You’re moving the goalposts. An illegal vote shouldn’t count, whether the vote is intentional or not. I’m not calling for prosecutions, just a voiding of elections that are decided by illegal votes. I’m sure most non-citizens who vote aren’t aware they are committing a crime either. Doesn’t mean their votes should count.
Your imaginary voters are not reason enough to keep your dumb biases going.
You’re “sure”? Based on what? Have you even the slightest crumb of actual information?
I actually have to agree with adaher on this. If there are any non-citizens who vote, they probably aren’t aware that it’s a crime. Very few people will risk prison to cast a single vote, especially if it’s not even their country.
They may think that we in america live to our ideals. That whole no taxation without representation thing that we fought a war over implies to me that those who pay taxes should get to vote.
Yes, I do know that that is not how it is, but it does seem it should be.
I want to be sure about this. You are not actually saying, suggesting, implying or insinuating that Franken was elected illegally? Because of felons voting? That the number of felons voting tipped the election in Franken’s favor?
Or are you honestly and truly that ill-informed? How is it that someone who can type cannot read?
Taking a step back for a moment, I’m sure nearly everyone in this thread agrees that (a) it’s a good thing to prevent people who legally can not vote from voting, and (b) it’s good to have some way of verifying the identity of voters, and even (c) it’s good to improve people’s confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.
The problem is, according to the majority (in this thread) position, that the changes proposed by the Republicans, while claiming do improve the above, will have little or no impact when it comes to their stated aim, but a large amount of “splash damage” which will disenfranchise legitimate voters. And, furthermore, that the Republicans are well aware of this splash damage, and that, cynically, it is their primary purpose in the first place.
So merely taking anything on its face value is pointless. If the Republicans propose law X, adding an ID requirement to vote, and Democrats oppose law X, it doesn’t mean (again, in our interpretation) that Republicans support voter ID or that Democrats oppose voter ID, it means that Republicans don’t give a fuck about voter ID but believe that law X will win them electoral advantage and Democrats don’t give a fuck about voter ID but sure as hell don’t want the Republicans to win electoral advantage; plus in this case the Democratic position happens to be both politically convenient and ethically correct, because they are NOT the ones trying to sneakily prevent legitimate voters from voting.
Well, OK, Max, but shouldn’t somebody have said something like that sooner? I mean, here we are, 200 pages in, and finally somebody points this out?
You mean to say that it isn’t actually the principle of voter id that is obnoxious, but the way it is applied in a partisan and unjust fashion? Wow! Game changer!
In fairness to Max, if he states the obvious to adaher, it’s because adaher is always starting from a point of zero information.
In bluntness to adaher, he determinedly stays at a point of zero information, so Max’s effort, while noble, is futile.
One of Bricker’s favoured tactics is to accuse liberals of not policing the nuttier views of other liberals. Let’s see if Bricker weighs in on the adahar issue.
How’s your enthusiasm for the Supreme Court nowadays?
As peppy as ever.
And I will remember this. You just supported disenfranchisement. You admit it will disproportionally affect poor people. Actual data says it will affect black people more. But you are okay with all that. There’s little point in arguing with you at all if you that anti-democratic and anti-American.
You used to support Voter ID but try to make it where it wouldn’t disenfranchise anyone. Remember your idea about using fingerprints? Yet here you are, falling over yourself to support measures that do disenfranchise.
And of course if you think an institution is coming to the wrong decision then your support for that institution will decrease. If your waiter does a bad job at serving you, you’ll think less of them. You’ve made it quite clear you think less of the Court for not following the legal doctrine you think is correct.
It’s just a gotcha you try to do. And, if you had a valid argument, you would need no gotchas.
It would be fine with me if you stopped.
It would have been fine with Hitler if Montgomery and Zhukov stopped.
Republicans want voter ID because they think that criminals and illegal aliens vote Democratic. Democrats oppose voter ID because they agree.
Missed our meds this morning, did we?
Regards,
Shodan
Powerful straw-manning here. Bravo.
An observation from bitter experience?
Which one? His life sounds like endless bitter experiences.
That’s not true. Some days he wakes up and sunlight is filling the trailer, his mullet just falls into place, and his shift leader assigns him drive thru.