8 of 17
8
New voter ID laws politically motivated?
Posted: 02 September 2012 05:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Bryan - 01 September 2012 11:35 PM
George - 01 September 2012 10:35 PM

Of course she is a moral realist, Bryan. Just like you are. The difference between you and Asanta, though, is that she is a moral realist because she is a nice person and you are a moral realist because you are a theist, which, in the 21st century, translates to being mentally ill. Your BS (though not your fault, probably) doesn’t impress anybody here.

The key question is how Asanta knows what’s right.  That’s a good question regardless of any mental illness you suppose on my part.  So let her answer it without any more B.S. on your part.

No, the key question is why you keep asking atheists why they are moral realists in a Politics forum. But I have seen the same tactic used by that obnouscious Dinesh D’Souza before and I understand this is supposed to be your hidden weapon. So be it. Jesus is watching you and you just scored a point. Congratulations.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 01:42 AM
TimB - 02 September 2012 12:05 AM
Bryan - 01 September 2012 11:40 PM

I’m not.  Maybe you are.  Let’s suppose that a proposed law disenfranchises 20 percent of voters yet the other 80 percent favor the law.  Why is any conspiracy at all required?

Duh Because a democratic system becomes meaningless, if the majority can take away the vote from the minority.

By the same token, a Democratic system is meaningless if a majority can’t take away the vote from the minority.  Democracy by definition recognizes some type of primacy for majority rule.  So address the question:  Given a majority favors a law in a democracy, why is a conspiracy needed in order to effect the law?

In your example, the majority of the 80% of voters who are left, could then get rid of another segment of voters.  The majority of voters could continue to pass laws disenfranchising whoever was left in the minority each time, until, ultimately there would only be 2 uber rich Repugs left who could vote.

That’s not much of a conspiracy, though it’s certainly a drawback of pure democracy.  Still, if you’ve got a constitutional republic there’s usually a way to amend a constitution.  Probably 80 percent could do that, right?  No conspiracy needed.  Just a vote.  So address the issue, please.


You choose to focus on the term “conspiracy” as this is a term generally viewed pejoratively on a skeptics website.  This, no doubt is because the issue that the voter suppression laws actually being politically motivated, is not something that you can defend.  If you can successfully deflect attention to a side argument over the definition of “conspiracy”, then you can deflect from the obvious truth that the Republicans are engaging in an organized effort to disenfranchise voters who are likely to vote against them.

But I will play your game for one last post on your side issue.  We do have a constitutional democracy, which protects certain rights of minorities (including voters’ rights).  An effective majority can pass any laws, but certain laws that are passed will not stand as they will be determined to be unconstitutional.  Laws about voters rights can fall into the latter category.  However, if the judicial system is compromised and interprets the constitutionality of laws, in a partisan manner, then the constitutional protections can break down.  Fortunately, that level of “conspiring” did not occur in the recent voter suppression laws passed in Texas, as the court (comprised of 2 out of 3 Republican judges) determined the law to be unconstitutional. 

But back to the real issue, the voter suppression laws, that are in the process of being enacted or judicially reviewed, among certain states, are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.  They are designed to help the Republican candidates win in the coming November election.  The most strategically crucial place for this to happen for Republicans is in the swing states. For example:  Pennsylvania.

In listing a number of Republican lead legislative accomplishments, in Pennsylvania, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai included this:. “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done…”.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04

Voter ID laws are not the only tactic Republicans are using to potentially disenfranchise voters who are likely to vote against them.

In Florida and New Mexico (other swing states with Republican governors) voter rosters are being purged immediately ahead of the coming election. Thus, insuring that there will not be time to correct any errors, in which individuals who are indeed eligible registered voters, are erroneously kicked off the rolls.

Another tactic has been to attempt, in some states, to decrease the times and days for early voting, so as to restrict the opportunity for persons who are less likely to vote Republican.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 02 September 2012 03:05 AM

By restricting, not the power of the vote (the voters), but the power of money (unlimited anonymous amounts) in the political process.

