But I’m not claiming Georgia’s laws caused an upturn. I’m refuting the claim that Georgia’s law caused a downturn.
I know you’re struggling with this concept, but please step back for a moment and look at what an utterly foolish comment you just made:
Max: These laws cause more obstacles to one group than to another, and have an unfair outcome, lessening minority voting.
Me: But Georgia passed such a law and had an uptick in minority voting.
You: Uh, correlation is not causation!
You see the problems? First you don’t apply the same objection to Max’s argument, accepting uncritically that the laws will cause a decrease. Then, when faced with a counter example, you trot out this phrase because… why? It’s something you heard once? Sure, correlation does not prove causation. But if the claimed effect of a causation doesn’t exist, and the data is in fact showing the opposite… then why doesn’t it at least on a prima facie basis rebut the first claim?
That you have to be Mexican to understand the Hispanic experience. That I said I wanted people to die with no health care. That I never worked a hard day in my life.
Oh, hell, Lobohan, you should simply retract every claim you ever made about me in your life.
Or you could just post all those links, the ones that show you criticizing ANY Democratic pols or pundits, for any reason as I laid on in post 1634. Why don’t you do that?
Did it? Leftists like cites and data rather than just raw assertions, appeals to emotion, and groupthink. (What is this weird insistence on other people calling others out on your behalf? And what is this “you’re on my side of the table” nonsense? I thought this was some kind of conflict regarding a particular point with “principled” contrary views.)
Anyway, Hispanic voting in particular didn’t increase after Voter ID was passed in Georgia:
One could spend time pulling rates for other categories of race in order to refute Bricker’s claim regarding “minority” voting, but before one wastes time doing that, one would like Bricker to produce a cite.
ETA: For those who don’t click through, Hispanic voting in Presidential election years fell from 60.5% in 2004 to 59.6% in 2008, and in off-years from 26.7% to 25.5% in Georgia.
And how much is that ID worth to a poor person who doesn’t have one? Maybe cut back on an aircraft carrier or two, ya think?
Why bring this up at all if all you care about is people losing their ability to vote? Or should I use the same quote below for you?
Because you are wrong? It is actually quite easy to get the required ID. 90% of your population has one. If it was difficult less would. I live in Hong Kong. If I didn’t transfer my driver’s license to Hong Kong when I moved here, I wouldn’t miss it. If I grew up here, I probably wouldn’t need it so I wouldn’t get it. But if I wanted it, I’d take the tests and get one. But really, I don’t need one, so I imagine that a lot of people are in the same situation of never having needed it up until now.
You just said it affected Democrats more than Republicans. I have to assume you said it because it mattered, otherwise why should I listen to any of your other rantings? Does everything you say not matter as well?
I’d ask a buddy to drive me. Problem solved.
“Hey, Ralph. Can you drive me to the DMV?”
“When?”
“Oh, sometime in the next 4 years”
“Gee, Pal. I think I might be busy working my 6 jobs for that entire time”
“Yeah, I’d have a problem taking off time from my 8 jobs, too. I’m putting in 60 hour days at it is”
“It that all? Oh, you can ask, Bill. He is working 5 jobs now that he only has 3 kids to look after”
“What happened to the fourth one?”
“Well, you know how poor they are…I guess they ate him”.
“Yeah, we had to do that with our grandparents”
“Well at least you don’t have to take them to the DMV to get an ID so they can vote!”
“Ralph, you’re always looking on the bright side!”
The Hispanic experience in America isn’t the same for all immigrants. I think you had it a lot easier than most. And that isn’t a lie, it’s an opinion based on your actions.
There is no further context. That’s the last thing you say in that thread.
What specifically did I say about your position? I think you don’t care if people die. I think you chuckle if someone can’t afford care because it elevates you over them. That isn’t a lie, it’s an opinion formed by watching your conduct.
I would assume that someone who had worked hard would understand what it is to be trapped in a life with nothing but hard work. Again, this is an opinion based on what I have observed about your conduct.
Also, liar, I didn’t say that you didn’t work a hard day in your life. I said that I didn’t think you did. I still think you would be a broken wreck from a day picking fruit.
