, which process includes the courts.

You, it appears, are inclined to do so when the result aligns with your desired policy, but not so much when it does not.

I think you’re missing a key point there, which is that while they courts decide the law of the land, they do not decide what is right and what is wrong. If nothing else, courts can change. Suppose I hold the opinion that a particular voter ID law is wrong and evil and antidemocratic. Now I wouldn’t use the language “unnecessarily burdensome” in my personal description of it, but that might be the corresponding legal concept. So the courts decide that it’s not unnecessarily burdensome. Then a few years later, a different set of judges are elected, and now decide that it IS unnecessarily burdensome. Clearly, the law goes from being legal to being illegal when that happens. But it doesn’t switch back and forth from being evil to not-evil and back.

Jim Crow laws were evil and anti-democratic, even when they were the accepted law of the land. Gerrymandering-for-political-advantage is evil and anti-democratic (and also has a bunch of negative side effects), even though it is generally legal.
Another angle of thought: suppose that we could look at any of these ID laws and assign a number to them which was the precise additional burden they placed. So that law over there which made IDs cost $500 and there was only one place in the whole state to get them would be a 32.6 and that other law which allowed any of tons of kinds of IDs and made it easy to get them for free and was rolled in over a series of years was only a 3.5. So the courts have to decide, “what level of burden is acceptable”. And (in this contrived hypothetical) they have to assign a number, so they say “ok, anything over 10.0 is an unnecessary burden”. And then it turns out that a few of the voter ID laws are over 10.0, and are thrown out, but a bunch more are in the 8.x and 9.x range, and they are upheld.

So, that’s the law of the land. Some of them are illegal, and some of them are legal, settled law. But that doesn’t mean that the 8.x and 9.x laws, and the people who proposed them, are now pure and innocent as the driven snow. If the age of consent is 16, then it’s legal for a 40 year old to have sex with someone who is 16 years and one day old, and illegal for them to have sex with someone who is 15 years and 364 days old. That’s the law, and there have to be laws. But that doesn’t mean that one of those two actions is evil and one is good. When we as a society (or just as a message board) are discussing whether we find something to be acceptable, we can look at more than just court-decided standards.

What happened to, “Well, I am arguing with you; what other people do doesn’t interest me so I won’t address it?”

When we’re discussing laws, I think the motives of those who propose the laws are relevant to the discussion, both for a general moral reason (we shouldn’t reward people for sleazy motivations) and for a specific practical reason (a law will do X, it was proposed by people with sinister motive Y, you support it for objectively reasonable reason Z… but because the people who wrote the precise text and who will probably be in charge of overseeing the details and so forth are interested in Y rather than Z, that’s likely what the implementation will favor.)

I am not the only person to ever propose the invidious effect of an ultra-close election when there are no sureties for voter identity. But why do you care? Why are you asking me to comment on their tactics, when my requests for you to comment on people much closer to,the discussion falls on deaf ears?

You’ve lost me. Who would you like me to comment on, and when did you request it?

On the contrary – most people in this thread are arguing that Voter ID should be found unconstitutional.

Yeah, I probably overstated that. I conflated my own position in this thread with that of most people on “my side”… that said, saying something “should” be found unconstitutional could mean either (a) with the current set of precedents, the correct judicial decision would be to find this unconstitutional, or (b) it ought to be the case that this sort of law would be unconstitutional, because it deserves to be. I’m not sure how many of the lefties in this thread are espousing (a) or (b) or neither. (Personally, I have no particularly comment on (a), and I agree with (b).)

or the way Democrats use “walking around money” to increase turnout: it’s a technically legal tactic that a motivated partisan uses because that’s what motivated partisans do.

Do they? In states like California, where there are massive Democratic majorities in the state legislature, have their been attempts to do things like change the number of polling places available in different counties to tilt the scales in favor of democratic voters?

Sure, this whole thing falls very broadly into the category of “dirty political tricks”, and neither party is pure and innocent of dirty political tricks. But that doesn’t mean that any discussion of anything sleazy or antidemocratic that anyone ever does should just result in us shaking our heads and saying “eh, politicians will be politicians, and both parties do it”.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@GIGObuster

I have to add that this is looking like the relatives that enable alcoholics, they are not willing to see who they are helping.

