I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

You lied when you again defended your dishonest repetition of my line about how it is acceptable for some people to die for lack of medical funding.

No I didn’t, liar. I posted it along with the context.

You’re lying right now, because you’re pretending there was additional context.

I have no interest in handing you any additional bullets for that gun.

Seeing as you shit out lies like a hamster drops pellets, I’m not worrying about running out of ammo soon.

I haven’t lied about a damn thing. In fact, it’s hilarious now that I’m being asked my opinion and refuse to give it, when the simplest thing would be to lie. Right?

You said that I support gerrymandering. It’s not true, and you have nothing to support it, aside from some farcical notion that you can determine what I believe based on what I don’t post.

You know it’s stupid, but you’re running out of options.

I know that’s foreign to you.

You know what’s foreign to me? Dudes from Switzerland. I just like have very little cultural similarity with them.

And notice how your goal posts veritably leapt around the field.

My goalposts are solid, in that my arguments about your lies don’t change. You’re a reliable actor. You’ll lie if you can get away with it. You’ll deceive people any chance you get. It happened several times in this very thread. Take your comments on ACORN, for one.

Oh, I never said a thing about gerrymandering. I never saw any such thread!

Ok, forget gerrymandering – any negative words about any Democratic politician?

uh… that’s a bizarre test, so I won’t answer!

I told you it was a stupid test from the get go.

My position hasn’t changed, friend Bricker. And I’d appreciate it if you’d try to be honest for the rest of this thread, okay?

You don’t know what, or how, to think. You read Huffngton Post or the New York Times, learn the liberal line, and parrot it. For a supposed independent thinker, it’s amazing that no Democrat has ever done anything, anything at all, that caused you to comment unfavorably – except agree with a Republican. Yet somehow, you’ve found plenty to disagree with from Republicans.

I gave you a list of several Democrats I have problems with. So what you said isn’t true. It’s a lie, Bricker. I’m sorry that this hurts you so much, but use the pain and shame to be a focus to drive this need to deceive people from your body.

What would be a better test of blind partisanship?

I would say reflexively jumping to the defense of a party, like you do all the time, would be a good example.

As it happens, I’m a bit more liberal than the Democrats. I don’t think they go far enough, but since the Republicans are generally completely wrong on every major issue I can think of… Democrat is how I’ll vote. If a Republican had reasonable ideas, I’d give them the time of day. But who would that be? Scott Brown is one of the most liberal Republicans in the congress today, and he’s also largely wrong on many issues. And he’s been a reliable vote for the obstructionist Senate under McConnell. So I’m not very friendly for him. So if the most liberal Republican is rigidly conservative and willing to obstruct without thought or nuance, who in the congress should I be rooting for right now?

To sum up, we’ve all seen you shamelessly lie in this thread. Stop it and grow up.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

So, name that then. Give me one example of dishonest debate from me.

Sure:

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

And understand that, as Bricker has acknowledged, the big government, costly solution will not actually solve the problem. The problem that doesn’t exist anyway.

I never acknowledged that.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

No I didn’t, liar. I posted it along with the context.

You’re lying right now, because you’re pretending there was additional context.

Seeing as you shit out lies like a hamster drops pellets, I’m not worrying about running out of ammo soon.

You said that I support gerrymandering. It’s not true, and you have nothing to support it, aside from some farcical notion that you can determine what I believe based on what I don’t post.

You know it’s stupid, but you’re running out of options.

You know what’s foreign to me? Dudes from Switzerland. I just like have very little cultural similarity with them.

My goalposts are solid, in that my arguments about your lies don’t change. You’re a reliable actor. You’ll lie if you can get away with it. You’ll deceive people any chance you get. It happened several times in this very thread. Take your comments on ACORN, for one.

I told you it was a stupid test from the get go.

My position hasn’t changed, friend Bricker. And I’d appreciate it if you’d try to be honest for the rest of this thread, okay?

I gave you a list of several Democrats I have problems with. So what you said isn’t true. It’s a lie, Bricker. I’m sorry that this hurts you so much, but use the pain and shame to be a focus to drive this need to deceive people from your body.

I would say reflexively jumping to the defense of a party, like you do all the time, would be a good example.

As it happens, I’m a bit more liberal than the Democrats. I don’t think they go far enough, but since the Republicans are generally completely wrong on every major issue I can think of… Democrat is how I’ll vote. If a Republican had reasonable ideas, I’d give them the time of day. But who would that be? Scott Brown is one of the most liberal Republicans in the congress today, and he’s also largely wrong on many issues. And he’s been a reliable vote for the obstructionist Senate under McConnell. So I’m not very friendly for him. So if the most liberal Republican is rigidly conservative and willing to obstruct without thought or nuance, who in the congress should I be rooting for right now?

To sum up, we’ve all seen you shamelessly lie in this thread. Stop it and grow up.

Ok, I am done with you in this thread. Laws are in place, say what you want.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Exactly. I answered an honest question from another poster, once upon a time, and was rewarded by shit-for-brains Lobohan linking to just my answer, without the question and the debate that surrounded it, crowing how Bricker wants people to die.

