McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

[Swammerdami]

Wrong!

If you would like me to comment on a specific voting reform bill, I would be happy to do so. I've said that the whole time.

What I am not happy to do is play idiot games with angry posters with prejudiced ideas and loaded language that begs the question.

What?? So it's "prejudiced" and "angry" to post links to NPR and NIH.GOV. To get your attention, I'll need to link to an InfoWars YouTube?

The sub-topic ("stasis of the argument" if you prefer) was your disbelief that the GOP was deliberately suppressing the votes of those likely to vote D. I presented evidence and wondered if you'd do more than briefly skim the articles with a smirk.

I over-estimated you. Afraid to learn how wrong you were, you didn't even skim. Without video I'm not sure if you're wearing a smirk or a snarl.

Meanwhile, after your demonstrating that your goal is to remain as ignorant as possible about the topic on which you preach, I'm afraid I'll leave you to your delusions. Horse, Water. Couldn't make it drink.

 

[Swammerdami]

That's just bullshit. There is no voting fraud problem in the US. Note that that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it;s just that it happens so rarely to be insignificant.

I didn't say there was a 'voting fraud' problem in the US. I did not say there wasn't one. I said there were good reasons to reform voting laws and that reducing voting fraud counts amongst those reasons.

Good point!! Similarly the prohibition against providing drinking water to those waiting hours to vote is necessary: Otherwise the water might be used to resuscitate rabid unicorns, as well as leprechauns or goblins which entered the country without a visa.

 

[Jarhyn]

I reject that voting reform laws create only 'procedural hurdles'.

Nice of you to reject your own made up fantasy straw-man.

Now I see why you are so ready to jump on me for what it is that you are doing: to hide you doing it.

I didn't use the word "only".

The discussion is in fact on what else they do, actually, accomplish. I can see that they accomplish

'reducing electoral and voter fraud'

I didn't say there was a 'voting fraud' problem in the US.

Is there a voting fraud problem in the US.

No?

Then what other motive is there?

Oh yeah, to create procedural hurdles.

Edit: if you have to think for more than 2 seconds for alternative benefits to a piece of legislation that you yourself proposed, after your primary stated reason is invalidated, there is not one.

 

[Jarhyn]

So now that we are done with this lame fuck-fuck game, we can get back to our regularly scheduled argument:

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

Is uttering a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement evil and fucked up behavior?

 

[laughing dog]

So, because metaphor can't figure out a measure that adequately will define when protecting election integrity is more important than protecting the right to vote: specifically when there is a unilateral threat to election integrity greater than the marginal division between political populations.

So, you would need to have a population of voters within a single party above and beyond any such population in another party, greater than the marginal difference between them, evidenced specifically from jurisdictions that lack protections against the behavior being observed.

We do not observe even triple digit numbers of fraudulent voters in the US. The marginal difference between voting blocks is greater than "in the hundreds of people".

This there is not sufficient reason to pass such laws other than to hurt those who will be put out by adding new hurdles (requirements, fees, places to be and people to meet at specific times that don't work well with anyone's schedule).

There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.

No one is denying that there are potential good reasons for reforming voting laws depending on the context. Going on about conceptual issues is moot. The OP and the actual discussion before your interjection is withing the context of the GOP changing voting laws.

In the context of the OP, what do you think are they good reasons for reforming voting laws, and which new voting laws are based on good reasons?

You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.

 

[Elixir]

At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I’m surprised that you ask.
Obviously, at the point where POC become nearly as likely to vote as is the average old white male (me), there has been a tragic breakdown in the power structure that was created with the intent to preserve the primacy and power of old white males (me).

 

[Elixir]

There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them

Please do explain why reducing voter fraud is more important than reducing, say, alien abductions. Remember to demonstrate that voter fraud has had some greater effect on elections than alien abductions have had.
How much money needs to be spent and how many new voting laws need to be passed to mitigate alien abductions?
How are alien abductions less important than voter fraud?