I’m inclined to view it a little more darkly. There’s an alcoholic who beats his wife. His enabler is downplaying the influence of the alcohol, claiming not to recognize any link between drunkenness and abuse. The enabler’s willingness to do so is partly motivated by how much he personally dislikes the alcoholic’s wife and believes that bitch deserves all the beatings she can get.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

. . . The difference being?

Mine appears in post 8448.

Did you read post 8448?

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

I don’t know what definition you have offered of the term. I don’t believe I’ve ever offered such. Does it matter, or is this another nitpick to stall for time?

Post 8448 contains my definition.

Did you read it?

And to dispose of this “stall for time,” business: how long has this thread been going on? What specific timetable do you imagine exists in which a “stall for time,” produces any meaningful advantage?

If the “design purpose” was as you describe, I’d expect there to be no resistance to the idea of making voter ID easier to get, of setting up more government offices to distribute these IDs, of making as deliberately low-burden on the voters as possible, and also that support for the idea wouldn’t drawn so starkly along party lines.

No. Because the issue is not a binary one. If the design is to insure voter authenticity, nothing about that design compels any of the actions you mention. Why, specifically, do you say that a legislator whose design is to ensure voter authentication would make voter ID easier to get?

Take all the time you need to adjust your impressions, then. I’m not sure what you think you’re gaining by citing Hank Johnson’s insanity. Had he managed to convert his views into actual legislation restricting travel to Guam, you might have a point instead of yet another stall for time.

My example rebutted your proposed use of the word “systematic.”

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

When we as a society (or just as a message board) are discussing whether we find something to be acceptable, we can look at more than just court-decided standards.

Perhaps. For that discussion to be more than simply a round-robin of seriatim assertions that my side is the side of angels and your side wallows in moral decay, though, a common framework of right and wrong is necessary.

When these discussions occur at a societal level, some commonality is assumed, it seems to me. Here, in contrast, I am relatively certain that framework is lacking.

When we’re discussing laws, I think the motives of those who propose the laws are relevant to the discussion, both for a general moral reason (we shouldn’t reward people for sleazy motivations) and for a specific practical reason (a law will do X, it was proposed by people with sinister motive Y, you support it for objectively reasonable reason Z… but because the people who wrote the precise text and who will probably be in charge of overseeing the details and so forth are interested in Y rather than Z, that’s likely what the implementation will favor.)

I disagree. If a bill passes Congress 236-199, there are 236 potential different reasons it garnered yes votes. A law should be judged by what it says within the four corners of the paper it’s written on not what might have been in the mind of the legislators who voted for it.

You’ve lost me. Who would you like me to comment on, and when did you request it?

Gog and Magog?

(continued in the next post)

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Post 8448 contains my definition.

Did you read it?

I just reviewed it and it incorporates the weakness of your argument - a condition of being in the electorate, according to you, are voters who are “willing to undertake the effort and time and expense necessary to cast a vote”, yet says nothing about how onerous these efforts can get. Is the 1965 Alabama Literacy Test a valid or useful or fair criterion for deciding membership in the electorate? So far, you’ve casually dismissed the additional requirements for voter ID as variations on “not onerous”, even when provided examples of how they did hamper a voter, even when the number of voters so hindered outnumber any plausible estimate of the number of voter frauds prevented.

By the definition you’ve offered, “the electorate” could very casually be rolled back to a time when it was limited to white land-owning men, and you’d still be saying “the electorate got a chance to vote - what are you complaining about?”

And to dispose of this “stall for time,” business: how long has this thread been going on? What specific timetable do you imagine exists in which a “stall for time,” produces any meaningful advantage?

I casually assume you derive some personal satisfaction from dragging the process out.

No. Because the issue is not a binary one. If the design is to insure voter authenticity, nothing about that design compels any of the actions you mention. Why, specifically, do you say that a legislator whose design is to ensure voter authentication would make voter ID easier to get?