No more. You want to know what Tarzai thought? Ask him. I am not serving up any good faith admissions here.

Parthol, before you believe what Bricker says here, I just posted this earlier in the thread. There is no exculpatory context. It’s just a vile notion.

This is what I posted earlier. You can click on the text itself or the Quote above to get to the original thread.

In that long ago thread Voyager said:
[

I already said that being more efficient, while still meeting the goal, was better. The case in point here is that having a deficit says nothing at all about whether the program is efficient. Efficiency, to repeat, is a measure of how close you come to the ideal of providing value for minimal cost. Please demonstrate that private insurers come closer to this ideal than Medicare.

If you go out shopping to buy 20 items, you can measure the efficiency of your shopping by how close you get to the minimal price for your grocery cart. Not buying the milk to save money is not being efficient.

The real problem with justification is not the cost, but acceptance of the goal. If you don’t accept that it is proper for society to tax its citizens to provide life sustaining healthcare for every person, then the cost is just a sideshow. I’ve asked several times in this thread if those who believe this think it is acceptable for people to die because they couldn’t afford proper treatment. So far, only the sounds of crickets.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041525&postcount=245)
Emphasis mine. You quoted the emphasised section and said:
[

It is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford the proper treatment.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246)

[Uzi]

@elucidator

Glad to help! You see, in these situations, you got two groups: the majority (the guys that are more numerous) and the minority (the guys who aren’t). I’ll take a minute, give you time to absorb and digest.

Ready? OK, follow closely: as a general thing if the guys in the majority don’t want the guys in the minority doing something, they can’t do it. Read it again, if you need to.

Ah, like when the Democrats had a majority just after Obama was elected and were so successful in passing whatever legislation they wanted to at that time?

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Ok, I am done with you in this thread. Laws are in place, say what you want.

But, by all means run away, I understand that this is humiliating for you. Consider that if you can’t effectively argue for your beliefs, maybe you should question them.

<3

[Parthol]

@Bricker

No more. You want to know what Tarzai thought? Ask him. I am not serving up any good faith admissions here.

Do you mean “here” as in this Pit thread, or do you mean anywhere on the Dope at all? I really am interested in engaging you in a less mud-slingy forum.

[MaxTheVool]

@Steophan

No. Someone might not be able to do or know those things right now, but they could easily do them at some point over the course of several years.

I’ve already said I doubt there’s a significant problem with illegal voters, and that in some states the Republicans are doing this purely for partisan reasons. That doesn’t mean I’m suddenly going to agree that it’s difficult to get ID, when no-one’s actually shown evidence of that.

So if you agree that some Republicans are doing this purely for partisan reasons, and that there isn’t a significant problem with illegal voters, then why ARE the Republicans doing it, if not because it is in fact difficult to get ID. What would be their motive otherwise?

And, to repeat a point I’ve made many many times in this thread, which no one ever seems to respond to:

@me

As long as there are SOME barriers to getting the ID card (even something as simple as going to some place and signing your name and not even having to pay money), then purely due to human nature, there are some people for whom that extra barrier is going to be the tipping point that prevents them from voting… in some cases for reasons that we would deride (eh, they’re just lazy, going down to that office is too much of a hassle) and in some cases for reasons that we would respect (already working 11 jobs, don’t own a car because spending every penny to support children and elderly parents, etc.) When considering what effect such a law would have on large numbers of people, the fact that there are plenty of people in that group who will in fact be able to overcome that hurdle, and that arguably the vast majority SHOULD be able to overcome that hurdle, doesn’t change the fact that there WILL be an impact. Any time you make something harder to do, fewer people will do it, period. That’s pretty much the whole point of the law of supply and demand. If you raise the price of donuts from .75 each to .85 each, you’ll sell fewer donuts, even if it’s hard to specifically identify precise people who could afford .75 but not .85 for donuts.

As for the name of a single person affected by this, look at post 1791 in this very thread.

[Shayna]

@Bricker

Name them.

What the bloody fuck?

@Bricker

There have been more voter fraud cases. Many more.

No, there fucking haven’t been more than 10 IN-PERSON voter fraud cases that have been prosecuted and won, which is the actual claim I made.

@Bricker

Do you see my point?

Uhm, no. I couldn’t even tell you were trying to make one. Looks to me like you’re just flailing in your puke.

@Bricker

Your rebuttal to my claim is, I assume: “Name them.”

What? Where the hell is this “name them” crap coming from. Are you on drugs or have you just finally completely lost what little of your mind was left?

@Bricker

Why must I name the specific voter fraud cases and you can skate by with vague claims?

Well if you were asked to name specific IN-PERSON voter fraud cases, perhaps that’s because coming up with fewer than 10 cases should be pretty simple to do?

[xenophon41]

@elucidator

Glad to help! You see, in these situations, you got two groups: the majority (the guys that are more numerous) and the minority (the guys who aren’t). I’ll take a minute, give you time to absorb and digest.

