What I am trying to suggest is that the other side might not think what the other, other side thinks they think. I think.
The syllogism runs like this -
[ul][li]People support voter ID in order to suppress the black vote, and thus give advantage to Republicans[/li][li]A majority of Democrats support voter ID.[/li][li]Therefore, either [list][]A majority of Democrats want to suppress the black vote and give advantage to Republicans. That doesn’t make sense to me - why would Democrats want to give advantage to Republicans? Or[]People might support voter ID for reasons other than to give advantage to Republicans. And that’s the part that liberals, especially very partisan liberals, seem to have trouble accepting even as a possibility[/ul][/list]The reason for mentioning the study is to highlight a reason why that might be happening. [/li]
The study indicates the relative likelihood of two kinds of conversations.
Liberal: “I think X, for reason Y”.
Conservative: “You think X, and for reason Y.”
Liberal: “Yes, that’s right.”
Conservative: “I think A, for reason B.”
Liberal: “No you don’t. You think Q, for reason W.”
Now perhaps it might be that that majority of Democrats are deluded, and don’t understand that voter ID is racist and suppresses the black vote. That doesn’t help very much. I decline to believe that the liberal wing of the Democratic party, the wing that is opposed to voter ID, has not been trying to make the case that voter ID is racist and suppresses the black vote. They have been yelling about it for years and years. But they have failed to convince even a majority of their own party. Which suggests that their arguments are not persuasive even to their own party. And is, IMO, a further indication that there might be something more going on than merely a racist attempt to suppress the black vote - that there might be other good and sufficient reasons to convince even Democrats of the value of voter ID.
And it seems very difficult for liberals to accept even the possibility that this might be the case. And this might be the basis for “how hateful we have become”, at least in part.
Voter ID is not the Holy Grail to demonstrate Democratic hypocrisy. Most people, of all types, tend to think about issues in simple terms. If you ask them, “do you think it’s a good idea to have to show ID to vote”, a lot of people are going to say yes, Democrats included. But if you took the time to follow up and talk about how getting the ID is problematic for those who don’t drive, are disabled, can’t afford to take time off of work to get it, and so on- you might get different results. We don’t write laws based on the knee-jerk reactions to poll questions, we write laws based on cold analysis of the facts. The truth is that voter ID is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, and Republicans shamefully use it to disenfranchise the poor, minorities, the elderly, and the disabled.
But all of this hand waving has nothing to do with my point: the purpose of voting is to give citizens the opportunity to influence how they are governed and voter ID laws as often applied in the US have the effect of disrupting that process. Further, there is very little evidence of voter identification fraud taking place, so these laws inhibit democratic processes without solving any problem.
I don’t care what you think the bad liberals believe. It is established fact that the increase in voter laws have decreased minority turnout.
If there really are no reasons for supporting these laws other than being lied to and racism, as appears to be the case based on lack of alternatives presented either here or anywhere else, doesn’t the Fight Against Ignorance require **recognizing **that as fact and adjusting one’s worldview to it, instead of complaining that it’s being pointed out as fact to those who would prefer not to?
Read it again, as usual what you and many conservatives miss is that that is a red herring, nowhere I did say that most Democrats do not support voter ID, as it was mentioned many times before: in theory is the beesnees. In practice it leaves a lot to be desired when people that look mostly at their darkest angels of their nature are the ones enforcing the new ID rules. And so it goes that a lot of the fights then are related on what to do **after **voter ID is imposed in states. Again, there is not much of an issue with voter ID if it was just as the conservatives claim it is.
It is clear though that no matter what the evidence and judgements showed already, those need to be ignored so a narrative like the one you push should stand.
People can be for something like voter ID conceptually, but it sure can be implemented in a fashion designed to have negative impacts on certain categories of voters. Any law, including spitting on the sidewalk, can be implemented in a racist manner. The Democratic party opposed Voter ID laws because of the (not unreasonable) expectation that those pushing them have agenda beyond election integrity. Especially since those so occupied with micro tampering as represented by “voter fraud” seem so blase about the macro tampering of foreign interference.
