McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

[Metaphor]

Except that minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters.

That minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters is consistent with "suppression tactics" but is also consistent with other hypotheses.

The fact that they came close in a couple of recent elections is exactly what has triggered the plethora of new voting laws in certain states, and the elimination of voting places in ‘certain’ neighborhoods, the sudden need to ensure that voters do not have access to water or food while they wait, sometimes for many hours to vote.

No, any connection between the two is your speculation.

 

[Metaphor]

Your response avoided my point about why this was not an issue in 2016.

Maybe it was an issue in 2016. Maybe it's only recently become an issue. Maybe it's long overdue. Maybe it's just additional legislative certainty about something that was already forbidden.

It avoids the relevant critique that you think that making poll workers adjucating what is and is not electioneering is burdensome, since they are already supposed to do so, and it burdensome for them to enforce this law as written. In simple terms, your "good faith" response shows a complete lack of knowledge of the actual situation

Yes, they are already supposed to do so. And preventing the provision of food and water by outside people to people waiting in line to vote will prevent the possibility of any electioneering via that method, and reduce the burden on poll workers. It will also eliminate any possible discretionary exercise of partisan bias by poll workers in that regard.

But you continue to do what you do - impute false intentions to make insulting accusations to distract from the inadequacy of your responses.

I discussed Georgia's law and the reason it was made. That you assumed your conclusions in your premises and that I did not automatically fall in line is your problem and not mine.

 

[laughing dog]

The notion that suppressing votes is not a force in GOP voting reform efforts is counterfactual. This link
When Republicans tell the Truth about Voting Integrity provides numerous quotes.

 

[laughing dog]

Your response avoided my point about why this was not an issue in 2016.

Maybe it was an issue in 2016. Maybe it's only recently become an issue. Maybe it's long overdue. Maybe it's just additional legislative certainty about something that was already forbidden.

"Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.

It avoids the relevant critique that you think that making poll workers adjucating what is and is not electioneering is burdensome, since they are already supposed to do so, and it burdensome for them to enforce this law as written. In simple terms, your "good faith" response shows a complete lack of knowledge of the actual situation

Yes, they are already supposed to do so. And preventing the provision of food and water by outside people to people waiting in line to vote will prevent the possibility of any electioneering via that method, and reduce the burden on poll workers. It will also eliminate any possible discretionary exercise of partisan bias by poll workers in that regard.

No, it does not.

But you continue to do what you do - impute false intentions to make insulting accusations to distract from the inadequacy of your responses.

I discussed Georgia's law and the reason it was made. That you assumed your conclusions in your premises and that I did not automatically fall in line is your problem and not mine.

Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,

 

[Toni]

Except that minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters.

That minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters is consistent with "suppression tactics" but is also consistent with other hypotheses.

The fact that they came close in a couple of recent elections is exactly what has triggered the plethora of new voting laws in certain states, and the elimination of voting places in ‘certain’ neighborhoods, the sudden need to ensure that voters do not have access to water or food while they wait, sometimes for many hours to vote.

No, any connection between the two is your speculation.

It is not my speculation. By looking at timelines of when voting by minorities approximated the voting rates of whites and comparing them to the sudden need to eliminate polling places, impose other restrictions certainly do point to a convenient timing.

However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.

 

[Metaphor]

"Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.

It is offering the possibilities that you have already silently rejected when you assumed your conclusions in your premises.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does. It is objectively easier to define what giving food and water to someone in line is than it is to define whether a particular exchange in line was 'electioneering'.

Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,

That you are incapable of entertaining an idea without believing it is your own problem.

 

[Metaphor]

However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.

You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.

 

[Jarhyn]

However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.

You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.

Maybe we can answer that question by looking at statistics:

Large Racial Turnout Gap Persisted in 2020 Election

70.9 percent of white voters cast ballots compared with only 58.4 percent of nonwhite voters — a disparity that will worsen with new restrictive voting laws.

www.brennancenter.org

When you pose it as "African Americans" and "all Americans" it's pretty close.