Ready? OK, follow closely: as a general thing if the guys in the majority don’t want the guys in the minority doing something, they can’t do it. Read it again, if you need to.

@Uzi

Ah, like when the Democrats had a majority just after Obama was elected and were so successful in passing whatever legislation they wanted to at that time?

The following two statements regarding the US and most state bicameral legislatures are not the same and have different truth values:

A. A majority bloc of legislators can prevent a minority bloc from moving their legislative agenda forward. TRUE A majority working together can always control the legislative agenda.

B. A majority bloc of legislators cannot be prevented from passing whatever legislation they desire. FALSE A minority working together can frequently prevent bills and nominations from coming up for floor debate, and can in some cases deny quorum. (US Senate rules on filibuster and other procedural obstructive tactics may be changed in the next Congress, which will strengthen the possibility that a legislative majority may more successfully impose legislation on the minority, but it will take clear majorities in both houses and a sympathetic POTUS even then.)

[Bricker]

@Shayna

What the bloody fuck? No, there fucking haven’t been more than 10 IN-PERSON voter fraud cases that have been prosecuted and won, which is the actual claim I made. Uhm, no. I couldn’t even tell you were trying to make one. Looks to me like you’re just flailing in your puke. What? Where the hell is this “name them” crap coming from. Are you on drugs or have you just finally completely lost what little of your mind was left? Well if you were asked to name specific IN-PERSON voter fraud cases, perhaps that’s because coming up with fewer than 10 cases should be pretty simple to do?

Shayna:

Have there been any in-person voter fraud cases that were not prosecuted?

[Bricker]

@Parthol

Do you mean “here” as in this Pit thread, or do you mean anywhere on the Dope at all? I really am interested in engaging you in a less mud-slingy forum.

PM me.

[gamerunknown]

@magellan01

The government does NOT have the responsibility to see to it that everyone votes.

Why not? The Australian government assumes that responsibility, to the best of its efforts.

@Bricker

Why must I be the only one who is following Queensbury?

… “and don’t you dare accuse me of a tu quoque!”

[Shayna]

@Bricker

Shayna:

Have there been any in-person voter fraud cases that were not prosecuted?

Bricker: Have there been any non sequiturs in the history of the internet that have gone unchallenged? Can you name them?

[Bricker]

@Shayna

Bricker: Have there been any non sequiturs in the history of the internet that have gone unchallenged? Can you name them?

None I can think of right now.

But I hope this isn’t a suggestion that my question was a non-sequitur.

[elucidator]

No, since it is a question it cannot be a conclusion that does not follow from the premises, which defines non sequitar. What that is is an evasion, ducking an uncomfortable question with a rhetorical device and smugly pretending otherwise. Probably worked the first thousand or so times you used it. It doesn’t have a fancy latin title, its just dodgeball.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Sure:

@Hentor the Barbarian[/quote

And understand that, as Bricker has acknowledged, the big government, costly solution will not actually solve the problem. The problem that doesn’t exist anyway.

I never acknowledged that.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15135855&postcount=582

@Bricker

In general, when we speak of ensuring something is true, we do so in the context of degrees of confidence.

We issue driver’s licenses in part to ensure that the police can correctly issue a traffic summons to the proper person, rather than simply allowing a person to self-report their name and address.

That system is not infallible. But it allows a much greater degree of confidence that when the police issue a summons, they are doing so using the real name and address of the driver.

The word “ensure,” in this context, does not require absolute certainty.

You acknowledge that people can still cast fraudulent votes under your Voter ID system. Since nearly 0 fraudulent votes are cast now, a system that will still allow any fraudulent votes will not reflect any change in fraudulent votes cast.

You absolutely did acknowledge that.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

No, since it is a question it cannot be a conclusion that does not follow from the premises, which defines non sequitar. What that is is an evasion, ducking an uncomfortable question with a rhetorical device and smugly pretending otherwise. Probably worked the first thousand or so times you used it. It doesn’t have a fancy latin title, its just dodgeball.

I guess I was simply connecting dots ahead of schedule.

Ok, fine.

Yes, there have been no more than ten cases of prosecuted in-person voter fraud.

And how is that relevant? What inference should we draw from that number?

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I never acknowledged that.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15135855&postcount=582You acknowledge that people can still cast fraudulent votes under your Voter ID system. Since nearly 0 fraudulent votes are cast now, a system that will still allow any fraudulent votes will not reflect any change in fraudulent votes cast.

You absolutely did acknowledge that.
[/QUOTE]

No. “Nearly 0,” now is not the same as “Nearly 0,” under a system with Voter ID. That’s your conclusion. I didn’t acknowledge it, I don’t, and for you to say I do is dishonest argument.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

No. “Nearly 0,” now is not the same as “Nearly 0,” under a system with Voter ID. That’s your conclusion. I didn’t acknowledge it, I don’t, and for you to say I do is dishonest argument.

But you did acknowledge that fraudulent votes can still be cast under your preferred system.