It’s worth talking about, purely to show to people that the GOP is full of degenerate cunts who want to win by hurting poor people, IMHO.
Also to show what kind of filth fights tooth and nail to support said cunts with dishonest posts again, and again, and again.
Not exactly. It’s to point out that no one is offering up any proposal, beyond a demand that the laws be changed. With all the offended honor at my supposition that this necessarily means a desire to rule by fiat, I’m not seeing anyone except MaxTheVool lay out any specifics of what they DO mean, leaving me to characterize other posters as saying, in effect, “No! I don’t want to rule by fiat! I just what this issue changed to my liking immediately, without involving any of the usual democratic nonsense that caused the issue to go against me before!”
So again: what specific steps are you calling for? Occupying the dean’s office? Chanting? Boycotts of Voter ID states? What?
And by talking about it, and showing the world just what kind of meanies the GOP are, what kinds of real world effects do you anticipate occurring?
Education. Not just a proposal, but an action that is being undertaken this very moment. When I first heard of voter ID laws, I was surprised that they weren’t already law. When I heard that there were those without ID, I was surprised that such people could exist. I felt that it should not be unreasonable for those who did not have proper ID to obtain it.
I have learned a great deal on this thread, that made me think about things and change my mind a bit. Through the efforts of those participating in this thread, I understand why the implementation of these laws leaves something to be desired.
The call to action in this thread is very little. But by educating people about these laws, then maybe they can get changed. People may call their congress person (I would, but I am not in a state effected by voter ID, and my congressman is a “D”, so at most I would write a letter in support of him not having anything to do with this.), people may vote against congress peoples that they feel are not acting in the best interests of democracy. Legal groups may get involved and test cases against the courts as their demographics shift.
Point is, there are plenty of options, and it would be great to discuss them, but that wasn’t actually the reason this thread was created, nor was it a direction it took. The first step, though is pointing out that the current situation is sub-optimal, and that options should be explored to improve it.
Maybe if I have time (“hah”) someday, I will start a non-pit thread to explore these options. “A civil discussion on the integrity of the vote” I may call it.
I suppose arguably the side that lost was American democracy, but in any case your first post to this thread pointed out the legislative and judicial decision. Your 2300+ postscripts are all about wickedly fleeing.
I would happily and civilly contribute to such a thread, though I ask that you specify you mean the American voting system. The process varies somewhat among the liberal democracies.
Ideally, convincing people to not vote such cunts into office in the future.
Let’s be honest here, the GOP got swept into power on a census year because the GOP base was freaking out about Obama. They used that power to massively redistrict (which I admit, the Dems do too, but perhaps not so brazenly), meaning that the GOP has a lock on the House until the next census (unless they fail spectacularly). The reason these laws are in place, is that 2010 election, and the lasting advantage they gave themselves. The way to get rid of the laws, is to convince voters to not vote for GOP cunts. And a way to convince them, is to show them that 1. the laws the GOP pushes are craven attempts at solidifying power and 2. the level intelligent conservatives will sink to in order to defend said laws. In that you are serving #2 well.
Thank you for being an outrageous buffoon in the support of GOP malfeasance. <3
Note that when I say “have a court rule that a law is unconstitutional” I’m not saying “go down and make the court do that”, I’m just giving an example of a result within the system that would have the desired effect for someone opposed to these laws.
Regarding your points above, couldn’t the exact same thing be said about Jim Crow laws? All kinds of horrid laws were passed by states, enjoyed great popular support and courts were not leaping to their feet to rule against them. Should people have said “Gosh, it’s a law, the people who passed it won’t overturn it, the people it benefits love it and the courts haven’t helped, I guess we should just shut up and sit in the back of the bus”?
Yes.
And on the SDMB, you undertake this task, do you? Trying to convince the folks here not to vote for the GOP?
Ok, concrete proposal (5):
Convince the populace of the SDMB to not vote for Republican candidates.
How do you think you’re doing so far? As a delta – that is, as a change from those who were minded to support the GOP before, but aren’t now, how do you picture your metrics?
Would it surprise you to learn that Crawford v. Marion County, the Supreme Court decision I might have mentioned in passing, was based on a 2004 Indiana law and was handed down in 2008?
Got any other ideas?
Of course convincing a handfull of moderates here isn’t going to change things. But it is a place to test my arguments against thoughtful conservatives, like yourself.
As for having a lasting effect in the overall world, I don’t think this is likely to change things. But what does that have to do with anything?
No. Why would it? I’m not saying the idea of voter ID is new. I’m saying the brazen utilization of it as a club to hurt poor people is what they gained the power to do.
But you’re not really describing any specific way for that result to come about. You’re just saying you want it to happen.
Well, yes. But the same exact thing can also be said about the laws against vandalism. So we can see that popular support is not exactly the death-knell of a law, either.
And the popular support for Jim Crow laws was strong in the south, yes, but not as strong throughout the country.
But so far as I can recall, no one really stated by declaring that Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. Instead, they took specific, deliberative steps that were intended to highlight the injustices. People were, at best, apathetic about Jim Crow in the abstract, but horrified to see Bull Connor’s fire hoses and dogs being used against non-violent marchers. THAT is what swayed public opinion against Jim Crow, not a claim that the laws needed to be magically erased somehow.