Right wing sheeples’ kneejerk reactions are killing this Country, and given the evidence at hand, it’s a wonder that they have not yet destroyed Australia.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's just bullshit. There is no voting fraud problem in the US. Note that that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it;s just that it happens so rarely to be insignificant.

I didn't say there was a 'voting fraud' problem in the US. I did not say there wasn't one. I said there were good reasons to reform voting laws and that reducing voting fraud counts amongst those reasons.

Good point!! Similarly the prohibition against providing drinking water to those waiting hours to vote is necessary: Otherwise the water might be used to resuscitate rabid unicorns, as well as leprechauns or goblins which entered the country without a visa.

At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I’m surprised that you ask.
Obviously, at the point where POC become nearly as likely to vote as is the average old white male (me), there has been a tragic breakdown in the power structure that was created with the intent to preserve the primacy and power of old white males (me).

Well, that's the quiet part. I'm trying to point out that the quiet part is all that's left, to expose the true dichotomy here, and make clear that one of those branches is already closed off. But if you just claim that's what it is, all you will get I think is "gaslit".

 

[Swammerdami]

Obviously no Infidel is stupid or a liar. But Metaphor's turnabouts and confused ranting almost tempt me to apply the term "willfully ignorant."

But the truth that Americans know is that “on the ground,” voter supression is happening. It’s been prominent in the news for all those not watching FOX or Breitbart. Some of those Americans have stated the case here, but google will instantly find the reports, including stats, photos, videos and on-the-ground reporting.

Okay luv. I'll just take your word for it. [condescend much?]

The data is there, the malevolent pretend it is not and the ignorant believe them.

We would have to agree on what counts as 'suppression' by race, we would have to look at the data, and then we would have to agree that a particular bill is designed to maintain or worsen that situation.

You've got some heavy lifting to do.

"We would have to look at the data"! Since we are certain that Metaphor is NOT an imbecile or a troll, this statement is baffling. One might almost conclude that Metaphor thinks the people he's arguing with are unfamiliar with the data. Furthermore one gets the impression that Metaphor thinks that data is hard to come by, that he'll have to go back to school and get a few more doctorates before he'll have access to The Data.

The only interpretation I can give to Metaphor's ranting that is even slightly sensical is the sort of argument one might get from a cut-rate lawyer, that "Voter suppression against blacks is not 'Voter suppression against blacks' unless one can point to specific legislation that contains one of a few specific words 'black' or 'African-American'." Voter suppression takes many MANY forms, but obviously none is as unsubtle as that. Even Republicans aren't quite that stupid.

Is that about it, Metaphor? Are we in a game to deduce your peculiar lawyer-like criteria? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

In #134 I linked to three specific articles that focused on just a single one of the GOP's plethora of suppression methods. He'd previously complained that he didn't know how to Google to find the name of the County that now has a single polling station. I could have taught him how to use a search engine, but I went the extra mile and showed him one of the Google hits. On the matter of long queues he confessed again that he didn't know how to use a search engine ("Since I cannot verify anything you are saying") and, again, I went the extra mile and linked to two Google hits. I did NOT editorialize. I just posted the links along with one brief excerpt.

I didn't have great expectations, but I thought a sincere junior high student — if that's what he is — would know how to click a link. Instead Here is the thanks I got:

What I am not happy to do is play idiot games with angry posters with prejudiced ideas and loaded language that begs the question.

Wow! I'm afraid Mr. Metaphor flunks his audition: Even Alex Jones supporters wouldn't fall for this, would they?

 

[Rhea]

Remember when we were talking about white male rapists and they were all, “not ONE SINGLE innocent white male should lose his civil rights, even if it means thousands of rapists go free. We must not EVAR err on the side of lost rights!”

And now the argument is, it is okay if 1,000,000 (minorities) lose their right to vote, so long as we can say we caught that 1 person who didn’t change their address. (Or that one Republican voting for his dead mother.)

