“Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Mr. Paul said in an interview. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.” (read more)
Saturday, May 10, 2014
NYT: Rand Paul Diverges From His Party Over Voter ID
"Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky broke Friday with fellow Republicans who have pushed for stricter voting laws as a way to crack down on fraud at the polls, saying that the focus on such measures alienates and insults African-Americans and hurts the party."
“Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Mr. Paul said in an interview. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.” (read more)
“Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Mr. Paul said in an interview. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.” (read more)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
134 comments:
I think it was Bismarck who said that politics is the art of the possible.
We need ID for so many things - why not voting? We do need to figure out a way, without offending anyone, to make our voting system honest, fair and so the corruptocat party cannot cheat.
Cheaters and liars cheat. It's what they do. It's a Harry Reid thing.
Blacks aren't going to vote Republican anyway.
Blacks vote for free stuff and quotas.
If Republicans decide to favor free stuff and quotas for blacks, that pretty much screws their white base... even more than they're getting screwed now.
Shouting Thomas said...
Blacks aren't going to vote Republican anyway.
Blacks vote for free stuff and quotas.
Remind me again why ST gets a free pass to call anyone he feels like a racist but Crack was considered beyond the pale?
I hate cheaters, period. If you don't like me for wanting the vote to be fair and honest, then that's on you, not me.
I'm not going to join the cheaters just to get your approval. This isn't junior high school.
Politicians invariably disappoint. That's why it's best to think of them as being hired for a job, not as leaders. Leaders stand at the front and take risks.
Where did I call somebody a racist, and why would I need a pass if I decided to do so?
Yes ST, please be more inclusive. You should have said Democrats vote for free stuff and quotas. Nearly all Blacks are Dems now, so you'd have it covered.
The problem with Crack's racism is that it's just wrong on the facts.
Is it racist to say Blacks are less capable of getting I.d. like other people?
"Politics ain't beanbag."
-- Finley Peter Dunne
Steve Sailer has proposed a better strategy for Republicans. This strategy might actually convince me to be a Republican.
Try to win another 10% of the white vote by explicitly promising to represent the interests of middle and lower class whites. Fight bitterly against amnesty. Fight against racial and sexual quotas.
I suppose this is racist and sexist. Who cares? For some reason, it's OK for Democrats to do this in favor of blacks, gays and women.
Racist, sexist white votes still get counted, right?
At least for the moment.
I hate cheaters, period. If you don't like me for wanting the vote to be fair and honest, then that's on you, not me.
Cost/effect. That's what we're arguing about.
Sorry cost/benefit. I don't think anyone is in favor of cheating. The idea is whether voter reg, which disenfranchises people, is worse than the disease.
And again I meant voter Id, not voter reg.
Aight, I'm leavin' you guys to settle this. I'm going back to bed.
People who are not citizens should be disenfranchised.
That's the issue.
Mustn't offend cheats!
Whether disenfranchising non-citizens is more of a negative or positive probably depends on whether you are Republican or Democrat.
Disenfranchising non-citizens probably means winning some elections for Republicans.
ST wrote: I suppose this is racist and sexist. Who cares? For some reason, it's OK for Democrats to do this in favor of blacks, gays and women.
They do it because it works. I've noted how this gets down to very fundamental things like "polarize, attack, depolarize or how good opinion makers and mind changers are like enzymes here (and more heuristically, tweaking Socrates).
The French are oppressing me. Racists. I don't get to vote in their elections.
phx noted before nodding: Cost/effect. That's what we're arguing about.
Yes. The voters repelled by voter id laws may well tip an election to the party against voter id laws, as long as their numbers are greater than the numbers of cheaters foiled. It seems suicidal, no?
And at the same time, the party against voter id lards their agenda with unpopular and stupid ideas which the swing voter effectively votes for when voting against.
Later, the swing voters recoil and say "I wasn't voting for that when I voted against this!
This is why I quite unsuccessfully argued against negative voting. But some people, being little more than base elements, fall into the trap every time.
I think that gay marriage is the now perfect textbook example of how to win an election via polarization. How many swing voters voted against Romney in 2012 simply because he failed to enthusiastically embrace that issue? One can almost hear the voices in Madison saying "I'd have voted for Romney in 2012 but for that single issue" (well, it was either that or it was people like Crack ranting about his Mormonism). And they never own the other negative that comes with casting their negative vote.
The party embracing the contentious issue did the math and decided that it was more important to get women's votes and gay money. Other important issues were pushed to the side.
If election trump everything - ie Obama, 'I'll have more flexibility after the elections' - then making sure the elections are conducted as free of fraud as possible also trumps racial worries.
The idea that we can't make sure elections are free of fraud because we are worried about appearing racist...
If a minority person of color (other than white) goes to the doctor and there are already several persons of color white waiting would it be considered racist if they don't give up their turn for the person of color (other than white)?