How does that respond to what Lobohan said? His claim was that the 2010 election allowed the Republicans to greatly increase their political power. You cite an earlier ruling and law as though you thought Lobohan was saying the Republicans came into existence in 2010.
But, Lobohan, that’s both precisely true, and precisely what you’re not doing!
You’re not testing arguments against me. You’re heaping abuse on me, secure in the safety of numbers.
So is Indiana’s law okay with you?
What was the context of that sweep to power? We are talking about Voter ID laws, yes?
Four years and nearly 10,000 posts into this thread, do you honestly believe that’s going to be the outcome of even the most scrupulously fair-minded implementation of a voter ID law? If Indiana’s next big electoral contest is a squeaker, do you think their voter ID law is not going to be brought up as the reason the contest was invalid?
No, you’re just a huge pussy who can’t handle losing. So quit blowing snot bubbles and whining about how everyone is against you, you fucking child.
It’s honestly amusing how someone who’s so enraptured by bootstraps spends so much of his time blubbering about how unfairly he’s being treated.
I’m not against voter ID. I’m against instituting it with an eye towards shaving off some Dem votes. And I’d be against it, even if were GOP votes getting pruned.
That’s the difference between you and I. Well, one of them anyway.
And I’m here to point out the legislative and judicial tests are over and my preferred position lost. Are you able to perceive any parallel at all?
Except it’s even worse than that, for your side. In case you haven’t noticed, here in the real world we tend to devote our energies to things we would like to see changed, rather than engaging in frenzied validations of things which are going the way we like. Unless, I suppose, one is a wingnut with a proclivity to crow incessantly about political victories. Or unless perhaps you’re so keen to protect a bad law and a disingenuous position because you know how vulnerable it is. The wingnut proclivity is just stupid, the disingenuous one is politically self-serving and evil. Which one are you, stupid or evil? (You’re allowed to pick “both”.)
That kind of lack of understanding is usually called “willful ignorance”.
Of course you refuse. The request was purely rhetorical, and I would no more expect you to cease being a vociferous wingnut than I would expect a tiger to change its stripes.
Yes, anything can happen in the future. The sun might go out. But I would suggest that the challenges and constitutional arguments coming from creditable sources against these asinine laws are in a rather more likely realm of reality. Last year a federal court threw out an asinine Texas voter ID law. SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal by Kansas and Arizona to support their effort requiring citizenship documents to register to vote. And the Crawford decision is both subject to the same future amendments or overturning as any other decision, plus does not in any way exonerate some of the other laws not addressed, like the new one in NC in which any form of ID most likely to be carried by the dark-complexioned types isn’t acceptable.
If it is, that argument will be misplaced.
It’s become clearer to me that the losing side in any electoral contest will seize upon very flimsy justifications to claim the election was stolen. In the Elections forum now, one True Believer insists that Sanders’s primary victories have been stolen by Clinton, citing such varied reasons as Mr. Clinton’s supposed illegal campaigning inside a polling station and Arizona’s paucity of available polling locations. In addition, he cites the rules for awarding super delegates as a fraud to steer the election to Clinton even when Sanders, he claims, won more votes.
Most people have responded by calmly pointing out that those rules were known in advance, and Sanders (or his supporters) cannot now be heard to complain about their operation.
My answer to your hypothetical complainers would be the same: the rules are determined. People have known since 2008 that they need an ID to vote. Society is not prepared to recognize any complaints stemming from a lack of ID. And society gets to decide.
IIRC, one of the supports for court decisions in this matter have rested upon “speculation”. That we could not provide actual evidence other than testimony.
That has changed. Now, we have academic evidence available that what was speculation before is now fact. (We have our most eminent authority studying said evidence, and we expect a report back sometime before Judgement Day.)
TG, IANAL but seems to me if the cases were decided with that state of uncertainty in mind, the advent of factual evidence would be adequate grounds for reconsideration.
No. Because that’s not what you’re doing.
Does the word “lost” in this context appear in any prior post of yours? Does any synonymous word? Which post of yours do you think is best summarized, by a neutral reader, as “Well, my side lost?”
False Dilemma, so I pick “neither.” I devote this energy for the purpose of fighting ignorance: when someone says that the Voter ID law is unconstitutional, readers may conclude that the law is unconstitutional, and I wish to rebut that inference. When someone says that the only way to support such a law is the desire to advance evil, I speak against the view.
And then the full Fifth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc, throwing out that decision. Right?
Those opposed to the Texas law argue that it’s the strictest in the nation.
If that’s so, I would not be opposed to seeing it loosened. But I would be strongly opposed to seeing it eviscerated.
What are you arguing is a more likely “realm of reality,” then? Tempering it’s strictness to bring it in line with other states’ already-approved laws, or erasing it entirely?
By the way: Texas has conducted three elections now with the law in force, and no widespread reports have surfaced of persons unable to vote. These aggrieved people remain in the hypothetical world.
Fascinating.
But not “Voter ID.” So why are you expecting me to defend those laws?
Yes, it certainly could be.