Many, if not most or all of my claims are true. I’m not going to retract true claims because they make you look shitty. You look shitty because of how you act. I’m just the middleman.
You’re moving the goalposts, liar. You said specifically that I supported gerrymandering when it benefited Democrats. That’s a lie.
Well said. Lobo, the ad hominem attacks on Bricker are making you look like a lunatic. I find his position detestable as well, but you’re veritably frothing at the mouth, and it’s not coming across well.
And this is the pit and he’s simply given up trying to debate the issue.
And as I said above, I’m willing to justify my positions on him with arguments. I’ve said why he doesn’t seem to be a person who has worked and struggled hard, because he wants to inflict it on other poor people.
I assume that when someone is hurt badly they naturally don’t want this to happen to others. John McCain is against torture, for instance. So wouldn’t a person who had struggled to make it out of poverty with the sweat of his brow be against a labor tax on the poor, just so they can vote?
That said, I take it under advisement. I’ll be more civil. There is the Russian saying, when two people tell you you’re drunk, lie down.
Don’t you understand that in an election with the first ever African American candidate for president there would be a significant uptick in African American voters?
And as Hentor pointed out the rates for other minorities didn’t increase, rendering your argument moot.
That’s because you’re looking at absolute numbers. More Hispanic voters voted in 2010, but less as a relative percentage of total number of registered Hispanic voters.
Should we continue with another statistics lesson?
I didn’t see you link this earlier in this now-gargantuan thread, and it looks like others have already taken up the issue, so I will let that discussion play itself out for the moment.
In the meantime, however, as I find frustratingly often happens while arguing with you, you have skipped what I find to be the really key bit:
But now the numbers become almost identical – that is, in 2004 the Hispanic turnout as a percentage of registered voters was less than a percentage point more, and that’s with a vastly fewer actual number of voters, than 2008. Why could I not argue that the Voter ID laws focused more attention on the issue and motivated more people to register?
Ooof. How embarrassing! Boy, don’t you just hate it when some smug prick gets hoist on his own retard?
Statistics has never been a friend of Brickers, though.
Bricker, guess what? When there are more Hispanic people in an area, there will be more Hispanic voters. I guess you just ignored the cite I provided, which made the issue quite clear. I’ll give you credit though. I’ve never seen someone persevere for so long through such an embarrassing ass-kicking as this. I guess neener-neener must be very sustaining.
Because that argument would go against the proponents of various Voter ID laws who are quite willing to admit that those laws will reduce voter turnout amongst certain segments of the voting population. Even you have admitted to this.
Voter registration is driven by political parties (like Obama’s massive campaign in 2008) and various organisations which target voters who find it otherwise difficult to register. Like ACORN.
Some time back, in a discussion of health care laws, Lobohan asked me if there was some point where it would be acceptable for people to die because they could not afford health care. After generally pointing out that there was obviously a point for every health care system that had to confront that issue – do you spend $500,000 a month to keep a ninety-year-old alive? – I said that yes, in my view, it is acceptable for people to die if they cannot afford health care.
Since then, that jackass has been braying that line, attributed to me over and over. Each time I explain that the single quote is taken out of context, that I was not advocating a general policy of death for those that cannot afford health care, but was forthrightly answering an at-the-limits question.
I believe that a forthright answer to your question will expose me to similar misrepresentation, and I don’t want to expend the energy to have to go back and parse the discussion every time it’s hurled against me.
But I will ask if you believe voter age limits are anti-democratic.
Who is that? At best, I have only heard a prediction that Voter ID laws would make it more likely to win, which was undoubtedly a belief that voter fraud would be elimiated and produce different results. But I am willing to be educated – who was “quite willing” to admit that voter ID laws will reduce voter turnout among certain segments?
Is there even an opposing viewpoint to poll taxes, literary tests, grandfathering, et al. being antidemocratic?
Ah! Never mind. You’re response is that it’s democratic because it was enacted in a democratic fashion in a constitutional manner, right? You can answer this one; “Yes” doesn’t make a good gotcha.