I wasn’t talking about a legislator whose design is to ensure voter authentication; I was talking about a legislator whose design is to ensure election accuracy. If I was a legislator who argued that stricter identification requirements were necessary to ensure the integrity of the process (despite lack of supporting evidence) but I didn’t have any sort of plan to ensure that legitimate voters could get these ID’s easily, then at best my plan would be a stupid one, and possibly quite an unethical one if making it harder for some voters to get these IDs was the plan all along, as I perceive those particular voters as likely to support my opponents.

I realize an argument that invokes integrity is likely to seem baffling to you.

My example rebutted your proposed use of the word “systematic.”

So you say. I stand by my usage while recognizing your incentive to focus on semantics, even to the point of absurdity.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Do they? In states like California, where there are massive Democratic majorities in the state legislature, have their been attempts to do things like change the number of polling places available in different counties to tilt the scales in favor of democratic voters?

I’d say they tilt the scales in other ways. Look at Maryland’s 3rd and 6th districts, or New York’s 10th. Look at Massachusetts’ use of a Democratic dominated legislature to create an effective rule that only Democratic governors may appoint senators to vacant seats.

Sure, this whole thing falls very broadly into the category of “dirty political tricks”, and neither party is pure and innocent of dirty political tricks. But that doesn’t mean that any discussion of anything sleazy or antidemocratic that anyone ever does should just result in us shaking our heads and saying “eh, politicians will be politicians, and both parties do it”.

No. But it does mean that you cannot claim that only Republicans are guilty.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

No. But it does mean that you cannot claim that only Republicans are guilty.

He said, and you quoted him saying it, “neither party is pure and innocent of dirty political tricks”.

Another of your stalls for time.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

But it’s not a wretched scheme.

I described the thought processes of some people, who indeed support the scheme for wretched reasons…

Yes. “Some” Republicans, as you boldly declared.

…But there are also people who support the scheme for the valid, neutral reasons such as the ones I have explained countless times in this thread…

As you insist. You may view it as “explaining” the bleeding obvious to simpletons, if that please you.

…The scheme itself is not wretched. Supporting the scheme in order to gain political advantage is wretched…

Concur. Yet, “some” Republicans, across the nation…in every state wherein they have the power?..are pursuing this wretched scheme. Except for that honor roll of the principled and scrupled. Those few, those very few… The nameless.

…Bullshit. It was a Republican legislator who proposed that New Mexico consider the use of fingerprints as Voter ID: utterly free to each person with at least one finger. And it was the leftist Electronic Frontier Foundation that objected, saying that voters should not have to trade their privacy and biological data in order to participate in democracy…

EFF is a bit like the ACLU, principled to a fault, oftimes. Personally, I think they wrong about this in principle, because as a practical fact, the goal could be achieved without stirring up such issues. As far as mistrusting the FBI, clearly that is solely a leftist obsession, like those raving Trotskyists commonly referred to as “Bundys”.

…Owning a firearm is a constitutional right. In fact, it;s actually mentioned in the Constitution. Find me the honest Democrat who has objected to requiring photo ID (and other more expensive barriers!) before permitting the exercise of that right…

Really? I didn’t know that, I was under the impression that several conflicting interpretations of the 2nd Amendment were currently and endlessly thrashed about. But that’s all been settled, has it? I really must keep up on the news…

…There are probably a few. But none of them are you.

Ooh. Snap.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

Forget it. You and I will not agree on matters of right and wrong, because we share no common framework to judge such questions. I don’t concede your ability to correctly discern right and wrong; you’re willing to adopt and advance moral wrongness in all sorts of circumstances to serve your warped political ideas. You doubtless feel the same of me.

(bolding mine)… said Bricker the Liar.

You’ll apparently say anything you believe you can get away with to further your causes and we have evidence showing that you do. That’s why nobody believes your bullshit about why you think voter ID laws are necessary: we know you’ll tell lies to advance your cause.

The only other trick in your bag is ad hominem attacks, and those just make you look like even more of a fool.

