I don’t think it adds relevance. I don’t think that’s important to any of us who’ve been arguing against such laws, and I think we’ve made that fact pretty damn clear. Hence my sarcasm about the value of this information.
If you don’t like arguments by popularity dismissed out of hand, too bad.
I would like to thank you, Bricker.
Keep up the good work, maybe after a few decades of life those who don’t see your POV will learn something.
Public opinion was against blacks marrying whites too.
The trouble is, that voter ID sounds reasonable to a person who hasn’t bothered to educate themselves on the subject. We are talking about people who have, us. And the elected folks who knew exactly what they were doing.
The right has certainly done a wonderful job of misinformation. Even now liars like Bricker seed the idea that ACORN committed voter fraud. Didn’t happen, but liars put the idea into the heads of people who aren’t going to research it. Same thing with Obamacare. People hate it. Unless you ask them about each of the pieces.
So your poll isn’t exactly on point.
There is that great Bricker charm we keep hearing him talk about. 
No one cares.
Whenever I say “Voter ID laws” from here on out, you can assume I mean both the laws themselves and your claim that they are a partisan political ploy to gain undeserved electoral advantage.
People are well aware of that claim. They strongly favor the laws anyway.
The courts considered that claim. And they said it doesn’t matter.
So the only ones still hanging on to that claim are you and the rest of the Little Red Book readers. No one else cares.
No charm in this thread, baby. No, just hard reality. My usual concessions to idiots, explaining and citing everything, have been retired for this thread. There seems to have been an expected social contract that I would never actually force stupid liberals to confront their utter irrelevancy. When I do, the reactions are predictable… hurt, baffled fury.
Good.
No one who matters agrees with you on this point. Your whining will get you nowhere. The battle is over.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
So the only ones still hanging on to that claim are you and the rest of the Little Red Book readers. No one else cares.
[/QUOTE]
I care, and I haven’t read the Little Red Book.
Bricker, I hate to tell you this, but I don’t think Jesus loves you. I think He thinks you’re worse than any moneychanger whose table He overturned.
I think He thinks you are what He was arguing against. And I think He will weep when you burn.
Of course, you won’t burn, since none of that shit is real, but you’re still a hypocrite for pretending you care about it.
We should focus though. You have failed utterly to support your case, and now all you can do is strut around and say, “It does’t matter if my position is wrong, my side is the one who reaps the benefit.”
We can all see it. You’re not fooling anyone.
Well, if we were debating in 1966, and someone said that most people don’t like anti-miscengenation laws, then I’d tell them they were wrong, even if I was fine with interracial marriage. I would have been correcting a factual error.
Special plead much?
Except for the “minor” part about how to pay it. And, btw, that’s exactly what the poll I quoted did-- it broke it down to different parts, and people still favor it.
You’ll be right when posters in this thread stop making claims about what most people support or don’t support. But that keeps popping up.
Kind of like claiming that Sauk City has only one ID office, and it’s only open the fifth Wednesday of every month?
It’s true that when the poll asked about favoring Voter ID laws even though they may prevent eligible voters from voting, support dropped.
To 69%.
From 80%.
What is your response?
I didn’t post that poll to show that voter ID laws are good. I posted it to counter the claim that if people really understood what they did, then they wouldn’t support them. Read the post immediately before my post. I thought it was clear that I was adding to what Bricker was saying to elucidator, but maybe not.
I know. You’re hardly charismatic. You’re just a bloviating hog with a shiny ego.
It’s cool though, takes all kinds.
You believe that a carpenter dead for thousands of years loves you. And you’re talking to me about reality? Fucking child.
You lost the thread, Bricker. You’ve failed utterly and everyone knows it. The only thing you have left is to crow about how you’re okay with winning through dishonest means.
Your parents should be ashamed of what they failed to do in you. Your father risked everything so he could raise a sociopath with delusions of grandeur. Sad.
