McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

[laughing dog]

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.

You brought up the subject even though you have not one shred of evidence to support that it is relevant.

You were asked if there was evidence for your reasons. You don't have any evidence. Nothing wrong with it, but it does mean you are unfamiliar with the actual topic of conversation.

Basically, you are admitting you are simply guessing.

 

[laughing dog]

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

What, including voter reform laws proposed by Democrats?

An irrelevant "whataboutism".

 

[Toni]

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.

The absolute fact is that parts of the US have a long and ugly history of suppressing the vote of black people, through laws which did not mention race or skin color but nonetheless targeted black people up to and including intimidation of black voters through the use of violence and even murder of people who even dared to register—and sometimes white people who helped black people vote. These things happened during my lifetime, some within my memory.

Laws now are much more subtle.

Would you care to speculate why some states decided to pass or attempt to pass new, restrictive laws after the 2020 elections?

Remember: no significant voter fraud was found.

 

[Jarhyn]

Remember: no significant voter fraud was found

I think this is the most important part to recognize:

There is no significant voter fraud, and these laws do just about as much to prevent the double (or single) digit numbers of instances of voter fraud as laws against alien abductions to prevent alien abductions.

 

[laughing dog]

Remember: no significant voter fraud was found

I think this is the most important part to recognize:

There is no significant voter fraud, and these laws do just about as much to prevent the double (or single) digit numbers of instances of voter fraud as laws against alien abductions to prevent alien abductions.

Yeah but GOP candidates lost, so there must have been fraud!!!!!!!

 

[Rhea]

These laws create conditions where hundreds of thousands of people are not able to access their civil rights t vote…

Because…


Why.

WHAT CAUSE is worthh disenfranchising - taking away the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of American citizens?

WHAT CAUSE is worth the destruction of civil rights?

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

Is it okay to take away a citizen’s rights because it costs too much?
Is it okay to take away a citizen’s rights because of fear of fraud - that never (statistically) happens?
Is it okay to take away a citizen’s rights because rights aren’t equalized?
Is it okay to take away a citizen’s rights because it doesn’t align with other states?

Do ANY of the “reasons” justify barring a citizen from exercising their rights?

No. Not one of those is justified in preventing a citizen from voting.
Not a single one.

The argument is vacant and barren. It is a gish gallop of repetition designed to exhaust an opponent with unrelenting nonsense.

They have schools on how to harm society like this. They teach people to go out and repeat nonsense, to “just ask questions,” to repeat and repeat and change topics and then bring back the topic as if it hasn’t already been answered, to gaslight, to rules lawyer, to disrupt at all costs.

It is not an argument, it’s not even an ideology. It’s a tactic to destroy.
It is repulsive.

 

[Swammerdami]

I denied that McConnell uttered a falsehood. I also said that to make the claim that voter reform bills are always just Republicans deliberately suppressing the vote of people who would likely vote Democrat is a claim that needs to be evidenced, and it's quite a strong claim.

If HR1 is this, I think it is large enough to warrant its own thread on its merits and its problems.

Odd that you mention "voter reform bills are always ..." and H.R.1 together. Do you think anyone has claimed that H.R.1 is "Republicans deliberately suppressing the vote of people who would likely vote Democrat"?

But even if you rephrase to make your post somewhat less nonsensical, it would imply that you think that the rational observers in the thread think that 100% of Republican-led "voter reform" is intended to suppress D votes. Has anyone made that claim? If you can establish that only 99% of Republican-led "voter reform" is intended to suppress D votes, then will you claim victory?

... You need to help yourself in understanding that it is not the duty of the people you are trying to persuade to make your arguments for you.

I wonder if you're self-aware enough to know how funny this sentence is. Have you EVER been persuaded of anything (excepting persuasions by your own ilk) in the political threads here? Do you really think those engaging you here in "debate" have the slightest hope of changing your mind? Speaking only for myself, I engage because exploring "conservative" cognition is instructive.