Appearances can be easily be distorted because that's all they are - appearances.
It's a base thing to putdown the confused and often meshuggah electorate...unless it's done heuristically!
ricpic said...
It's a base thing to putdown the confused and often meshuggah electorate...unless it's done heuristically!
Caustic comment! (Never let a good teaching moment go to waste).
Rand Paul's just one more example of the plague of relativism that has infected even the brightest of those who entered adulthood after the 60's.
The idea that we can't make sure elections are free of fraud because we are worried about appearing racist...
Lem, one way to help make sure that elections are free of cheaters might be to volunteer at a poll. I'm considering this. You always learn more when you get in the trench.
I learned a hell of a lot about public school teachers by volunteering to help tutor a high school.
Every state the Romster won had voter ID.
The Demos can't win without vote fraud (and character assassination and intimidation and blackmail) and they know it.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
lacks aren't going to vote Republican anyway.
Blacks vote for free stuff and quotas.
Remind me again why ST gets a free pass to call anyone he feels like a racist but Crack was considered beyond the pale?
Because sometimes the truth hurts?
"I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"
Shouting Thomas said...
Steve Sailer has proposed a better strategy for Republicans. This strategy might actually convince me to be a Republican.
Try to win another 10% of the white vote by explicitly promising to represent the interests of middle and lower class whites. Fight bitterly against amnesty. Fight against racial and sexual quotas.
As far as the vote tallies from '12 can be called accurate, Shout's right.
The Rs couldn't have won with more Hispanic votes, but they could have won with more white votes.
As I said, sometimes the truth hurts.
You know what's disenfranchising, and racist?
Menacing guys with clubs standing in front of the polls intimidating people.
Convicted, and yet the Dems in power didn't see a "cost/benefit for them, so that lie is clear as day.
Dems would be clamoring for voter I.D., and they would get it, if it was Republicans benefiting from the cheating.
Saying it's too hard for any group to Get I.D. is simply calling that group idiots, and if you don't consider them too stupid to walk and chew gum, then you are clearly lying. Which is it? Are your constituents that stupid, or are you that dishonest?
Whites are on their way to becoming a minority. It's only a matter of time. Once that happens i predict blacks will suddently start developing a taste for voter id.
You may see it sooner than that.
Blacks are becoming the Vanishing Americans.
bagoh20 said...
You know what's disenfranchising, and racist?
Menacing guys with clubs standing in front of the polls intimidating people.
Convicted, and yet the Dems in power didn't see a "cost/benefit for them, so that lie is clear as day.
But they're Eric Holder's "people".
I'm sorry for Rand Paul and all Republican moderates.
I don't think anyone is in favor of cheating. The idea is whether voter reg, which disenfranchises people, is worse than the disease.z
Of course the Democrats/Liberals are in favor of cheating. As long as THEY win, by any means, they don't care if there is voter fraud.
The idea that you need to have your identity verified to vote in no WAY disenfranchises people.
Unless you are making the assumption that "some" people are incapable of doing the most common activity that is required by modern civilization. Are you? Are blacks and other ethnic groups too stupid to get identification? How do they get around in the world if they are too stupid to get ID.
Is money the issue? Well, the government could easily set up a method for people who are poor. God knows we throw money at the poor now so they can fill up on junk food with their EBT cards. Is it distance? Are you worried about all those WHITE people out in the rural areas? (I doubt it) We can outreach to them as well.
It is NOT disenfranchisement. That is a SQUIRREL in the argument. The pure and simple fact is that one side LIKES voter fraud, because it helps them win.
If we don't have ID for voting, then I think it only fair that we dispense with ID for anything. I should be able to write a check or use a credit card without being asked to ID myself. I'm tired of being disenfranchised from writing bad checks or renting cars or staying in hotel rooms. I demand FREEDOM.
Of course the Democrats/Liberals are in favor of cheating. As long as THEY win, by any means, they don't care if there is voter fraud.
Most people in either party don't think that way about their opponents. But this kind of cynicism and libel is spreading wide in the GOP rank and file - and it's killing the Republican Party.
Nobody's attracted to that shit.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Republicans simply decided to instead worry about actual problems and not just hypothetical problems?
Of course the Democrats/Liberals are in favor of cheating. As long as THEY win, by any means, they don't care if there is voter fraud.
Talk about a SQUIRREL distraction. Let's hear the evidence of the election in which this occurred.
You know what's disenfranchising, and racist?
Menacing guys with clubs standing in front of the polls intimidating people.
This didn't actually happen at the poll, though - because Philadelphians aren't the sort of pansies and shrinking violets that those images were broadcast to in the FOX viewing audience. The actual poll-goers just thought, "Hmmm... crazy guy in a beret, nothing for me to feel bothered about." But of course in places with recent histories of race riots and racist police departments like Los Angeles people are probably really concerned about a crazy guy in a beret standing in front of a public building - esp. if his skin color is somehow wrong.