Doubtless you’re completely safe from having to provide evidence that public opinion in favor of voter ID laws is substantially affected by unlimited anonymous spending in the political process.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
George - 02 September 2012 05:41 AM
Bryan - 01 September 2012 11:35 PM
George - 01 September 2012 10:35 PM

Of course she is a moral realist, Bryan. Just like you are. The difference between you and Asanta, though, is that she is a moral realist because she is a nice person and you are a moral realist because you are a theist, which, in the 21st century, translates to being mentally ill. Your BS (though not your fault, probably) doesn’t impress anybody here.

The key question is how Asanta knows what’s right.  That’s a good question regardless of any mental illness you suppose on my part.  So let her answer it without any more B.S. on your part.

No, the key question is why you keep asking atheists why they are moral realists in a Politics forum. But I have seen the same tactic used by that obnouscious Dinesh D’Souza before and I understand this is supposed to be your hidden weapon. So be it. Jesus is watching you and you just scored a point. Congratulations.

Jesus will doubtless view me with disdain for not simply assuming that atheists either are or are not moral realists.
;-/

Seriously, I don’t think it makes sense to assume that atheists/skeptics/agnostics are moral realists.  Many believe in moral relativism.  Moral relativism provides a poor foundation for criticism of a majority view (such as “It is moral to check voter ID prior to allowing the casting of a vote”).  And if the person is a moral realist then the sensible follow-up question is:  How does one acquire the knowledge that the minority view is the morally correct view?

Did you notice it was Asanta who invoked the moral argument in favor of her political view (“The laws should be about doing what is right, and not necessarily what is popular at the time”)?  Am I just supposed to ignore it since the question of morality might be uncomfortable for an atheist?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 02 September 2012 09:02 AM

You choose to focus on the term “conspiracy” as this is a term generally viewed pejoratively on a skeptics website.  This, no doubt is because the issue that the voter suppression laws actually being politically motivated, is not something that you can defend.

I’m not sure I need to defend from that charge unless you define “politically motivated” more precisely as an attempt to disenfranchise legitimate voters.  And if you do that then I’ve already defended it and *poof* there goes your objection (though you always have the option of dealing directly with the defense I’ve given).

If you can successfully deflect attention to a side argument over the definition of “conspiracy”, then you can deflect from the obvious truth that the Republicans are engaging in an organized effort to disenfranchise voters who are likely to vote against them.

lol
I’m entitled to deal with the arguments I see from the other side.  Your side invoked the “c” word, and I am always amenable to letting my debate opponent define words as they see fit.  Give “conspiracy” whatever definition you like.  I won’t fight you over it.  I’ll use the definition you offer to attack your argument directly without any distractions.  So define it—unless you prefer the distraction of pretending that I’m trying to create a distraction.

But I will play your game for one last post on your side issue.  We do have a constitutional democracy, which protects certain rights of minorities (including voters’ rights).  An effective majority can pass any laws, but certain laws that are passed will not stand as they will be determined to be unconstitutional.  Laws about voters rights can fall into the latter category.  However, if the judicial system is compromised and interprets the constitutionality of laws, in a partisan manner, then the constitutional protections can break down.  Fortunately, that level of “conspiring” did not occur in the recent voter suppression laws passed in Texas, as the court (comprised of 2 out of 3 Republican judges) determined the law to be unconstitutional.

Great, but you’re kind of skipping over two points I’ve already made:  1)  A sufficient majority can alter a constitution as it sees fit.  2)  The Texas law isn’t the only voter ID law.  There are others that have passed constitutional muster.

(edit to add)
Hold on a sec.  What’s the evidence that the court’s three-judge panel was “comprised of 2 out of 3 Republican judges”?