As you did in that thread about ACORN, you’d do best to just shut your fool mouth now, rather than dig yourself into a deeper hole, Bricker.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

Perhaps. For that discussion to be more than simply a round-robin of seriatim assertions that my side is the side of angels and your side wallows in moral decay, though, a common framework of right and wrong is necessary.

Right, and if I didn’t believe that was possible, I would have given up on this thread (or at least, given up on trying to honestly engage with you) a long time ago.

But you do seem to, at least from time to time, acknowledge that “my side” has made valid points, has brought up valid concerns, etc. You may not find them fully persuasive, but it’s not like I’m saying “killing people is bad” and you are saying “umm, wait, what, I don’t get it”, or something like that. We’re not operating in entirely different moral frameworks here, or anything.

I disagree. If a bill passes Congress 236-199, there are 236 potential different reasons it garnered yes votes. A law should be judged by what it says within the four corners of the paper it’s written on not what might have been in the mind of the legislators who voted for it.

We might just disagree about this, particularly with an issue like voter ID where so much of the devil is in the precise implementation details, which I suspect are often left up to state bureaucracies which are appointed by the very state governments which are passing these laws in the first place.

For instance, here’s a perfectly reasonable idea… some kind of state oversight of schools to ensure that they’re doing a good job. Do we support that idea? Well, if that law is passed after a debate in which the party that supports it is throwing around lots of terms that sound vaguely big-brother-ish involving loyalty and correctness and so forth, I’d be much more leery than if a similar law was passed after a debate that focused on how poorly students are performing by various educational metrics.

Gog and Magog?

Did you at some point request that I comment on some discussion of Gog and Magog and I didn’t notice? If so, please point me to the relevant post.

I’d say they tilt the scales in other ways. Look at Maryland’s 3rd and 6th districts, or New York’s 10th.

What about them? Are they heavily gerrymandered, I assume? If so, I have been consistent in my condemnation of gerrymandering-for-political-advantage. It’s wrong when anyone does it… but the Republicans have been the undisputed champs for the past several decades.

No. But it does mean that you cannot claim that only Republicans are guilty.

Well, the next time I do that will be the first.

[MaxTheVool]

@Snowboarder_Bo

(bolding mine)… said Bricker the Liar.

You’ll apparently say anything you believe you can get away with to further your causes and we have evidence showing that you do. That’s why nobody believes your bullshit about why you think voter ID laws are necessary: we know you’ll tell lies to advance your cause.

I have plenty of complaints about Bricker’s political philosophies and posting style, but I don’t believe he is knowingly dishonest.

[septimus]

@Bricker

Gog and Magog?

Are you calling Jacques Chirac a liar?

[QUOTE=George W. Bush, as quoted by Jacques Chirac]

Jacques, you and I share a common faith. You’re Roman Catholic, I’m Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord. [SIZE=“4”]Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a new age begins.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]

[Bricker]

@septimus

Are you calling Jacques Chirac a liar?

I believe the French courts already spoke to that question.

[septimus]

@ **Bricker **- You were instructed to write like a human, but then repeated your stupid and pretentious claim that Clinton’s “crime” was more serious than the million deaths caused by Cheney-Bush malice. After all, Cheney and Bush weren’t prosecuted. (Nevermind that Clinton was prosecuted because of GOP partisan malice, while Democrats failed to impeach Cheney & Bush because they put the country first.)

Then you natter about the term “War against Gog and Magog” (a paraphrase of your defendant’s own words) and when faced with proof of your ignorance, you can only come up with

@Bricker

I believe the French courts already spoke to that question.

Obviously I asked whether Chirac lied about a specific quote. I saved a little typing thinking we were intelligent enough here to connect the dots. Every day you seem stupider and stupider but I think you were smart enough to understand that. You just had to find a way to misconstrue my post, like a smirky little sophomore.

If, when you’re in court, you’re even one-tenth the asshole you are here, judges must get sick at the sight of you.

@MaxTheVool

I have plenty of complaints about Bricker’s political philosophies and posting style, but I don’t believe he is knowingly dishonest.

In some posts he brags that difficulties in voting or registering are more likely to affect Democratic voters than Republican voters, then fine-tunes a definition of “suppression” to deny that the laws “suppress” votes. Prosecutable perjury? No. Knowingly dishonest? Absolutely yes.

