One more time. Not “dead set” against ID laws. Dead set against such laws being used to create a partisan advantage. Like this one.
Would it help if I type slower?
Would you like to answer the question I asked you?
I will repeat it if you missed it the first time:
Now - I presume, from your vehemence and disdain for Republicans that you’re leaning Democrat. Tell me, honestly, if in your state redistricting favors Democrats, do you support it or not? What if doing it in strictly geographic or what someone would describe a “fair” way swung the state to Republicans - would you support that?
That is not an accurate description of what I said. I meant something else. I wish there was a smilie that would crystalize my intent to you; but alas, there is not. I am unwilling to exert any effort beyond that. I trust you will find that satisfactory.
Yep. However, I want it applied completely equally. EVERYBODY has to show an ID. I don’t care if you’ve known the poll worker for 30 years, no ID = no vote. If they’ll do that and make sure the free IDs are readily available, then I can tolerate this law.
Now, if it turns out that the law is applied more strictly in predominately black precincts as opposed to white precincts, I assume you’ll have no problem condemning the state and agreeing that the election results should be thrown out. Right? After all, for many laws, the truth is not in the text but in the application - separate but equal spings to mind…
That’s not a question, that is an accusation masquerading as a question. Got my faults, Terr, its a long damned list, but “stupid” ain’t on it.
Be honest, now. Do you remember what day it was when your political principles became debased, corrupt, and cynical? Was it a Tuesday? Hey, c’mon, be honest!
There is no accusation there that I can see. A pretty straightforward question, and your refusal to answer it speaks volumes. Thanks for confirming that it’s not that you object to “partisan bias” - you object to bias favorable to Republicans. If it was bias toward Democrats, you’d have no problem with it.
I quoted what you said verbatim.
How could it be inaccurate?
Ok, what did you mean?
The logical implication of your statement,
is that if buying cigarettes and booze were protected by the Constitution then it would be wrong to require people to produce IDs to buy cigarettes and booze and that’s why it’s wrong to require people to produce IDs to vote but not to buy booze or cigarettes.
That said, there’s an easy way to clear this up.
You just need to explain what you meant by the phrase “Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.”
Please do so.
Thanks
No thank you.
Why not?
I’ve been extremely patient and courteous with you when you were insulting me and making snide comments about my nationality.
I’m not asking a difficult question.
I’m merely asking what you meant when you said “Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.”
Most observers upon reading that would think that you were arguing that it’s wrong to require IDs to vote because that is a right “guaranteed by the Constitution” while buying alcohol and cigarettes aren’t.
How is that analysis wrong?
It’s the only logical explanation for the statement.
If there’s another logical explanation for the statement than please provide it, or else everyone reading this thread will have to conclude that you meant what made producing IDs to buy alcohol and cigarettes kosher but not producing IDs to vote the fact that one is a constitutional right while the other two aren’t.
I absolutely agree that the law should be applied completely equally.
I have no problem condeming the state, but a slight one with the remedy you propose. Under it, essentially any election worker could be the cause of the entire election being thrown out. An election worker in a hevily Democratic precinct could apply the law inequally, and by prior arrangement have it challenged by a cohort.
This would allow a sure fire win to be scuttled by a team of two people.
I would say that a nefarious election worker poisions his own precinct, not the entire election, and note that in any application of game theory, highly motivated actors may find holes I haven’t though of yet, so I reserve the right to revise this plan as flaws become apparent.
I have never insulted you. Per the moderators comment, I came “freaking close”. Therefore, I never insulted you.
And I never once mentioned your nationality. I don’t even know what nationality you claim.
You do not speak for everyone reading this thread. You have drawn mistaken conclusions about everything I have posted. I find it tiresome to correct you every time you demonstrate your confusion. I have no inclination to do it now. That will just have to suffice. Even if you stamp your foot.
Both of you knock it off. If you wish to go after each other on a personal level, take it to the Pit. Now.
twickster, Elections moderator
Well, let’s see.
[QUOTE**]
Fear Itself**
No, I am sorry, you are still incapable of grasping rhetorical sarcasm. Perhaps it is a cultural thing, or a language thing. I am sure it is very frustrating for you, but that is not my problem
[/QUOTE]
Most people would consider such comments to be veiled insults.