My how the whole argument reverses.

Jarhyn never did get an answer; how many people are you willing to deny their right to vote in order to catch one fraud?

 

[Metaphor]

Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?

Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.

 

[Metaphor]

Is that about it, Metaphor? Are we in a game to deduce your peculiar lawyer-like criteria? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

In #134 I linked to three specific articles that focused on just a single one of the GOP's plethora of suppression methods. He'd previously complained that he didn't know how to Google to find the name of the County that now has a single polling station.

I did not 'complain'. I said I did not know what you were talking about. You didn't provide a county or a link.

For context, swammerdami wrote:

The GOP is clever enough — if "clever" is an appropriate word to describe blatantly criminal malice — to suppress black votes without legislation that explicitly contains the word "black." Recently I read of a county with very large area that will be given only a single polling place in future elections. Any bets on what the demographics of that county are, Mr. Metaphor? In some states, voters had to queue for several hours to vote in some precincts, while there were no delays in affluent neighborhoods. Why?

I did not realise this was a hidden test of my search engine skills, which apparently I failed.

 

[ZiprHead]

Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?

Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.

Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?

 

[Jarhyn]

I did not realise this was a hidden test of my search engine skills, which apparently I failed.

Any argument in the modern age which one hopes not to embarrass oneself in is a hidden test of search engine skills.

 

[Metaphor]

What?? So it's "prejudiced" and "angry" to post links to NPR and NIH.GOV. To get your attention, I'll need to link to an InfoWars YouTube?

The links are not the problem. The framing of voting reform as always and only about unnecessary hurdles to block the votes of everyone but white people is the problem. When you assume your conclusions in your premises, you are begging the question.

The sub-topic ("stasis of the argument" if you prefer) was your disbelief that the GOP was deliberately suppressing the votes of those likely to vote D. I presented evidence and wondered if you'd do more than briefly skim the articles with a smirk.

No. You referred to something you 'recently read' and then expected me to do your legwork. You then at a later point pretended you had provided the specifics you were talking about all along.

 

[Metaphor]

Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?

Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.

Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?

Post 135

 

[Metaphor]

Please do explain why reducing voter fraud is more important than reducing, say, alien abductions.

Because voter fraud is something that happens at elections, and alien abductions have never happened.

 

[Swammerdami]

No. You referred to something you 'recently read' and then expected me to do your legwork. You then at a later point pretended you had provided the specifics you were talking about all along.

What absolute drivel!!! I have read many dozens of articles on various voter suppression techniques used by the GOP. You have now effectively admitted that you have read ZERO such articles, if we exclude articles by GOP liars, and articles you were unable to comprehend.

What is with "[Swammi's] legwork"?? As if I'm on a mission to educate Metaphor and am remiss in my duties.

But after you admitted that you didn't know how to use search engines, I DID provide you with links. Instead of actually ... gasp! ... reading those articles and learning something, you contend — or so it seems — that I should have helped you with your Googling EARLIER.

Why, pray tell, should I have? You DO have the links now ... and still have not clicked.


ETA: By now I've got a pretty good handle on you. You will click now just so you can write "Nanner nanner nanner; I DID click." No. You need to READ the articles and either (a) Admit that you were egregiously wrong, or (b) refute the articles' conclusions.

 

[Elixir]

Please do explain why reducing voter fraud is more important than reducing, say, alien abductions.

Because voter fraud is something that happens at elections, and alien abductions have never happened.

You can’t prove alien abductions never happen any more than you can prove significant voter fraud in us federal elections.
I give up on your (hopefully) intentionally obtuse argumentation, meta.

 

[laughing dog]

Ple

Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?

Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.

Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?

Post 135

Post 135 lists
Those include reducing cost, reducing fraud, equalising voting access between different demographics and geographies, aligning with other states.

Do you have any evidence that any of those reasons are driving voter reform in the USA? For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?