[Bricker]

@septimus

@ **Bricker **- You were instructed to write like a human, but then repeated your stupid and pretentious claim that Clinton’s “crime” was more serious than the million deaths caused by Cheney-Bush malice. After all, Cheney and Bush weren’t prosecuted. (Nevermind that Clinton was prosecuted because of GOP partisan malice, while Democrats failed to impeach Cheney & Bush because they put the country first.)

I deny your claim that I’m not writing like a human being, and I certainly reject any suggestion you have the slightest authority to instruct me to write in any particular manner.

As to this point: you’re leveraging the fallacy of equivocation by using “crime,” in the more general sense of a great wrongness and comparing it to a discussion of a violation of criminal statutes. Because you don’t have any particular identifiable moral sense, I decline to discuss with you what actions might or might not be “moral crimes.” From a legal perspective, Bush’s actions were legal; Clinton’s was not. I cheerfully leave to you, with your stunted moral development, any speculating you might wish to attempt on morality.

Obviously I asked whether Chirac lied about a specific quote. I saved a little typing thinking we were intelligent enough here to connect the dots. Every day you seem stupider and stupider but I think you were smart enough to understand that. You just had to find a way to misconstrue my post, like a smirky little sophomore.

I certainly don’t believe Chirac about any particular claim. I understood the reference, however; my questioning its use was an expression of incredulity that you’d believe it had some relevance in this discussion.

You’re certainly free to form your own views of my smartifiedness.

[quotes]

In some posts he brags that difficulties in voting or registering are more likely to affect Democratic voters than Republican voters, then fine-tunes a definition of “suppression” to deny that the laws “suppress” votes. Prosecutable perjury? No. Knowingly dishonest? Absolutely yes.
[/QUOTE]

Again, you’re free to define words however you wish; given the career you have made of emulating Humpty-Dumpty in this regard, I can hardly say otherwise.

But I might gently point out that if I explain clearly the way in which I define “suppressed,” you can hardly claim dishonesty. You might disagree that I am correctly using the word – although when we travel down this road you run screaming from dictionary definitions and insist that human beings don’t need dictionaries to communicate – but you can hardly say I am concealing some fact.

In other words, mere disagreement with you is not the same as dishonesty. To the contrary, it’s a quality that deserves an award and a cash prize for insight and acumen.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Of course he’s writing like a human being, septimus; a human being who lost the argument months ago and is trying to avoid admitting it by either refusing to recognize it or by semantically stalling in hopes we get distracted.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Of course he’s writing like a human being, septimus; a human being who lost the argument months ago and is trying to avoid admitting it by either refusing to recognize it or by semantically stalling in hopes we get distracted.

I don’t agree.

Obviously.

But you’re free to keep score however pleases you.

As long as the actual laws in the real world remain in place, you can declare yourself the Queen of the May, for all I care.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

I don’t agree.

Obviously.

But you’re free to keep score however pleases you.

As long as the actual laws in the real world remain in place, you can declare yourself the Queen of the May, for all I care.

Heck, if presenting a well-reasoned argument mattered to you at all, you could have done so months ago. Now it’s just genuinely unfortunate that the “fuck-the-poor” attitude has traction not only with you but with some legislators who have actual power and are seeking to maintain that power. Your country has a bit of my sympathy as it tries to inflict a new Dark Ages on itself.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Heck, if presenting a well-reasoned argument mattered to you at all, you could have done so months ago. Now it’s just genuinely unfortunate that the “fuck-the-poor” attitude has traction not only with you but with some legislators who have actual power and are seeking to maintain that power. Your country has a bit of my sympathy as it tries to inflict a new Dark Ages on itself.

Your Majesty:

What you call a “fuck the poor,” attitude is what I call a willingness to accept a minimal burden in the interests of a valid state interest. I recognize that you disagree, Highness, but I must remind you that since you are only Queen of the May in your mind, you don’t get to transform your subjective judgement about how these concerns should be weighed against one another into an objective claim. That transformation exceeds even your Royal Perogative.