You claimed that I must not have understood what you were saying due to “language” or “culture”. Such insinuations, particularly the “cultural” part seem to reference nationality.
I drew the logical conclusion from your statement “Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.” How was it mistaken?
You have not corrected me once. Doing so would be very simple. You just have to explain what you meant by the saying “Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.”
All I’m asking is for you to explain what you meant by the above statement if you didn’t mean that it was ok to ask for IDs when buying booze and cigarettes because those aren’t protected by the Constitution but it’s wrong to ask for IDs in the case of voting because that’s protected by the Constitution.
You’ve insinuated that I’d have to be stupid or deliberately obtuse to not understand what you meant so please, just explain what you meant.
Thanks
Apologies.
Didn’t see this note, but I’m a bit confused as to what I did that you’re objecting to.
I have not made the veiled insults at him that he made at me and have actually been quite polite.
I’ve merely asked him a perfectly legitimate question.
He criticized OMG for bringing up the government requiring people to provide IDs to buy alcohol and cigarettes by claiming “Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.” in post # 7.
Wouldn’t you agree that the most logical interpretation of this comment is that he’s saying that it’s ok to require IDs to buy booze and cigarettes because those aren’t protected by the Constitution while voting is?
When I pointed out that based on this logic then the government couldn’t require people to produce IDs to buy guns he complained that I “misunderstood” what he meant.
I asked him what he did mean and he refused to answer and insinuated that only someone who was ignorant or “deliberately obtuse” wouldn’t understand him.
I merely wanted to know what he meant if the most logical explanation is wrong because I honestly can’t think of another if the logical one is wrong?
Can you?
That said, Fear isn’t going to answer, per your instruction I won’t ask him anymore.
Thanks
He speaks for at least some of us. It appears from my angle that you have been forced into a corner with regards to the inconsitency of your beliefs. Rather then either modifying your views, or seeking to provide an reason for the inconsitency you seek to lash out and pretend you have not been caught.
You may believe what you wish. I am secure in the knowledge that my statements are consistent.
Oh, no problem with that at all. . If it can be proven that an election worker did not check an ID, then that precinct’s results are thrown out. If a “nefarious election worker” allows Grandma (or Billy Joe - who lives right down the street) to vote without showing ID, then all those votes get lost. You might be surprised at which way that particular sword would cut…
If Grandma or Billy Joe can’t buy a gun merely because he’s personally known to the gun store clerk, I have no problem at all imposing the same level of error-checking on precinct workers.
I might be persuaded after seeing massive vote losses that this was a bad idea, but as I picture it now, I’m happy to see voting get treated with that level of seriousness.
But weren’t you the guy that was all about how the voters “felt” about their vote? How a voter might be totally bummed, dude, to think that their vote was negated by a bogus voter?
How about the voter who voted for x number of years, and hears it said that now, its different. Now, you can take the downtown bus to Crawford street, then the 9:15 to Franklin, get off at Seventh, then go in the building there and submit your documents. To get a card that permits you to do what you’ve already been doing?
It’s not a question of whether controlling voter rights is legitimate, of course it is! Accurate records should be kept, dead people should not be on the rolls.
Its about political judo, its about using a valid principle to advance an agenda that is at odds with that selfsame principle.
I don’t care that the poor and the otherwise disadvantaged have to show proper ID. That is a concession to the paranoid tighty rightys I am willing to accept, no problem. As soon as I see their sincerity, as soon as I see them make a serious outreach effort, spend thier money to make sure that the burden of this worthy effort does not fall upon the weak.
Show me where they recongize this, show me the effort to ensure that this does not discriminate on partisan lines, and I’m on board. So far, you would prefer to discuss something else.
Or admit to me that his is nothing but a diseased old whore, dressed up as a courtesan.
This is so phenomenally incorrect that there’s not much to say except: nuh uh. I lack interest in speculating on the motive behind such a incorrect statement, so unless you’ve got something new to add, I do believe we’re done.
I’m not done with Bricker, however. You know how irritated you get when people on the liberal side say something absurd and don’t get called on it? This would be an excellent time for you to step in and call Terr out.