McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

[laughing dog]

Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!

Okay luv.

So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.

I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

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

When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.

When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?

I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.

You brought the subject up, not me. Apparently you have no idea whether it is pertinent. Which makes the subject irrelevant.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!

Okay luv.

So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.

I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

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

When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.

When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?

I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.

No, if you wish to claim something on moral principle, some moral rule, spill the principles or quit standing on your own unprincipled (assuming that you do not principle them for us) morals as a basis for making such judgements.

Spill your principles. What is the geometry of it, or admit you have no such.

"Spill your principles". Lol. "What is the geometry".

How much gravity is too much?

How much sugar is too much?

What is the ideal amount of sunlight curtains should let in?

It depends on the context. I'm sorry that my position is nuanced. You'll have to deal with it.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!

Okay luv.

So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.

I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

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

When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.

When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?

I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.

You brought the subject up, not me. Apparently you have no idea whether it is pertinent. Which makes the subject irrelevant.

I didn't bring up anything with you.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!

Okay luv.

So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.

I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

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

When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.

When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?

I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.

You brought the subject up, not me. Apparently you have no idea whether it is pertinent. Which makes the subject irrelevant.

I didn't bring up anything with you.

This is a public forum. Perhaps if you avoided wading into topics of which you are clearly ignorant, this wouldn’t happen.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!

Okay luv.

So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.

I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

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

When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.

When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?

I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.

You brought the subject up, not me. Apparently you have no idea whether it is pertinent. Which makes the subject irrelevant.

I didn't bring up anything with you.

This is a public forum. Perhaps if you avoided wading into topics of which you are clearly ignorant, this wouldn’t happen.

Having a different perspective from somebody is not the same thing as being ignorant. I also have no particular interest in silencing myself for your benefit.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!

Okay luv.

So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.

I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

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

When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.

When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?

I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.

No, if you wish to claim something on moral principle, some moral rule, spill the principles or quit standing on your own unprincipled (assuming that you do not principle them for us) morals as a basis for making such judgements.

Spill your principles. What is the geometry of it, or admit you have no such.

"Spill your principles". Lol. "What is the geometry".

How much gravity is too much?

How much sugar is too much?

What is the ideal amount of sunlight curtains should let in?

It depends on the context. I'm sorry that my position is nuanced. You'll have to deal with it.

None of these questions are shaped like "what are the principles by which metaphor judges 'When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election'?"

Or even

"When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?"

These are things that you claim may happen, figure out when they happen then, and whether they are happening!

Show us the evidence.

Show us your principles if you indeed have any.

 

[Jarhyn]

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).

 

[Metaphor]

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.

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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

You said "reducing voter fraud".

What is the voter fraud being reduced? How much is it being reduced? How will the laws passed in various jurisdiction reduce it?

Otherwise, give me another reason to create procedural hurdles?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

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

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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

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 guess where I wanted to go with this is that there is NO way 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' (wow, the air quotes are METAPHOR's, talk about Freudian!) Is satisfied by passing such laws, as there is no significant way to reduce something that is not happening at significant quantities.

So that leaves... Is there really any other justification at all?

Really?

If so, metaphor might be able to produce one?

 

[laughing dog]

Having a different perspective from somebody is not the same thing as being ignorant. I also have no particular interest in silencing myself for your benefit.

No one said it was. No one is trying to silence you, just keep you on topic and from embarrassing yourself.

 

[Swammerdami]

I have no idea what State you are talking about or what the situation was before or how many people vote there. So no, I don't know what the demographics are.

In some states, voters had to queue for several hours to vote in some precincts, while there were no delays in affluent neighborhoods. Why?

Why indeed? Since I cannot verify anything you are saying, what do you want my response to be? Some states have large rural populations, versus urban, versus city. I suspect all of those populations have different access.

@Metaphor — Why do YOU think the GOP, when in control, adopts measures that appear to be suppression? Do you have enough intellectual curiosity to investigate why queuing times are so different within one state? Or do you just swallow the QOP lie that such things are happenstance?

