No, that news has been dribbling out over several weeks.
But I was not chastising you for failing to condemn. I was chastising him for failure to resign.
But a funny thing about liberal hypocrisy…
You DID think this post was proper, right?
And the moment I saw that news, I said McCotter should resign.
That was my instant response.
Now, you read a story about election law cheating by a Democrat, and your instant response is… to defend the Democrat by attacking me, trying to blunt my complaint into a generic and unfounded complaint about liberal hypocrisy. Which response, amusingly enough, constitutes liberal hypocrisy.
You guys are very predictable. Don’t you ever get tired of it? Don’t you ever think that maybe it would be more honest to be able to criticize your guys when they do shit like this?
Or are you so programmed that this thought simply doesn’t occur to you? You hear that a politician did something wrong, and the first thing you do is check to see whether a D or an R is next to his name. Only then can you figure out if you’re against it, right?
I just know, elucidator, that you’re amazed when anyone mentions “disenfranchisement.” And you’re positively astounded to hear that anyone’s doing it in a way that so urgently requires my rebuttal. After all, the truth that it’s NOT disenfranchisement is so obvious that I was asserting it for the novelty of the experience, right?
That’s what you said,yes?
So why don’t you take a turn? Go ahead, elucidator. I know you value truth. ::snicker::
I know you’ll want to genuinely correct Bosstone. ::guffaw:: I know you’ll want to show him the truth, right?
Right?
Yeah, didn’t think so. Cue some semantic imprecision bullshit, take two.
Then never because no one actually knows how many fraudulent votes actually are cast because no one bothers to confirm a voter’s ID. Nice Catch 22 you’ve setup there.
Frankly, if I was a suspicious sort (and I am), I’d say you were trying to prevent anyone from finding out what actually is happening to stack the deck in your favor. Kind of like the Republicans are being blamed for promoting ID requirements.
Has nothing to do with you. It was his claim that no one was saying “disenfranchisement.” He trotted out the holier-than-thou idea that I was strawmanning it, that your side was very aware there was no actual disenfranchisement. And when I pointed out that people had said so, he offered a weak bullshit condemnation.
So here’s his chance to either seriously make the point that disenfranchisement is not the issue, or come up with some more patented elucidator weakass bullshit.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he’s tuned it out too, and is just responding, Pavlovian-style, to key words. Tu quoque! Bricker’s saying liberal hypocrisy! Strawman “disenfranchisement!” All spit out like a Tourette’s sufferer at random intervals, with no more analysis than a parakeet.
Hmm… Well, if Y is “the error margin in the existing figures for voter fraud after a 10-year-long republican witch hunt overturning every loose stone and finding nothing” and X is “the rate of people without ID”, I already set up the equation:
X/Y = 0.00004.
So assuming that Y is 1, then yes, it would have to be something like 99.9996%. More realistically, if Y is something closer to 20 (as came up earlier in the thread), it’d have to be closer to 99.99%. But that you would even ask this question is a pretty clear indicator that you don’t understand our position.
My position is as follows: “Due to the absolutely negligible rate of voter fraud and the large number of citizens lacking ID, mandating voter ID laws is likely to lead to more voters being disenfranchised than cases of voter fraud being prevented, making the laws a net loss for the intended purpose and therefore a terrible idea”. That’s even leaving the partisan aspect (that voter purges and ID laws hit blue demographics considerably harder than republican demographics), which is its own problem, out entirely.
Until the math works, these laws are a fucking terrible idea, and no amount of grandstanding about how people can easily get ID will change that.
And that’s not a problem why?
No, as others have pointed out, we have methods in place to catch voter fraud. You’re just not listening.
Also, earth to Bricker, you’re an amoral fucktard. Kthxbai.
Sometimes you do the right thing even if (and I’m not saying they don’t) the numbers don’t add up. You don’t think that this will help voter confidence. I do. The only evidence I can produce is that other countries have voter ID and higher voter turnout. But that may be just a coincidence. Or it could be one of the reasons why they do have higher turnouts. People think the government takes voting seriously, so they do as well. Dunno.
It’s interesting the language you use mirrors the people in the bigot thread. Do you think elucidator and Lobohan’s presence at the board is as inimical to free discussion as New Deal Democrat’s and brazil84’s? More so?
The elephant in my room blames welfare mothers and is firmly engaged in the war on drugs.
You claim to take moral guidance from Jesus, and you ignore His teachings, so please don’t go and pretend that you even have the capacity for moral acting.