The way images are used in media is interesting, if you know the effect people are angling for.
Oooh oooh wait. I've got it.
The Moderate Republicans are doing a doubleback on everyone. Let's just say what people WANT to hear.....no voter ID, free money for everyone, raise the minimum wage.....Get in power and THEN, do just what the Democrats do. Lie and go back on your word. Be in the super majority and pass whatever legislation you wanted in the first place. Elections have consequences...or so I've hear.
(Sigh. Wishful thinking. We are really really screwed by the weaselly, wimpy people who are merely power hungry clones of each other.)
I think that gay marriage is the now perfect textbook example of how to win an election via polarization.
Oh, you mean like Proposition 8!
The Moderate Republicans are doing a doubleback on everyone. Let's just say what people WANT to hear.....
It's called "democracy" lady, and Republicans have no problem with it when it comes to polarizing, negative-campaigning wedge issues. They just resent the idea that they might be obliged to have something positive to say.
And again, no evidence of widespread or significant fraud. It's even been reviewed by courts in any suits that were brought, and thrown out as not happening. It's all a false flag.
If it's not happening and it's a false flag, then what the heck is the motive?
LOL @ 9:32.
If it's not happening and it's a false flag, then what the heck is the motive?
You try to hard to assume irrational people rational. It's happening because when a party's desperate enough, it does desperate things. It's possible there's a logic to this, as if the party can't persuade the moderate middle (where elections are won) that it's got a case to make, it instead appeals to the far fringes of its party in the hopes of at least energizing them to turn out in higher numbers than they normally would, tipping the balance to their party through unconventional means.
This seems to be the rut that the Republicans are stuck in generally these days. They can't get the middle, so they try increasingly to appeal with frenzied fury to activate the giant red "FEAR" button on the foreheads of their most committed, partisan true-believers, and just play a numbers game with those knuckle-heads instead. Again, it's a Hail Mary strategy, but it's all they've got as time goes on.
No. It's all good because no one complained, because if you polled them pretty much no one would complain (we're less fascist than you are in New York about people dressing and looking a bit eccentric), and the idea of black intimidation of white voters is a novel one in any event that hasn't been documented anywhere, much less institutionalized.
Unlike the VRA that had to be passed as no one could argue against the pervasive and longstanding history of disenfranchising blacks. THOSE ARE THE FACTS and history matters, bub. But why use facts when ricprick's got his own personal fears to validate and the prejudice of a whole lotta others to fan around? Oh, because desperation.
“I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”
I love the modification of the word "crazy" with "too", as if he knows there's already a built-in craziness factor to account for in the GOP, and he's just trying to keep the craziness to a manageable minimum. ;-)
It's ok to be a little crazy, guys. Just not too crazy.
Not long ago I remember seeing a sign in a church that said people would be given some kind of food aid, free food, w/o proper ID.
Imagine that, the needy being asked to produce an id.
The horrors that one sees in this country.
I need to remember to take a picture next time i see it.
chickenlittle said...
I think that gay marriage is the now perfect textbook example of how to win an election via polarization.
Of the many things Republicans can legitimately complain about this is not one of them. The Defense of Marriage Act is the original sin when it comes to politicizing gay marriage and it wasn't even constitutional.
Oh, you mean like Proposition 8!
Locally (I mean in California) Prop 8 was a reaction to Gavin Newsom. The stragey worked for Dems: it pushed the right buttons and in the end it got the money bundled to D.C., and eventually, it became a litmus test to help defeat Romney.
It's disingenuous and incorrect for you to pretend that Prop. 8 was sua sponte, a wholly Republican invention. And it's still working for the Gaystapo. It still ferrets out and stigmatizes the Brandon Eichs for punishment.
Not long ago I remember seeing a sign in a church that said people would be given some kind of food aid, free food, w/o proper ID.
Free food is not a constitutional right.
Of the many things Republicans can legitimately complain about this is not one of them. The Defense of Marriage Act is the original sin when it comes to politicizing gay marriage and it wasn't even constitutional.
And it wasn't even Republican!
Ah, Ritmo's here to make the thread all about him (Dr Evil must have gotten concerned Rand Paul might stop being a viable choice for Conservatives) and phx is doing his concern trolling.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Wouldn't it be interesting if Republicans simply decided to instead worry about actual problems and not just hypothetical problems?
Hmmm, more voters on the rolls in some states than there are people eligible to vote isn't a problem?
And, of course, actual problems translates to anything that advances the Welfare State.
Stuff like a viable economy and real unemployment below 22% doesn't count, but same sex marriage does.
Free food is not a constitutional right.
Arguably, neither is free healthcare. Emphasis on "free."
phx is doing his concern trolling.
Actually I will be concerned to see the death of the GOP, which seems more and more likely with each go round.