No. You have moved the stasis of the argument too far. When did I say they appeared to be suppression but where not suppression? They appear to be suppression to some Democrats who think the GOP is morally bankrupt, sure, I'll give you that. Funnily enough, however, it is the Democrats who appear to think the appearance to them is the disinterested one.

Every alleged "voter suppression" bill I have seen appears to me to be perfectly reasonable, including ones that 'restrict' voting conditions but still make voting conditions more 'generous' than some Democrat-run states that nobody complains about. From my perspective, I actually cannot believe how lax some voting conditions are in some American states.

For someone offering opinions on voter suppression by the GOP in the U.S., you seem remarkably ignorant on the topic. You speak of 'Every alleged "voter suppression" bill I have seen': How many such bills have you seen and where did you see them? Be specific. Do you Google "Arguments to use against my libtard friends about voter suppression bills"?

I just invested five seconds with the most trivial Googling and found

Why Do Nonwhite Georgia Voters Have To Wait In Line For Hours? Too Few Polling Places

The state's voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but polling locations have been cut by almost 10%.

www.npr.org

and

Plans to close all but one polling place in a rural Georgia county reverberate through a battleground state

Voting rights activists are closely monitoring takeovers of local election boards in a state that helped decide the presidency and control of the Senate in 2020.

edition.cnn.com

and

The downstream consequences of long waits: How lines at the precinct depress future turnout

Researchers have increasingly paid attention to the impact that the administrative component of elections has on voter behavior. Existing research has focused almost exclusively on the effect that legal changes--such as voter identification laws--have ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

From the latter article

Roughly 3.5 million voters waited longer than 1 hour to cast their ballot in 2012. If a long line is equally likely to occur at every precinct1 we might characterize the problem as a random nuisance, but not one that has broader implications. Research shows, however, that racial demographics are one of the strongest predictors of how long somebody waits in line (Famighetti et al., 2014; Herron and Smith, 2015a; Stein et al., 2019), with non-white voters being seven times more likely to wait longer than an hour than white voters (Chen et al., 2019). Even more troubling, these racial differences are largely attributable to local election officials providing more poll workers and voting machines to more heavily white precincts, at the expense of precincts serving minority voters (Herron and Smith, 2016; Pettigrew, 2017).

These are not the "best" articles; these are just the top hits from five seconds of Googling. There are many HUNDREDS of more articles like these. One of the more humorous: Isn't it Texas where a gun permit is considered valid ID but a student ID card from a public university is not? (Both have photos.) Guess which party gun owners are most likely to vote for? Students?

I think the probability is less than 10% that you will do more than briefly skim these articles with a smirk on your face. I'll be delighted if you prove me wrong!

 

[Metaphor]

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.

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

You said "reducing voter fraud".

What is the voter fraud being reduced? How much is it being reduced? How will the laws passed in various jurisdiction reduce it?

Otherwise, give me another reason to create procedural hurdles?

I reject that voting reform laws create only 'procedural hurdles'. Your imagination is profoundly impoverished.

There would be many reasons to reform voter laws. Those include reducing cost, reducing fraud, equalising voting access between different demographics and geographies, aligning with other states.

 

[Metaphor]

How many such bills have you seen and where did you see them? Be specific.

I usually look at the ones that come up in these political discussion forums. I can't give you a specific number.

Do you Google "Arguments to use against my libtard friends about voter suppression bills"?

No. I don't have 'libtard' friends. I have friends.

I think the probability is less than 10% that you will do more than briefly skim these articles with a smirk on your face. I'll be delighted if you prove me 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.

 

[Metaphor]

No one said it was. No one is trying to silence you, just keep you on topic and from embarrassing yourself.

I see, I was off topic.

 

[Metaphor]

o that leaves... Is there really any other justification at all?

Really?

If so, metaphor might be able to produce one?

Your impoverished imagination is not my problem. I provided some reasons in post #135.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

wow, the air quotes are METAPHOR's, talk about Freudian!

They're not "air quotes", they're inverted commas. I didn't use my fingers to make "air quotes".

Also, Freud saw his mother undressing in a train when he was six and he got a little boy boner and decided the rest of the world was just like him. Psychologists have moved on from Freud. I know I have.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

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?