If hell existed you’d go to it Bricker. Smug, greedy, dishonest twats aren’t allowed in.
I’m sure that even in countries that have universal ID possession there are some crazy people that fall between the cracks. I’d take 99+% and a good-faith government outreach to mandate ID possession for all citizens.
I’m sure you’re good at your job. Well, actually, I’m not sure of that, maybe you suck. But more importantly, you are apparently unable to realize that your argument is nonsense.
You say that, “If 90% of people can have ID then the other 10% could have it.” That’s gibberish. Because, specifically it ignores that some people are going to have circumstances at the edge of the bell curve.
Consider (as I’ve said before and you’ve ignored): 90% of people can climb three flights of stairs. Does that mean that 100% of people can?
Obviously not. So your argument is completely worthless.
For some people it is a large effort. They don’t currently have a birth certificate. They have jobs that don’t allow time off when the DMV is open. They may simply be ignorant of the steps to take and don’t know where to go or who to call.
Ignorant people get to vote too. Shit, look at the Republican Base. Half of them think Obama was born out of country.
I am more aware of the teachings of Jesus than probably 80% of Christians. But that’s only because Christians, by and large, know very little about their religion. It’s been said that the surest way to become an atheist is to read the bible. And there is some truth to that.
More importantly for our purposes here, you think it’s funny that a law makes poor people less likely to vote, especially when you can get a weak-ass partisan victory over it.
You aren’t a good person. And I personally don’t care if you’re the biggest hypocrite who ever shit on his professed ideals. I’m sure existing as you is punishment enough.
Just don’t try to claim you’re being rational and moral. Your arguments are weak, and they’ve shown to be weak.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I do think the term “disenfranchise” is wrong. Firstly, because it is imprecise. To actually disenfranchise would require something more forcible than this. Would they do it if they could? Probably not, it would lose them the diaphanous negligee of legitimacy that they drape over this clapped out whore. And it would alienate everyone with any conscience, including the several dozen Republican currently so equipped. Or impaired, depending.
More importantly, it misses the subtlety of the move, as many responses here show. No, you will not get away with forbidding blacks, hispanics, and students from voting, a bitch too far. But you can get away with impairing their rights, making it more difficult. adding extra hurdles. This gives cover, it allows such positions as “Well, if they are too lazy to go to the effort, if they don’t care enough about their country to make the effort, fuck 'em!”
This works for them, it appeals to the conservative leaning mind that thinks of itself as hard-headed and realistic, not like those pie in the sky liberals. Its simplistic and crude, doesn’t demand any complex thinking. Its a winner.
I want to correct the use of the word “disenfranchise” not because it is so very, very wrong, it isn’t really, its more of an exaggeration of a truth than a denial of truth. But it misses the subtlety of the maneuver, which is really rather clever, in a cynical sort of way. No, they would never get away with “disenfranchising” in the sense of forbidding, but if they can pretend they are deeply, deeply concerned with the issue of voter roll integrity, they can shield their intentions, and they can gain an advantage by hindering disagreeable voters. And, most importantly, get away with it.
They might lose Republicans with a rudimentary conscience, they might both wander off and become libertarians, or somesuch. Not you, however, you have made your peace with this: yes, its is crass, cynical, and underhanded, but that is vastly outweighed by the critical importance of voter integrity, the burning issue on the minds of so many Americans! I mean, everywhere I go, that is the issue of essential importance, just about all you ever hear anyone talk about is the central matter of voter integrity.
Its a bit like how people mistakenly use “unConstitutional” when what they really mean is “unjust” and “unfair”. Its a mistake, of course, both semantically and historically, the Constitution on many, many occasions has been the shelter and nourishment for brutally unjust law. It reflects a somewhat naive impression of the Constitution as the embodiment of all that is ideal and good about America. And there’s nothing wrong with that, except that it just ain’t so. (Was it Scalia who said something to the effect that the purpose of the Constitution was to thwart progress? Something like that?)
But I know what they mean when they say it, and so do you, the communication is close enough, even if the actual precision is missing. The smaller variety of potato, in my estimation.
By the way, did you ever come up with a workable rationalization for trimming back “Sunday voting” and making voter registration drives more difficult, and potentially criminal? I’ve mentioned this several times now, and it never seems to penetrate the Bricker filter. Any luck with that yet? Do let us know, won’t you? Because that does kind of give away the game, doesn’t it? Since certainly “Sunday voting” has nothing whatever to do with the sacred battle for voter integrity. Unless you’ve come up with something? No? Probably best to ignore it, focus instead on what an asshole 'luc is.