I think he’s wrong. I haven’t familiarized myself with him too greatly, so there may be somethings that he is right about, but nothing I’ve ever seen.
Is it acceptable to you that I disagree with him, or does that mean that I said that “The views of George Weigel and people who think as he does, are sewer swamps of nonsense.”?
That’s an interpretation you may make. My point is is that liberals assume that people are motivated by humanity’s better natures, and that conservatives play on humanity’s lower natures.
That makes it easier for conservatives.
As there have been many liberals in even this very thread that have told you exactly why it is that they would be for voter ID, while still being against the way it is implemented, I think that you are very, very wrong to make that statement. You are telling liberals what they think, and the reasons they think it, to the very liberals that are saying that you are incorrect.
Your little story has no bearing on reality, certainly not with in relation to your contributions.
He’ll probably do it well before you tell us about your history of cross-party voting that leads you to disdain Republicans who vote only the party line.
Since you apparently, although falsely, think you’re scoring a point somehow: There is a significant difference between voting for a party based on principles of protecting and improving our society and our world, and doing so based simply on atavistic tribalism. If you understand that, you have the answer. If you don’t, none is possible.
As mentioned before, I already understand that this is your position. Is it possible that someone might not agree with you, for reasons other than delusion or racism?
Is that possible?
Remember the study. Liberals have a lot more trouble than conservatives and moderates in understanding why the other side thinks as they do.
Repeating your own position does little to assist in understanding the other positions available, especially when the other positions are in the majority, as they are with voter ID.
How did I miss this thread? Here’s my reaction just to the first 100 posts:
Well, … @ Mods — Close the thread then! It’s all the liberals’ fault. Problem identified.
With noxious clowns like Cooper on the left, the right had no choice but to counter with Limbaugh. Got it.
Yep. Despite that the average American intelligence has probably never been higher than now!
I was taken aback by the following post …
… but …
… I see that Vinyl and Bob addressed my question.
Some people want to fight poverty; some want to fight terrorism; some want to give more money to the Job Creators™. But I’d honestly like to understand the mentality that dreams of destroying CFPB. Can you help me understand this, Hurricane? Is it mainly just antipathy for the Pocahontas lady, or is there some more intelligible thinking there?
Look, I know you’re very proud of yourself for winning the conversation you are having in your head with an imaginary liberal, but could you please respond to the points I make and not the ones you wish I would make?
Do you agree that the purpose of voting is to give citizens the opportunity to influence how they are governed and voter ID laws as often applied in the US have the effect of disrupting that process? Further, since there is very little evidence of voter identification fraud taking place, don’t these laws needlessly undermine democracy?
You just keep repeating your position. I already understand that this is your position. Is it possible that someone might not agree with you, for reasons other than delusion or racism?
I keep repeating my position because you keep refusing to respond to it. Your bringing up this other, unrelated issue is a transparent attempt to deflect my point because it clearly hit home. The question isn’t why I think someone might not agree with me and your attempt to divert into that discussion is disingenuous.
The question is whether you agree that voter ID laws are being used to undermine democracy? If so, why do you support them?
No, I live in Delaware, about 15 minutes from the PA, where I work. PA is now considered a purple state but has been pretty consistently blue, and Trump barely won there. And Delaware is solid blue.
I really don’t see what showing another state has to do with this. If IDs to vote were inherently bad, trust me they would NOT be required where I live. The premise is that requiring IDs supposedly suppresses minority votes. That cannot be true, if there are diverse states that require IDs and regularly lean left.
If your argument is there are so many brown people in Delaware that it offsets the bad, bad ID requirement, then one has to wonder if it would really make a difference in a state that almost always goes red no matter what like TX.
Now, if you’re requiring some sort of “whites only” ID that extends beyond a regular state issued ID or a drivers license, and are greeted hostility when applying for them, that’s wrong and should be corrected. But it’s not the concept of an ID itself that’s a problem.
Here’s my reaction just to the first 100 posts: