How tragic it is that nobody on this board, and probably in real life either, is of evolved enough a species to be able to recognize your superior perception and insight and reasoning ability. The constant pain of that knowledge must be unbearable. :rolleyes:
Which side YOU’RE ON doesn’t matter. Remove the labels and just look at the resource requirements of the law.
And I explained the basis for that, i.e. resources required affecting low resource voters.
I note you choose not to define what you’d accept as evidence.
Of course! Why didn’t anybody think of that except for the brilliant and innovative thinker, Mags! The Pubbies are doing all of this strictly from a sense of civic virtue, they are entirely innocent of partisan motivation. Why, it never occurred to them that this would result in any partisan advantage. And if it was somehow pointed out to them that this would result in a disadvantage to white Republican voters, they would have gone right ahead anyway, because partisan advantage was not even remotely a concern of theirs!
This is my official royal opinion, in my capacity as Queen of Romania.
The guy is in trouble for several different kinds of corruption. Just because a liar tells you something you don’t expect him to, doesn’t mean he’s telling you the truth. And, unless I’m very much mistaken, he is relating nothing more substantial than an anecdote. Granted, I think what he’s saying is quite probably true, but his saying it adds nothing to the evidence already before us. It could be nothing more than bitterness and spite.
Huh? YOU are the one who claimed that it had to do with the votes of one side being depressed disproportionally. (see below)
No, you did not. But maybe I missed it. If so, can you point to the explanation for you bringing up:
(emphasis mine)
[QUOTE=AlienVessels]
Seriously? If that increase requires that voters on your side are disproportionately suppressed and most likely in VASTLY more numbers than fraudulent votes, how could any reasonable person examining both sides NOT lose confidence in the process?
[/QUOTE]
That’s the reason you provided. Are you changing your view? Something else?
[QUOTE=AlienVessels]
I note you choose not to define what you’d accept as evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Because I don’t know what evidence you seem to be offering to deliver. I’m not following you here. Probably because you haven’t answered the questions I’ve asked. You seem to willing to generate evidence for ___________. Can you clarify? But first, it would help if we could clear up what your position is. We then may or may not need evidence.
Register for the presidential election several counties away from where you live and attempt to get public transport there, please.
Ever read the Road to Wigan Pier?
Why would someone do that? If they were registered in one county and then moved to another, or another state, they register in their new home county. What’s the big deal?
So, they’re making it all up then? They are protesting these laws even though it won’t have any effect on them? Got nothing better to do, is that it? The ACLU,which simply teems with lawyers, they are spending their money on this in Pennsylvania 'cause, what the heck, they are rolling in bucks anyway. And that woman who they are offering as the test case, she’s lying? Same in Florida and Texas, nothing to see here, move along?
In the interests of bi-partisan neutrality, I promise to give this suggestion all of the consideration it is due. Ah. There. Done. Anything else?
OK, true, it *could *be that the people the GOP chooses for its leadership are merely corrupt and mendacious, not actually antidemocratic. That’s a fair point, if not entirely a supportive one. 
Well, he is sort of implying that it was those other guys, not him, and he was shocked shocked. Just a virgin who suddenly realized he was surrounded by sluts.
You’re suggesting that because the vote will be marginally more secure, that more people will vote who wouldn’t have voted before? And you think that will outnumber those who just throw up their hands? That’s an interesting position. I don’t see a way to prove this supposition incorrect other than pointing out the studies previously cited on voter confidence not being increased by voter ID seems to indicate that, in general, if people feel their vote doesn’t matter, or isn’t secure, that ID won’t change their mind.
I summarized them in post 272.
That’s the rub. Their only more important IF more people don’t get involved In general, I don’t think people think this way. They either vote because they feel it’s their civic duty or because they feel it’s important to elect the persons they feel will govern best. But not because they’re vote is more valuable.
This really shouldn’t be difficult, but I’ll explain it anyways for you, you thick fuck.
10% of the country’s voting populace is going to be told “if you want to vote, you have to go stand in line at the DMV”. What percentage of those people do you think will say “ah, fuck it, my vote doesn’t matter anyways, and I hate both candidates”. And if the problem is “I’m scared that illegals will undo my vote”, then you know what the solution is? EDUCATION! Because that is a lie made out of whole cloth by republican shitbags like YOU!
Jesus christ, there is no way you are actually that stupid. Is there?
It would sure be refreshing to have one of our wingnuts, just one, have the cojones to admit the real reason behind a law of policy that they are championing, not these wishy-washy pseudo-reasons which they don’t actually personally believe for a microsecond. Well actually, there’s the Bricker’s of this world (who are intelligent enough-enough-to be fully cognizant that it is all a bunch of obtusfucating propaganda, tho they still lack the moral fiber to recognize the wrongness involved and the damage said policies does to our nation and world), but there are also the magellan’s of this world too (who are in fact too stupid to realize that they are being duped and truly do believe the bullshit reason, blissfully unaware of the real reason).
Still would be refreshing tho: “YES! I ADMIT IT! All those GOP governors signed these laws to screw over Democrat-leaning voting blocs-and I’m completely glad for it! The quicker we can get that n***** out of the White House, the better! Screw due process and for that matter screw any sense of fair play! This is a power play pure and simple!”
Yes. Yes there is.
That fact genuinely makes me sad, what with the “winning!” quotes. I only saw them being quoted, so I don’t know the full context, IYKWIMAITYD, but it’s genuinely sad that there are those that know that the main purpose of the disenfranchisement is to help one party and are completely okay with it.
I’ve already posted a link that the primary reason people don’t vote is because they don’t like either candidate. IIRC, more Republicans have this an excuse. Imagine if they had a likable candidate. The left would be screwed.
2nd reason is because they are too busy.
Lack of ID will be way down the list as a valid reason*.
*The excuse they’ll give to the pollster rather than admit that they couldn’t be bothered to vote.
Well, he did walk that back some, more or less admitting that some Republicans are infected with the realpolitik virus, or that this motivation paid some role. I, for one, would actually be pleased and heartened to hear of a Republican in Texas or Florida raise an objection. And there were those Republican election officials in Florida who told the Governor where he could stick his voter purge. (If you hadn’t heard about it, the “purge” means removing names from the list, no one is getting shot, or anything. Leastwise, not yet…)
Still, let it be knouted for the record that his level of candor quite exceeded the standard for Republican veracity. Counts for something.
Well, if I’m included in this missive, then I’ve already admitted that is the case. It isn’t relevant, though. The laws make sense, not the least of which that almost every other country does so and that most people want them.
Regardless whether ID laws actually stop fraud, most people think they do. Most people want to know their vote counts. This is why most people want them. Gah, sometimes you have to throw a bone to people if you want them to play your game.
I’ll try to break this down for you again, Uzi. Not about the validity or even the desirability of voter id. No matter how many times you defend it, it isnt the point. The point is using such validity as a veil to drape over political machinations.
It would be as if the cops pulled over anyone they thought was a Democrat on election day and kept them from getting to the polls. You can defend the value of speed limit laws all day long, and you still haven’t said anything worth hearing. So, next time, think it over carefully, and then don’t do it.
Why are you responding to something as if I didn’t just acknowledge that it is true?
That sounds real nice if they weren’t actually being pulled over for speeding. They are. Telling the cop who just pulled you over that there were many more cars travelling faster than you were usually falls upon deaf ears.
And why don’t you admit that your concern is for the votes that the Democrats may lose rather than for the people who can’t vote? We already had one person say that old people don’t matter (primarily Republican voters) because they’ll be dead soon.