You’re the one who can’t face that you’ve lost the debate, Bricker. That’s why you’re taking the victory lap. But, Emperor Bricker, you don’t have any clothes.
Everyone matters, Bricker. Isn’t that what your God-made-flesh would say?
I didn’t make that claim, so I don’t know. I do know that you shut the fuck up when you realized that you were being stupid about the directions time.
Par for the course on the Bricker-Links.
It is a complex problem and if you don’t know the specific arguments against something you may not understand how to make a decision based on it.
Voter ID sounds like a great idea. And it is. Although an honest person who understood the issue would require that we get universal ID possession first.
This is why we have representatives, or didn’t you know about that part? You can’t expect a person on the street to understand nuance of complex issues. So you elect someone to do the work for you.
Voter ID is a good idea, but as it happens you’ll keep thousands of times as many of legitimate voters from voting as you would prevent fraudulent votes. So we need to fix that, with universal ID possession, before we can enact it.
If you were honest.
Did they say that it may keep ten thousand times as many eligible voters from voting as fraudulent voters?
Who’s judging the debate? The editorial board of the LA Times?
To me, victory on this issue means having Voter ID laws in place. As I mentioned before, I am fine with you declaring eternal victory, and my declaring that Voter ID laws are still extant.
My father knew first hand what kind of ruin occurs when leftists are in charge. My first clear memory of understanding was my dad explaining why he didn’t like Ed Muskie. I am confident that he’d agree with my stance here.
But you cite doesn’t do that, John. It shows that poll responses can be varied depending on the wording of the question and whatever bits of information or opinion the pollster renders immediately before asking questions on the particular issue. It’s not exactly news that this happens. Political operatives have been using push polls for decades, for instance. But prefacing a poll question with an opinion or even a statement of fact is not the same thing as educating the respondents.
Yes, I saw that was your intent. And in a thread as acrimonious and as filled with obfuscation as this one, I tried to make my sarcasm pretty gentle. You, after all, haven’t been involved much in the discussion for the last, lo, thousand posts or so, and I thought you were the basic noncombatant who strolled into the fray without much of the recent background. I apologize for offending your delicate nature.
I have no problem with your contribution in general Mr. Mace, I just don’t think the HuffPo article sheds any light on any area in contention.
The point of that poll is not that opinions vary depending on how the question is asked, but that they doesn’t vary enough to matter. So, like I said, when posters in this thread stop saying things like “if people knew what theses laws really do…”, then I’ll stop posting factual information that proves them wrong.
No. Probably because we don’t know if that’s true or not.
Jeez, let’s lay it out simply John. I’m not trying to evade anything here.
First, and to repeat myself, the poll doesn’t prove anybody wrong about what an educated population would decide, because it didn’t actually educate anyone, it just presented different viewpoints related to the question.
Second, the poll didn’t even deal with the specific proposition from elucidator; that is, it didn’t deal with the question of partisan tomfoolery.
Third, an 11% difference in attitude could be huge depending on the specific question and the tightness of the difference between positions.
Finally, the 11% difference shown in this poll IS (IMO) pretty significant, given that the single determinant was a bare assertion regarding only one of the two critical problems with voter ID laws and their implementation. (The other being the base partisan advantage intended by the suppressive effect.)
Gee, Bricks, I love you too! Like a brother, really I do! And it’s great to see that my reasoned contributions to the thread elicit totally batshit responses from you, with invective replacing informational value. Wipe the spittle off your mouth and chill a bit. Have a sip of wine, man, maybe a hit off our bong. You’re really wrapped too tight, dude. Sheesh, what a buzz kill.
Did you lose your way? I know you aren’t confused enough to think this is GD.
That’s how you educate people. By exposing them to different viewpoints. You’re not going to get most people to spend more time than that educating themselves on these laws.
I wasn’t trying to disprove his speculation. He needs to prove it.
It could be in some other case, but it isn’t in this case.
If you’e got a better poll, I’d be glad to see it.