Our believe in the efficacy of political parties.
12:12 is the most convoluted comment I've ever read.
I won't even start to pick apart its twisted innards unless some attempt, no matter how feeble, is made to at least try to explain what the hell is contained in a single one (or all) of its Rube Goldberg contraptions.
I admit, I'm more interested in the mechanisms of polarization used by both parties to win elections rather than the agenda themselves. I don't see much discussion of that anywhere devoid of the polarizing issues themselves.
Hmmm, more voters on the rolls in some states than there are people eligible to vote isn't a problem?
That's the point, dummy. It's not a problem if it doesn't occur. The courts have seen and responded to every conservative challenge to existing voting laws with a "What? Where's your evidence? Oh, there is none. Next."
That's when the connies bothered to bring any. They don't like evidence. Evidence gets in the way of the fear thing.
Rhythm and Balls said...
12:12 is the most convoluted comment I've ever read.
I expected no less from you!
phx said...
phx is doing his concern trolling.
Actually I will be concerned to see the death of the GOP, which seems more and more likely with each go round.
I know.
The last time the Demos were unable to count on the Whigs to reliably cave on command, they couldn't get elected for 50 years.
Discussions of polarization are everywhere, Chicken, but the problem is you pretend to assume that the fears used to justify them are solid (or legitimate, not sure how that would be converted into a chemistry tangent).
A discussion of polarization absent a discussion of the fears appealed to in the polarizing process does not make much sense.
A discussion of polarization absent a discussion of the fears appealed to in the polarizing process does not make much sense.
It does makes sense in a bipartisan sense. Point me to the discussions devoid of partisanship. Also, "fear" (phobia) is no less an important element than "love" is. You can't wish either away. You can go after unfounded fear, or false adoration, but the basic impulses are still present.
Any claim that there's nothing to worry about is disingenuous. The fact is that both parties think there's election rigging going on--but always by the other side. Remember George Soros' "Secretary of State Project"? Dems claimed that was a way to stop Repubs from stealing elections. Repubs said it was an attempt to install Dems who'd ignore evidence of vote fraud.
Acceptance of election results by the losing side is THE essential feature of democratic government. This is put in great jeopardy when suspicions of vote-rigging become widespread. If the Dems would stop yelling "Racism!!" and agree to work out a system that satisfied the concerns of both sides, maybe we could get something useful done.
The last time the Demos were unable to count on the Whigs to reliably cave on command, they couldn't get elected for 50 years.
Farewell and adieu.
Yes, fear is a less important legitimate motivator than love is because over the last few thousand years the things we need to fear have decreased dramatically, whereas the things we should feel more open to loving have if anything increased. It no longer does us any good to think that the people of other countries are less deserving of love because we can trade with them more and interact with them more and communicate with them more and make less assumptions about their evil properties as an obstacle to our interests any more, than it does to simply view them as fellow human beings from whom we can also learn and share in the discoveries of life with. Which is more loving than fearful.
Next I'll be told about the underappreciated uses of the appendix.
Chip S. said...
If the Dems would stop yelling "Racism!!"
It seems to me that on this blog it is the liberals who are constantly being called racists while it is the Repubs who incessantly whine about being called racist.
"We love the all, the all of you."
Killer bass line.
And way over-used (but justifiably so) hook. Throughout the whole damn song.
This is put in great jeopardy when suspicions of vote-rigging become widespread.
You want to disenfranchise legitimate voters based on "suspicions of vote-rigging" rather than actual evidence.
Can you see why Rand Paul is so worried?
Also, it was pretty damn creative to keep a beeping phone line starting at the beginning and continuing through, the way Pink Floyd did at the end of one of their songs.
AReasonableMan said...
It seems to me that on this blog it is the liberals who are constantly being called racists while it is the Repubs who incessantly whine about being called racist.
Read Ritmo @11:59 in this very thread. Then read this.
Anyone who claims to be unable to perceive a difference b/w the voter-registration laws under Jim Crow and voter-id verification is either terminally obtuse or a liar.
And Chip, anyone who claims to draw a link between vigilance against reduced voting availability for blacks and a false claim that whites are intimidated by a kook in revolutionary garb in Philadelphia is also, similarly, either terminally obtuse or a liar.
Oh, and John Lewis was in that picture, too? Not just Sharpton? Oh, well what would he know about the matter!
What part of the country do you live in, Chip? Are you a rebel just at (political) heart or in your customs, manners, and beverage choices, too? As long as you're going to offer strong opinions on the VRA I'd just like to know what your actual familiarity is with conditions in the areas of the country affected by it?