You have repeatedly accused me of not spoon-feeding you information about GOP's voter suppression. When I do spoon-feed you some links you refuse to click.

Here are some questions for you. If you want us to believe there's any sincerity in your stance you will answer them.

(1) Do you think that what you call "voter reform bills" are the ONLY way Republicans suppress D voters? Were the many-hour delays to vote in Georgia and other states the result of "voter reform bills"?

(2) Many election-related bills and measures are strongly supported by the Rs and strongly opposed by the Ds. Why do you think that is? (I thought of making this a multiple-choice question, but thought you'd enjoy the challenge of working on it yourself.)

 

[Metaphor]

Odd that you mention "voter reform bills are always ..." and H.R.1 together. Do you think anyone has claimed that H.R.1 is "Republicans deliberately suppressing the vote of people who would likely vote Democrat"?

But even if you rephrase to make your post somewhat less nonsensical, it would imply that you think that the rational observers in the thread think that 100% of Republican-led "voter reform" is intended to suppress D votes. Has anyone made that claim? If you can establish that only 99% of Republican-led "voter reform" is intended to suppress D votes, then will you claim victory?

Tell me, have there been any threads started by Dem supporters that are in favour of Republican-led reforms?

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder if you're self-aware enough to know how funny this sentence is. Have you EVER been persuaded of anything (excepting persuasions by your own ilk) in the political threads here?

I surely have been wrong about things and arguments have made me see that I was wrong about them.

Do you really think those engaging you here in "debate" have the slightest hope of changing your mind? Speaking only for myself, I engage because exploring "conservative" cognition is instructive.

What makes you think I'm conservative or "conservative"?

You have repeatedly accused me of not spoon-feeding you information about GOP's voter suppression. When I do spoon-feed you some links you refuse to click.

I accused you of vagueposting about 'something you read', and then you had the hide to accuse me of being incapable of Googling. That isn't how it works, no matter how much you wish it did.

Here are some questions for you. If you want us to believe there's any sincerity in your stance you will answer them.

(1) Do you think that what you call "voter reform bills" are the ONLY way Republicans suppress D voters? Were the many-hour delays to vote in Georgia and other states the result of "voter reform bills"?

Your question is loaded. It assumes I think voter reform bills led by Republicans suppress Democrat voters. Why should I answer loaded questions with conclusions built in to the premises?

(2) Many election-related bills and measures are strongly supported by the Rs and strongly opposed by the Ds. Why do you think that is? (I thought of making this a multiple-choice question, but thought you'd enjoy the challenge of working on it yourself.)

HR1 is strongly supported by Ds and opposed by Rs. Why do you think that is?

 

[Swammerdami]

I wonder if you're self-aware enough to know how funny this sentence is. Have you EVER been persuaded of anything (excepting persuasions by your own ilk) in the political threads here?

I surely have been wrong about things and arguments have made me see that I was wrong about them.

Name one. Not some insight you gained about quantum physics or the historicity of Jesus. American politics.

Do you really think those engaging you here in "debate" have the slightest hope of changing your mind? Speaking only for myself, I engage because exploring "conservative" cognition is instructive.

What makes you think I'm conservative or "conservative"?

"Conservative" was a euphemism for someone who swallows Republican lies.

You have repeatedly accused me of not spoon-feeding you information about GOP's voter suppression. When I do spoon-feed you some links you refuse to click.

I accused you of vagueposting about 'something you read', and then you had the hide to accuse me of being incapable of Googling. That isn't how it works, no matter how much you wish it did.

I was being sarcastic. Most people who post on this Board are capable of Googling. But it does appear to be TRUE that, capable or not, you do REFUSE to Google and learn true facts about Republican voter suppression. Indeed you don't even click when articles are spoon-fed to you.

(2) Many election-related bills and measures are strongly supported by the Rs and strongly opposed by the Ds. Why do you think that is? (I thought of making this a multiple-choice question, but thought you'd enjoy the challenge of working on it yourself.)