“The judges in the Texas case are Rosemary Collyer, an appointee of President George W. Bush; Robert Wilkins, an appointee of President Barack Obama; and David Tatel, an appeals court judge appointed by President Bill Clinton.”
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160318424/texas-voter-id-law-sets-strict-burdens-court-says

You can argue that any such laws passing constitutional muster did so because of a corrupt court system, but that tack can easily end up looking like confirmation bias in action unless you accompany it with a reasoned argument.

But back to the real issue, the voter suppression laws, that are in the process of being enacted or judicially reviewed, among certain states, are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.  They are designed to help the Republican candidates win in the coming November election.  The most strategically crucial place for this to happen for Republicans is in the swing states. For example:  Pennsylvania.

It’s quite astonishing that you completely skip over the vulnerability of the voting system to fraudulent voting as if it is a non-issue.

In listing a number of Republican lead legislative accomplishments, in Pennsylvania, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai included this:. “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done…”.

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the audience. It also struck a nerve among critics, who called it an admission that they passed the bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote — and not to prevent voter fraud as the legislators claimed.
http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/

Is that supposed to pass for logic?

[ Edited: 02 September 2012 11:47 AM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

Notice how the Slate reporter expertly avoids any implication in the data that illegal voting occurred.  Sixty percent is a huge number.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/victory_lab/2012/08/30/three_fifths_of_milwaukee_s_black_voters_have_vanished_without_a_trace_.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 11:26 AM

...It’s quite astonishing that you completely skip over the vulnerability of the voting system to fraudulent voting as if it is a non-issue.

In listing a number of Republican lead legislative accomplishments, in Pennsylvania, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai included this:. “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done…”.

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the audience. It also struck a nerve among critics, who called it an admission that they passed the bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote — and not to prevent voter fraud as the legislators claimed.
http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/

Is that supposed to pass for logic?

Wow, your “evidence” that voter fraud is such a threat to our democratic process that this is what motivates the push for ID laws, is that somebody named Joseph Cheeseborough, who is registered to vote, cannot be found.

Your logic seems to be that the Republican legislators believe that their Voter ID law will win the election for Romney, now that Joseph Cheeseborough, who may or may not be legally registered, and who might even be a Republican, for all we know, will have to show an ID, is going to change the nature of the election so that Romney can now win.

Do you have some sort of impenetrable bubble around your head that doesn’t allow info in that is contrary to your belief system, or do you have some sort of processing malfunction once the info arrives?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 11:56 AM

Notice how the Slate reporter expertly avoids any implication in the data that illegal voting occurred.  Sixty percent is a huge number.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/victory_lab/2012/08/30/three_fifths_of_milwaukee_s_black_voters_have_vanished_without_a_trace_.html

This is not evidence of voter fraud.  It is evidence that young black voters, have (SURPRISE…not) difficulty maintaining a residence in this economy.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 02 September 2012 12:04 PM
Bryan - 02 September 2012 11:26 AM

...It’s quite astonishing that you completely skip over the vulnerability of the voting system to fraudulent voting as if it is a non-issue.

In listing a number of Republican lead legislative accomplishments, in Pennsylvania, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai included this:. “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done…”.

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the audience. It also struck a nerve among critics, who called it an admission that they passed the bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote — and not to prevent voter fraud as the legislators claimed.
http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/

Is that supposed to pass for logic?

Wow, your “evidence” that voter fraud is such a threat to our democratic process that this is what motivates the push for ID laws, is that somebody named Joseph Cheeseborough, who is registered to vote, cannot be found.

Is it?  Quote me.

Your logic seems to be that the Republican legislators believe that their Voter ID law will win the election for Romney, now that Joseph Cheeseborough, who may or may not be legally registered, and who might even be a Republican, for all we know, will have to show an ID, is going to change the nature of the election so that Romney can now win.

Seems like it, does it?  Quote me.  Don’t make stuff up in your imagination.  Quote me.

Do you have some sort of impenetrable bubble around your head that doesn’t allow info in that is contrary to your belief system, or do you have some sort of processing malfunction once the info arrives?