Not that it's not the biggest distraction, anyway. It seems that's largely a separate issue - simply raised as ricprick couldn't help bringing up the pretend-point that he and other whites are intimidated and oppressed at the polls. But why should he be responsible for his inferior contribution to the thread? It's not like he's a democrat or liberal. He's a reactionary and as such, deserves every protection against being held responsible for the nonsense that comes out of his mouth or through his keyboard.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Yes, fear is a less important legitimate motivator than love is because over the last few thousand years the things we need to fear have decreased dramatically
And yet, and yet, the Lefties have never been able to win without it.
As Shotgun Joe noted.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
If the Dems would stop yelling "Racism!!"
It seems to me that on this blog it is the liberals who are constantly being called racists
Something about the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations, mayhap.
while it is the Repubs who incessantly whine about being called racist.
See above link.
...reduced voting availability for blacks…
Nope. No lefties here are shouting "racism!" None at all. Never, ever happens.
I'm impressed by Ritmo's ability to read the minds of people he's never met, tho. Very impressed, indeed.
You can (and I'm sure, will) defend intent all you want to, Chip. It's a pretty slippery thing to weasel around, seeing as how we haven't perfected mind-reading technology yet. But the point here (and IIRC, to the courts) is what is the effect, not just the intent. So please continue conceding that you don't care about the racist effects of "innocent" ploys, just that they weren't meant out of racist motivations. You sure do have your clean soul to show for your horrible policy recommendations, so that's good.
If only you could praise liberals for their "good intentions" paving, not the road to hell, but to somewhere better. Oh, wait...
As long as you're going to offer strong opinions on the VRA I'd just like to know what your actual familiarity is with conditions in the areas of the country affected by it?
1. I didn't offer any opinions at all about the VRA. Why don't you actually read my original comment instead of setting up a picket line of straw men?
2. What I know about the VRA, and the civil rights movement in general, I learned from Taylor Branch's excellent book, Parting the Waters. If you want to know a little bit about my views on that period, you can read this.
3. Now feel free to address the actual argument I made in this thread.
Feel free to explain what your actual argument was, first, in the 12:58 comment. If you link to a story on the ruling over the VRA, in response to another comment referencing the VRA, one might think your argument actually has something to do with the VRA. Of course, that "one" might not have had the pleasure of debating something with someone as inscrutable as you seem to want to be today, Chip.
OK, I'll restate my point: The perceived legitimacy of election results is a cornerstone of democracy. It's an issue that should transcend partisanship.
Truly reasonable people in both parties should find a way to address both sides' concerns. Voter id per se is not disenfranchisement, but care should be taken to make sure it's not too burdensome.
The link to the article about Sharpton was simply to demonstrate that this is indeed being cast as an issue of racial politics--a point disputed by ARM.
Ok CHip. So I read your post noting the abominable attitudes toward race and privilege in the 1950s and how horrible Obama is to be vigilant about them. The first part was nice, the second part, a more oblique way of chiding the old race warriors for backfiring on conservative goals (while somehow elevating Obama to a greater level in that little sideshow than I think he merits). But the point is taken. I'm sure it would have gone much further by illustrating a choice Lee Atwater quote, but that's just me, I guess. I try to go for the obvious, when I can.
OK, I'll restate my point: The perceived legitimacy of election results is a cornerstone of democracy. It's an issue that should transcend partisanship.
Of course. No argument there. But I won't concede that differing empirical thresholds for what constitutes "perceptions" of fairness is a HUGE problem. It's just as big a problem.
Truly reasonable people in both parties should find a way to address both sides' concerns.
Again though - one side takes judicial rulings asking for (demanding) actual evidence for this (and a lot of other things) seriously, and one does not. If judges are bound to a certain burden, on the plaintiffs, of establishing facts for them to decide as true, I think that side should respect those burdens. But I can't speak for how a Republican voter views the burden of factuality versus the easier, er, duty of fear.
Voter id per se is not disenfranchisement, but care should be taken to make sure it's not too burdensome.
We're parsing. You're stating something narrow enough to barely agree with, but only because I perceive you're making as slight an effort as you can get away with at appeasing the other side. It's not disenfranchisement en masse, it's disenfranchising enough to make a difference in election outcomes, though. If it's not more strategic than racist, more political than principled, why would that be it's effect, then?
The link to the article about Sharpton was simply to demonstrate that this is indeed being cast as an issue of racial politics--a point disputed by ARM.
Yes, it's an issue of racial politics - forget "cast as", although I'm sure "racial politics" are generally concerned with many other things, or could be cast that way. Does the perception matter? The point is it would backfire on one group disproportionately, and if you're ok with that, you should just be courageous enough to outright state why.
I'm not interested in demonstrating the purity of my motives to your satisfaction, Ritmo.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on what constitutes a sufficiently low burden for voter id requirements, as part of its ruling on Indiana's law.
IOW, voter id requirements are the law of the land. Deal with it.
I'm not interested in demonstrating the purity of my motives to your satisfaction, Ritmo.