HR1 is strongly supported by Ds and opposed by Rs. Why do you think that is?

How can you imagine this is some sort of 'Gotcha'? Republicans act to suppress voting by groups that mostly vote for Ds. Democrats want to oppose such suppression and encourage participation by all (knowing that will help Ds). This provides the answer to BOTH my question #2 and to your question. Did you really not understand that?

I see that you neglected to answer question #2 (and #1, but let's proceed with baby steps). Why won't you attempt an answer to this?

I think we deserve an answer from you to this question. (I just answered yours. I've enlargened and reddened the question you were unable to answer in hopes you will try again.) Even if you somehow think Republican motives are pure, why are Democrats so staunchly opposed to Republican malice? Are you aware that fraud prosecutions amount to about 0.0000005% of votes cast. (Google for examples of voter fraud and you'll find mostly Republicans!) The reward for a single fraudulent vote is almost zero. (How many elections are decided by one vote?) The penalty for a fraudulent vote is huge. Criminals are out shoplifting, not attempting to vote with an expired driver's license.

Just to demonstrate that you have the slightest clue, would you mind posting a brief essay on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent developments? If you wish, just give your insights on the 2013 decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al. Do you think the 4 "liberal" Justices who dissented were in favor of voter fraud? How did the states affected by Shelby v Holder respond?


ETA: I just Googled the very query I posed to you: "How did the states affected by Shelby v Holder respond?" Lots of the top hits were very informative. I expect your response will be disgusting and/or amusing, and show that you are unwilling to learn. But I will be delighted and proud of you if you prove that this expectation is wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

Name one. Not some insight you gained about quantum physics or the historicity of Jesus. American politics.

One thing I have been educated on is how some Democrats believe, and freely disclose, that 45% of Americans are morally bankrupt.

I was being sarcastic. Most people who post on this Board are capable of Googling. But it does appear to be TRUE that, capable or not, you do REFUSE to Google and learn true facts about Republican voter suppression. Indeed you don't even click when articles are spoon-fed to you.

I apologise. I have made statements that I considered to be screamingly, obviously, over-the-fucking top sarcastic, only to be told I'm lying and I'm "backpedalling" when I deny the literalness when people took them literally.

I made a post a while ago which I consider to be the most screamingly and obviously sarcastic I have ever made--where I said I tortured small animals as a child. Some people on this board believed this literally. I have since revised my understanding of this board's understanding of sarcasm. It is extremely poor.

I think we deserve an answer from you to this question. (I just answered yours. I've enlargened and reddened the question you were unable to answer in hopes you will try again.)

I think Republicans propose and support voter reform bills for the same reason Democrats do--because they think it would be better public policy.

Just to demonstrate that you have the slightest clue, would you mind posting a brief essay on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent developments?

No. I reject your test.

 

[Jarhyn]

hey think it would be better public policy

By what exact measure?

 

[laughing dog]

I think Republicans propose and support voter reform bills for the same reason Democrats do--because they think it would be better public policy.

Earlier in this thread, I posted a link with quotes from Republican legislators that show you "think" wrong (at least on the part of some of the GOP). For some members of both parties, voter "reform" is driven in part (if not in all) about increasing or cementing power via the ballot box. I suppose one could categorize that as "better public policy", but that would be misleading.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I will even go so far as to stipulate that if the dem party would be advantaged by suppressing votes, they might be trying to pass similar laws around the country (although historically this stipulation is invalid).

Given that, I predict a couple things:
- The GQP would be screaming bloody murder and trying to expand voting.
- The GQP base would still swallow all the lies coming from thier puppet masters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No. If the real reason is a good reason they'll talk about it. When the real reason is silent it's most likely a bad reason.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

No. If the real reason is a good reason they'll talk about it. When the real reason is silent it's most likely a bad reason.

Exactly. SAY IT! SPEAK WITH HONEST INTENT!

If the results of doing so end badly for you, then you need to look long and hard at your intentions, and not merely try to force them on us anyway.