That appears to be what the president likes to call a “false choice.”  If you want to talk about my arguments I encourage you to work from what I write and try to keep your imagination in check.  Logic’s fine, if you’ve got it.  Stories of make-believe are not as welcome.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/victory_lab/2012/08/30/three_fifths_of_milwaukee_s_black_voters_have_vanished_without_a_trace_.html

This is not evidence of voter fraud.  It is evidence that young black voters, have (SURPRISE…not) difficulty maintaining a residence in this economy.

For a moment, pretend that voter fraud could potentially exist.  Do you know how it is ordinarily detected?  It is detected most often by correlating reported voter addresses with the presence of the corresponding people at those addresses.  If there is not any type of evidence at all of voter fraud in the absence of over half a large subsegment of the voting population (tens of thousands of votes), the we have reason to wonder whether proof of voter fraud is possible at all without either somehow catching the person red-handed or through self-confession.

The thing that’s astonishing about the Slate story is that the reporter apparently takes it for granted that all the missing voters are explained by housing problems.  But come on.  We get news stories about Christians fleeing Iraq because of violence.  Where were the stories about blacks fleeing Milwaukee because of housing problems?  We’re talking about tens of thousands of people.

Oh, yeah, housing problems.  Explains everything.  No worries.  “Center for Inquiry.”  Meh.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 01:27 PM
TimB - 02 September 2012 12:04 PM
Bryan - 02 September 2012 11:26 AM

...It’s quite astonishing that you completely skip over the vulnerability of the voting system to fraudulent voting as if it is a non-issue.

In listing a number of Republican lead legislative accomplishments, in Pennsylvania, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai included this:. “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done…”.

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the audience. It also struck a nerve among critics, who called it an admission that they passed the bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote — and not to prevent voter fraud as the legislators claimed.
http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/

Is that supposed to pass for logic?

Wow, your “evidence” that voter fraud is such a threat to our democratic process that this is what motivates the push for ID laws, is that somebody named Joseph Cheeseborough, who is registered to vote, cannot be found.

Is it?  Quote me.

Your logic seems to be that the Republican legislators believe that their Voter ID law will win the election for Romney, now that Joseph Cheeseborough, who may or may not be legally registered, and who might even be a Republican, for all we know, will have to show an ID, is going to change the nature of the election so that Romney can now win.

Seems like it, does it?  Quote me.  Don’t make stuff up in your imagination.  Quote me….

 

Turzai spokesman Stephen Miskin said voter fraud is a real problem.

“Do you remember ‘Joe Cheeseboro?’” he asked, reiterating that election fraud has occurred in PA and across the nation.

The above quote is from the link that you cited.  You cited no other evidence, and neither did the link re: the existence of voter fraud.

Using such spare evidence to support a massive effort to make laws that “just happen to” allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, is not logical or credible.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 01:27 PM

For a moment, pretend that voter fraud could potentially exist.  Do you know how it is ordinarily detected?  It is detected most often by correlating reported voter addresses with the presence of the corresponding people at those addresses.  If there is not any type of evidence at all of voter fraud in the absence of over half a large subsegment of the voting population (tens of thousands of votes), the we have reason to wonder whether proof of voter fraud is possible at all without either somehow catching the person red-handed or through self-confession…

.

So your evidence to justify the massive Republican efforts that are confidently asserted to “allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania” is that “voter fraud could potentially exist” or that, if it does exist, it may not be possible to prove it.

Basically, it seems to me, that your evidence is your faith that voter fraud exists.  And your faith conveniently leads to a solution that will “allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania” by making it less likely that voters who would vote against Romney will be able to do so.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 02 September 2012 02:01 PM

Turzai spokesman Stephen Miskin said voter fraud is a real problem.

“Do you remember ‘Joe Cheeseboro?’” he asked, reiterating that election fraud has occurred in PA and across the nation.