Well this sure sounds like a change of direction, then. It seemed two comments ago, you were. I guess it was my reminder of the importance of effect, as different from intent, that changed your priority.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on what constitutes a sufficiently low burden for voter id requirements, as part of its ruling on Indiana's law.
Why do we keep going to this? You can debate it all you want but it seemed your big thing was the VRA and how these things are racialized. Well, then why not respond to disproportionate racial impacts, if that's the case? I guess that just makes it harder to argue intent, then. But intent doesn't matter... or it shouldn't because of my high standards in meeting it? Oh well, who can follow such ever-shifting goalposts.
IOW, voter id requirements are the law of the land. Deal with it.
Ooooh! A demand. Well, some courts, as I've told you umpteen times, have their own demands, and the litigants, those ever-happy conservative political operatives just jumping at the chance to clog up the court system with this, didn't meet it. I guess that's federalism for you, Chip. The SCOTUS sets a low bar and some states figure they have the self-respect to set a constitutionally allowable higher one. And I'll happily appropriate those higher standard arguments.
You seem to be preferring the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to burdens of proof at the state level, though. Strange.
If you ever decide to leave 1965 and comment about the present, I'll be happy to interact w/ you.
I doubt that you will, b/c you need to live in a world defined by good vs. evil, rather than one in which tradeoffs exist and must be recognized.
1965 was the contribution of ricprick (and Bag) by bringing up the cuckoo in Philadelphia. If your response on that is to me (but not your own or to them) there's nothing keeping me from dropping it.
Racial disparities based on ID laws can be argued as a separate point. If you consider those things worth debating, we can, and I'm not Manichean to consider racial disparities a moral trade-off in a utilitarian world, either.
(It's interesting you mention this because I browsed Crazy Priest Fox's website where he talked of "morally invalid reasoning" based on an unwillingness to reason exclusively from moral absolutes. Well, let me be one to loudly proclaim that moral advantages/disadvantages are not exclusive to absolutist thinking, but can absolutely be subjected to economic thinking whereby moral goods are traded for other moral goods with downsides and upsides to each, and a social interest in weighing the result).
But that's as much as I need to say on that. The point is a racial disparity and a political advantage. If you think an abstract point against hypothetically significant fraud outweighs them, the SCOTUS says you have that right, apparently (I'm trusting what you said on that, not having reviewed it myself). But it would be an exercise in wanking to pretedn that we debate things here merely for the pleasure of the Supreme Court. We debate them because we obviously assume relative social merit to one outcome or argument versus the other, and I think it's safe to say that's the reality of what's being done in this thread.
I like a lot of what Rand Paul has to say. I like that he is an isolationist. I like that he is for lower taxes and less government. So I will not pick this hill to die on.
I don't have to agree with every position that a politician takes to support him if over all he seems like the best bet.
So far Rand Paul seems like the best bet.
I grew up with voter fraud in Brooklyn. The Democratic congressman was a big shot. Chairmen of the Appropriations Committee. The Democratic club on the corner of Clinton and Kane would send out people to vote multiple times.
Voter fraud has always been with us. We should just cheat as much or more than the other side.
2:08 is the most convoluted comment I've ever read.
Imitation is the lowest form of comeback.
(If it's that short. If you embellish it with a few zings then that helps).
We should just cheat as much or more than the other side.
Bah. You can do better than that.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Imitation is the lowest form of comeback.
Is that suposed to resonate with me or anyone else here?
Raise your hands.
I like things about Rand Paul too. I must reiterate that I believe it's too early to seriously discuss 2016 elections and candidates, especially prior to the 2014.
If Republicans take the drubbing that some Democrats have predicted this Fall, then obviously the need to prevent a monoclonal Federal Government will be enhanced.
@phx: WTF did your "free food" comment have to do with this thread? My "free medical care" was a response to yours.
Truth requires no resonance - with the materials in your head or otherwise.
But since you seem more antagonistic than necessary today, at least you reminded me of that time I took you to task for providing undue resonance with the kooky term "Sullivanism" that you fell so in love with. It reminded me of the image of you running around with a cut-out of Andrew Sullivan hanging from a pole shooting out of a crash helmet strapped to your head.
That seemed to resonate with a few commenters. ;-)
Enjoy your Saturday, goofball.
The need to prevent a monoclonal Federal Government is always at least as strong as preventing a monocled one.
If Republicans take the drubbing that some Democrats have predicted this Fall, then obviously the need to prevent a monoclonal Federal Government will be enhanced.
"Monoclonal?"
Lol.
Fear, fear fear!
@R&B: People know "sullivanism" when they see it. I recall a thread on TOP when a few people even stepped up and defined it for me. But there's no reason to go there today is there?
People know "sullivanism" when they see it.
Oh, like "obscenity"?
Please. Enough with things being defined by their own lack of definition.
