The trouble is, you’re a snide, condescending, dick so often, things you say are often read in that voice.
Re-read your post about resigning and assume that the words are spoken by a complete tool. See how someone would assume that you knew the info? This fits thematically with your bullshit gloating about how the Dems have control in Wisconsin, but there are no more sessions, so they win nothing. Har har har.
Make sense? You act like a terrible person, so people assume you’re being terrible.
Even if you did need the same kind of ID to get SNAP benefits that you need to vote in many states, one household that receives SNAP benefits can have more than one eligible voter.
I think I should make clear that when I say valid ID, I don’t just mean one specific piece of ID. I’ve posted Canada’s requirements previously. There are numbers of ways to prove your identity that should satisfy an eligibility requirement enough to vote.
Any state government who doesn’t consider the nation’s passport enough to prove your ID is bonkers and should be replaced with untrained monkeys, which is essentially what they are. At least Monkeys can be paid in bananas rather than money. Of course, a proof of residency in that voting jurisdiction would be an additional consideration.
Bricker: I think I’ve asked you this before in another thread, but if so I’ve lost track. So suppose for a moment that we were able to convince you of the following:
(1) The type of voter fraud these laws claim to address is a trivial or totally nonexistent problem
(2) Republican lawmakers who propose these laws are aware of (1)
(3) Republican lawmakers who propose these laws believe that the actual effect of these laws, should they pass, would be to suppress turnout among Democratic-leaning demographics.
If you were convinced that all of the above were true, what would then be your reaction to these laws?
So, just to clarify, you now agree that this statement was merely some kind of a guess on your part? And the basis of that guess was that the state rep that authored the proposed amendment’s language is a bad person?
Because even though the motive for the laws is wrong, the laws nonetheless address a valid need. If a future election is very very close (like Florida presidential 2000 or Washington gubernatorial 2004) then the previously “trivial” numbers of illegal voters will take on belated significance, and it will be too late to do anything about them.
If I were to learn that some governor signed a law against heroin use because he knew that African Americans use heroin disproportionately to whites, and he wanted as many blacks locked up as possible, I would not be automatically against the law either. The motive of the law’s proponents is not all that relevant – the question is simply what the text of the law provides for.
A fiscal conservative like yourself would surely be horrified at the millions of dollars that will be spent on Voter ID laws in each state in order to stop a less than one thousandth of one percent discrepancy in election results.
Your money would be much better spent invested in improved ballot design and tallying procedures.
Or even better, to lobby for more effective legislation to combat voter suppression which could possibly affect elections by thousands and thousands of votes.
And this, folks, is sophistic thinking at its finest, intellectual gymnastics in a moral vacuum. Clearly, the Democrats have a moral duty to accept this buggering with enthusiasm, shouting out cheerfully “Thank you, sir, can I have another?” at each stroke.
I note that your previous rock solid foundation appears to have evaporated, you are no longer basing your fervent insistence on the electoral confidence of the voter, but have deftly shifted to the theoretical impact of an election so close that the vanishingly small impact of “voter fraud” might be magnified, as a Japanese condom might be inflated to the size of the Hindenburg.
If you were kidding, this would be very droll. Sadly, no.
No, to the contrary – the knowledge that a future close election is at risk is precisely what upsets voter confidence. I have made that point repeatedly – for example, in this thread, three weeks ago:
So, eluciudator – why would you possibly say I have shifted my argument? My argument is identical to the post I just quoted from myself, three weeks ago.
Not at all – because although I grant that the payoff from such investment as a general rule is virtually nil, what price do you place on the correct selection for a state governor? Or for the President?
When we invest in such procedures, we mitigate the risk of another Florida-2000 clouding the legitimacy of the next President. That’s easily worth the money being spent.