You guys realize, don’t you, that he is conning us. He is relentlessly insisting that the real issue here isn’t voter suppression, but voter ID, and the validity thereof. Apparently, he didn’t read the title of this thread, or decided it didn’t matter, because it would get in the way of talking about what he wants to talk about.
No, even in the GD thread, he wasn’t actually stating that voter fraud is the heart of the problem - he was trying to sell us the *perception *of voter fraud as being the problem. But he didn’t even show *that *to be real. Nor will he even acknowledge that his proposed “solutions” to either of these “problems” would have real antidemocratic effects, because of course that would expose the true reasons. Reasons which we know are the real ones because the ones he says are real are not based on demonstrable fact. However, we can give him credit for being aware of that, while the likes of Rand Rover and **Clothy **are not bright enough to grasp,
:mad: It would not have but for the purge! Og rot Jeb Bush, and you, you lying sack of shit!
Jeez, that’s a stretching of semantics so wide one can drive a Mack truck through it.
Okay, we gotta go to the state government to get an ID. BIG FUCKING DEAL! As I pointed out, the cost is low and if one really wants to vote, one will make it happen. Good ghods, I can’t believe that you’re bitching about semantics like this. Anything to deflect from the issue.
You didn’t read what I posted earlier.
If voter ID laws had been in effect back then, LBJ would not have gotten into the Senate and eventually into the White House. We all know how well that turned out for the American public. And that is just one incident. Wasn’t there a tape of Obama talking near a hot mike just recently, where he is discussing the voter fraud problem?
First I’ve heard of it; please provide cite and link.
When the Voter ID pushers start pushing to eliminate absentee ballots, which is where you can find a huge portion of the otherwise minimal issue of voter fraud, THEN I’ll stop believing that they are scumbags who simply want to deprive a certain class from voting. Fuckers can’t make it to the polls, fuck 'em. Trusting of “the integrity of the process” is too important, or something like that.
So far, crickets.
If you think so, then let’s see you come up with a cogent argument for why voter-ID laws shouldn’t count as a “Big Government” measure: not just your absurd blethering about how it can’t be Big Government because the DMV is local. :rolleyes:
No deflection at all. The issue, as I’ve pointed out quite clearly, is that the only thing that the proposed voter-ID laws will really accomplish is to disenfranchise Democratic voters.
The alleged aim of the voter-ID laws, as even their own advocates admit, is to address a problem that nobody has provided any evidence of and that nobody will be able to tell whether voter-ID laws are addressing successfully.
If a guy complains that there are too many invisible unicorns damaging his property and installs a bunch of invisible-unicorn traps that happen to kill wolves as “collateral damage”, it’s a pretty safe bet that killing the wolves is what he was intending to do all along.
Republicans have been assiduously whipping up public hysteria about the invisible unicorns of voter fraud and trying to pretend that it’s not really about reducing Democratic votes. Understandably, they get upset when somebody sees through their ruse, but given what a transparent ruse it is, you couldn’t realistically expect to have it taken seriously.
Because dog fraud has influenced the outcome of elections and disenfranchisement hasn’t?
As a Washingtonian, this thread is amusing. I get my ballot from the mailbox. I fill it out. I put it back in. QED.
Useful to have more evidence to present to the individuals denying the association between racism and conservatism.
Kimstu may not have but I did and what you posted has nothing to do with what these laws do. Why don’t you go look at post #95? This was a case of fraud by election officials.
It isn’t like folks showed up at the polls back in 1948 and voted under the names of those dead people. Nope, the ballot boxes were stuffed with fake ballots by crooked election officials.
DOUBLE FAIL.
“Big Government” is not synonymous with “federal government.”
From your link:
Why is it, when others talk about voter fraud, you are a pious fan of precision: show me the cases! Where? Where are the names, the convictions?
But when this is the issue, you prove your case by saying (or quoting with approval) a claim that some thousands MAY have been turned away?
Who WAS turned away? And were they not able to cast provisional ballots? Was anyone turned away that was unable to vote at all, that was in fact a legitimate voter? How many of them? Significant numbers?
Why does your apparently love for absolute proof vanish when this is the subject?
I don’t agree. If I say that voter confidence is the aim, and I point to widespread belief, supported by polling results, that Voter ID laws are a good idea to improve the security and trustworthiness of outcomes, how can you say there is no way to tell? The very fact that large numbers of voters favor such schemes is evidence that they have the desired effect.
And Dick Cheney was able to cite the NY Times in support on concerns regarding Iraqi WMD, after planting the story with them in the first place. You’re being more than a little disingenuous here. If you gin up fear over a fictitious problem and then point to that fear to support your agenda, you’ve crossed the line into total douchebaggery.
Why ever bother with facts and empiricism when you’re actually driven by ideology?
I don’t agree that the concerns were invented out of whole cloth. I contend they arose from seeing what happened in Florida in 2000.
I contend that you’re a mindless partisan douchenozzle who is entirely without principle or integrity. Let’s add this one to the bookmarks to pull out whenever some rube goes down the “Bricker is a reasonable conservative” road.
The sort of “problem” Bricker purports to address was in no way part of what happened in Florida in 2000, nor does he propose any solution or even acknowledge the existence of the real problems that did occur there as a result of his own party’s hijacking of it. Which he obviously knows, of course; he’s a smart fellow, as he’ll proudly tell you.
IOW this is yet another silly lie from somebody with no regard whatsoever for building or strengthening, or even recognizing the existence of, democratic institutions. No, there is no principle higher than simple schoolyard-level temporary partisan advantage for him, he sees anyone else as an enemy rather than a fellow citizen, and he’s willing to damage the republic itself in order to feel like he’s controlling it.
I’d be happy to see this linked under those circumstances, Hentor. I’m offering reasoned rebuttal, and you’re calling me a mindless partisan douchenozzle who is entirely without principle or integrity. I think this is an excellent illustration our our respective approaches to debate.