You're bringing down the bar. I watched that movie about Rumsfeld earlier this week and I have to say, he seems to possess a talent for articulation that's sorely missing among way too many - in American politics or elsewhere.
Say whatever else you want to about the man, but at least he could express himself well and had no patience for bland vagaries.
Be crisp! If you take anything away from TOP, take that.
If Republicans aren't going to represent my interests... and they don't show any signs of doing so...
I don't care whether they win or lose.
Voting patterns may indeed have to recede more completely to across the board identity politics before any progress can be made.
Oh, like "obscenity"?
Well, isn't Titus his most loyal acolyte lately in TOP threads? He even brays about "The New Confederacy."
Voting patterns may indeed have to recede more completely to across the board identity politics before any progress can be made.
This will set it up for someone with the decency to step in and say "can't you people of all races see what you're doing?"
He even brays about...
The image of Titus as one of the jackasses on Pinocchio's "Pleasure Island" was too rich to pass on.
Cue the Titus response...
I wouldn't join this debate, as it is so far, for love nor money. Debating spurious details is like pissing in to the wind. So y'all have fun.
Two points I'd like to make, given that I am an old dude who was part of the civil rights movement, was in college and active in that period, traveled the south and saw up close the disenfranchisement of black Americans and not just for voting, and faced more than one fist fight, or worse, in the process. I am cracker ass white and that wasn't very popular in some parts if you favored civil rights for everyone. I was attending an urban university at night while working full time all day, as most of my comrades did in those days...we were not special, we were the ones who valued the campus becasue we sweated for it. No loans. No grants. No squat.
Point 1: R & B said ...
the VRA that had to be passed as no one could argue against the pervasive and longstanding history of disenfranchising blacks ... history matters ...
Yes, history does matter and your allegation here is mostly false, either because you really don't know, weren't part of the process, of choose to be obtuse. Or perhaps it was an inadverant rhetorical aside?
The final vote of the Joint Congressional Conference Committte was 328-74 in the House and 79-18 in the house. IOW 97 political leaders in the nation were against the VRA. LBJ had to twist every arm he could and then some to pass the CRA and the VRA. It was by no means a walk in the park where "no one"objected. It was a long walk down a dark road where many who were against it had to vote for it to stay in politics in that era.
Point 2: Chip S said...
Acceptance of election results by the losing side is THE essential feature of democratic government. This is put in great jeopardy when suspicions of vote-rigging become widespread. If the Dems would stop yelling "Racism!!" and agree to work out a system that satisfied the concerns of both sides, maybe we could get something useful done.
Nothing about that remark is untrue, in fact it relfects the entire rationale of the CRA and the VRA. Hollering "Squirrel" changes nothing.
Finally, as I have said before, I live in far east Dearborn, MI, .e.g., east of Greenfield Road along Warren Avenue. I am an ethnic (perhaps color too, depends on how your measure that) minority in my community. The ethnic core of my community dates back 100+ years. I live adjacent to a 85% black community aka Detroit within a few hundred yards of my home, as well as a 75% Mexican community with another 15 % Hispanic of one version or another. My church parish (St Cunegunda RC Church) is about 90% Mexican or Hispanic via Mexico. It is a growing parish in a desolate land. I usually attend the "Children's Mass" on Sunday becasue it is so satisfying. And I have nothing in common with my co-parishioners beyond the color of our blood....and understand of how family matters. Really matters.
I'd have to drive a few miles west or north to find a white majority. I've lived here 30+ years now, and I like it here and will not move...I will not run in other words. I am asked that question a lot, oddly, by locals, "why do I live here"...when I say becasue I like it here those asking smile.
I've said vbefore that over my life I have often lived where I had no business living, so to speak, both sides of the world, but I did and I loved every minute of it.
The entire "debate" about Voter ID is bullshit...everyone who needs ID has access to it and affordably. Conflating it with race is muck raking at the least. It stinks so much I suspect the odor kills flies.
So fuck it.
There's a reason betting on baseball is a capital offense for a player or manager. The Black Sox Scandal of 1919 made it so fans could not believe the outcome of a game was legit. It holds true for elections. Disenfranchisement is a red herring. JFK was elected because of voter fraud in Cook County.
JFK joked that his old man told him to be frugal w/ buying votes, "I'll pay for a victory but not for a landslide."
It's not a rhetorical aside, Ari. It's the use of language that presumes the understanding that the phrase "the existence of" resides before "the pervasive and longstanding history..." Of course people argue against such things. The statement refers to the impossibility of people in 2014 arguing CREDIBLY that the reasons for the legislation never occurred and had never, since then, been at risk of recurring.
Am I the only one who noticed the gratuitous swipe R&B took at Fr. Martin Fox upthread? Creepy.
Wouldn't hurt if he (Mr. “Be crisp!”) instead took a few pointers about writing clear, concise, not to mention honest, prose from Fr. Fox, who’s got a terrific post up right now about Pope Francis's latest "controversial" statement about economic matters that's worth a read.