The above quote is from the link that you cited.  You cited no other evidence, and neither did the link re: the existence of voter fraud.

I’ve cited other evidence in this thread.  The link was the source of the quotation I used.  I used the link to provide context for the claim and an apparent parallel to the reasoning you used, not in order to provide evidence of voter fraud.  It was about your reasoning, not mine.

Using such spare evidence to support a massive effort to make laws that “just happen to” allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, is not logical or credible.

I did not use the evidence to support anything.  I used it to give an example of the reasoning at least some liberals used to jump to conclusions regarding the statement from Turzai.  I then asked you for your opinion of the reasoning.  Apparently you didn’t follow the train of thought.  Pity.

But we can try again:  Is that supposed to be logic?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 02 September 2012 02:09 PM
Bryan - 02 September 2012 01:27 PM

For a moment, pretend that voter fraud could potentially exist.  Do you know how it is ordinarily detected?  It is detected most often by correlating reported voter addresses with the presence of the corresponding people at those addresses.  If there is not any type of evidence at all of voter fraud in the absence of over half a large subsegment of the voting population (tens of thousands of votes), the we have reason to wonder whether proof of voter fraud is possible at all without either somehow catching the person red-handed or through self-confession…

.

So your evidence to justify the massive Republican efforts that are confidently asserted to “allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania” is that “voter fraud could potentially exist” or that, if it does exist, it may not be possible to prove it.

No.

I’m getting to the issue of evidences.  Specifically, I’m trying to get from you what would constitute evidence of voter fraud in the absence of catching somebody red-handed (signature’s so far off that a poll worker asks for supplemental identification, for example, after which the person turns out to be voting illegally) or by having the fraudster confess after the fact.

Basically, it seems to me, that your evidence is your faith that voter fraud exists.

There’s no accounting for your impression, it seems to me, unless we count the psychological phenomenon of projection.  I asked you a number of questions associated with the facts I’ve presented.  Why is it you do not answer them?  Perhaps if you follow along you’ll more accurately perceive the arguments I’m making.

And your faith conveniently leads to a solution that will “allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania” by making it less likely that voters who would vote against Romney will be able to do so.

It seems to me that in dealing with you that I have emphasized the possibility of fraud and how we should expect to detect it, not the undeniable existence of fraud and how come you won’t come out and admit it.  If you would at least join me in saying that fraud is possible then at least it will not look like you’re projecting your refusal to consider the possibility of fraud, thus turning it into my supposedly blind faith in the existence of voter fraud.  The Milwaukee example suits the issue nicely.  To me, the failure to be able to account for over 50 percent of recent black voters in Milwaukee using the means election supervisors use to help detect election irregularities speaks to a high potential for voter fraud.  I thus see it as part of the likely explanation for the extraordinarily high number of missing voters.  You, on the other hand, appear willing to put the whole thing down to a tough housing market, issue settled.  You’re not bothered that nobody seemed to noticed tens of thousands of missing Milwaukeeans until the GOTV folks couldn’t find them.  And I’m the one operating out of faith.

[ Edited: 02 September 2012 03:04 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 03:01 PM

...  If you would at least join me in saying that fraud is possible then at least it will not look like you’re projecting your refusal to consider the possibility of fraud, thus turning it into my supposedly blind faith in the existence of voter fraud…

The existence of Bigfoot, and ghosts, and voter fraud is possible.  But what is much more likely is that this is simply a justification for the organized efforts (that we all can directly see have occurred) by Republicans, leading up to the Presidential election, to insure that Republicans will have the best chance to win.

Typically solutions to a problem are put in place after there is clear evidence that the problem exists. 

In this case, the solution, which can effectively disenfranchise segments of voters, has been put in place, first.
Now you, in retrospect, tenaciously attempt to justify this obviously unjust “solution”, by putting forward some highly questionable evidence that there was a significant problem to begin with.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 17
8