When you pose it as "Minorities and White Americans" it looks a lot different.

All his statement has leverage to deliver, regardless of any trickery on McConnell's part with their delivery, is that African Americans are not alone in having their vote suppressed.

 

[laughing dog]

"Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.

It is offering the possibilities that you have already silently rejected when you assumed your conclusions in your premises.

Asking for evidence is not assuming conclusions. It is asking for relevance. For some reason, you feel the need to confuse your lack of knowledge with actual evidence.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does. It is objectively easier to define what giving food and water to someone in line is than it is to define whether a particular exchange in line was 'electioneering'.

Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,

That you are incapable of entertaining an idea without believing it is your own problem.

Nonsense. We are discussing actual laws in context. Claims of fact require evidence. Why you find that unreasonable or confusing is fascinating.

But you do you with your shitty accusations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

The stated reason for the Republican changes is "voter fraud". If the real reason is something else the changes should be categorically rejected without consideration.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

What is wrong with this?

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

(2) Within any polling place; or

(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

Do you not see that it precludes providing water to those standing in line?

The objective is to avoid using the polling place for campaigning, a quite reasonable objective. However, when they don't provide enough capacity and people need water it becomes unreasonable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?

Poll workers can only give water if they have water to give.

The true objective here is to discourage people from voting at certain polling stations.

 

[Toni]

However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.

You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.

Maybe we can answer that question by looking at statistics:

Large Racial Turnout Gap Persisted in 2020 Election

70.9 percent of white voters cast ballots compared with only 58.4 percent of nonwhite voters — a disparity that will worsen with new restrictive voting laws.

www.brennancenter.org

When you pose it as "African Americans" and "all Americans" it's pretty close.

When you pose it as "Minorities and White Americans" it looks a lot different.

All his statement has leverage to deliver, regardless of any trickery on McConnell's part with their delivery, is that African Americans are not alone in having their vote suppressed.

Racial disparities are more pronounced in most elections, with 2008, 2012 and 2020 being exceptions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.

You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.

There is an undue burden created on the poor by voting reform laws. It's a poll tax masquerading as ensuring a fair vote. Just a few days ago another smoking gun on this:

Texas AG on why he supports the Big Lie: "We're done in Texas if anyone can vote"

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who's been peddling "voter fraud" and the Big Lie alongside Donald Trump since day one, is no longer pretending that there are valid reasons for…

boingboing.net

 

[Metaphor]

All his statement has leverage to deliver, regardless of any trickery on McConnell's part with their delivery, is that African Americans are not alone in having their vote suppressed.

Lower turnout by a particular group does not mean that they are being 'suppressed'. You are begging the question.

 

[Metaphor]

There is an undue burden created on the poor by voting reform laws.

What, including voter reform laws proposed by Democrats?

I did not realise the United States had perfected everything about voting and therefore any change by definition would make things worse.

 

[Metaphor]

The stated reason for the Republican changes is "voter fraud". If the real reason is something else the changes should be categorically rejected without consideration.

If the real reason is something else but is still a good reason, there is no reason to categorically reject anything.

 

[Metaphor]

Asking for evidence is not assuming conclusions. It is asking for relevance. For some reason, you feel the need to confuse your lack of knowledge with actual evidence.

No, framing your question in a way that assumes the conclusion is assuming conclusions.

 

[Metaphor]

Claims of fact require evidence. Why you find that unreasonable or confusing is fascinating.

I did not claim any particular law was made for any particular reason.

I did claim that it was possible to have good reasons to reform voting laws, and when I was asked for an example of those reasons, I provided some.

 

[laughing dog]

Asking for evidence is not assuming conclusions. It is asking for relevance. For some reason, you feel the need to confuse your lack of knowledge with actual evidence.

No, framing your question in a way that assumes the conclusion is assuming conclusions.

Continuing evasion via straw man duly noted.