Ritmo behaves like a dumb lout!
That's certain amazing news.
I noticed too, Lydia. That's one reason I called that 2:08 comment "convoluted" - more coliform than the usual excrement. Of course R&B was flattered instead.
Yeah, I didn't understand what motivated that particular slur. But I don't care to dwell on what goes on inside Rit Mo's head - it's a swamp in there.
I would never take "pointers" about clarity, concision and honesty from someone as unclear, inconcise and dishonest as that authoritarian dress-wearer. He lacks the courage to address what I say directly so it's fair to say he's too dumb to take advice or even lessons from the many humans he deems to be beneath him. I'll do him precisely the same favor, but with the added bonus of exposing his blunders as the interesting teaching moments that he can't make of them, as he's too obsessed with supernatural sources of shame to look at what's wrong and what's right with earthly things, including the fixation with power captivating both his very worldly institution and his own precious role within it.
Yeah, I didn't understand what motivated that particular slur.
Another fidei defensor chimes in. What a bunch of lovely Henry VIIIs you'd all make!
I'm not a fan of his rapist sheltering, shame fixating, hierarchy of aribtrary power defending institution, nor am I a fan of his pride at being essentially a bouncer at its doors. I am not a fan of the way he teaches the people he views essentially as "his sheep" to think of themselves and their low capacity for ethical, moral behavior, and I am not a fan of him using that as some sort of status perch from which to denounce (but avoid engaging on) the issues of the day.
Does that clear things up for you?
Make sure to check with whomever approves your opinions before answering.
You are so stupid, Ritmo.
It's really amazing how stupid you are.
It's the only interesting thing about you.
What the fuck are you carrying on about, Rit Mo? Once again you prove that you are incapable of comprehending the written word.
But of course your stupefying predictability is something you suppose evokes wonder and marvel. Whatever.
Fidei Defensor! Henry VIII and Shouting Thomas all have a special role in deciding the persons from whom they need to seek favor!
Thanks for this view into your own little world and the Very Big, Very much a Government in charge of it.
Ritmo has some serious emotional problems that make him stupid.
I've seen this shit before.
I've got a nephew who has the same disability. He thinks his IQ should entitle him to rule the world.
My nephew has doctorates in philosophy and computer science, and he can't hold onto a job. My sister has bankrupted herself sending him back to school for more degrees, but he keeps failing in the same old way.
My nephew walks into every social circumstance or job and announces that he's a genius and that everybody should worship him. Of course, everybody immediately loathes him and wants to destroy him.
My nephew has never been able to hold onto a social relationship or a job because of this. And, he's always mystified by the latest occurrence of the curse. He has however, after the umpteenth kick in the ass accepted the inevitable, and he now works as a substitute teacher.
At least the last time I heard, he's learned to keep his mouth shut about his brilliance.
And, there you have Ritmo.
Hey, I'd rather rule my own world than have Martin Fox ruling it, as he does yours.
Does that clear things up for you?
Oh come on Pazuzu, give me some chirbit-worthy lines! Mercedes MacCambridge is about the only female voice I can do.
I don't think Ritmo will ever figure out why everybody perceives him as a loathsome horses ass.
The emotional disability is too deep and he has no desire to find a way out.
OH yes, it's everybody!
I just don't need my life dictated by someone else - however unique his collar.
You do.
You think that such approval makes God love you. Maybe it does. (Although I doubt it).
But you can't claim to be loved by everyone either. I can take a poll right now and find at least four or five people in this internet land who think you're a horrible asshole.
And on Martin Fox's website, you've admitted as much, also.
You just call it "being a horrible sinner".
Well, at least he loves that about you. Even though you know you shouldn't.
Trying to be a better person doesn't make someone bad. Neither does realizing that he doesn't need someone else's disengaged approval of it to do so. No matter how much of an authority that person claims to be - on spiritual matters, no less.
But you've never undertaken to learn even that much.
It's seriously a pity, and I'm not being sarcastic here.
Hey, I'd rather rule my own world than have Martin Fox ruling it, as he does yours.
Surprisingly, I'm humble enough to seek out counsel in a few places when I need it.
Fr. Fox is not my parish priest, nor does a priest seek to "rule" anybody. Your ignorance of theology and the role of a priest is total.
I do have several priest friends who I've known for a long time. I go to them for counsel when I need it. It is not their role to tell me what to do, or to "rule" anybody.
Perhaps, you should learn something instead of talking like a fool. But, after some years of exposure to your arrogant stupidity, I am quite sure you won't.
Advice from Ritmo on how to be a decent person.
Will wonders never cease?
Now, Ritmo, I expect you to explode in that brute, asshole stupidity that is your trademark.
Don't disappoint!
Fr. Fox is not my parish priest, nor does a priest seek to "rule" anybody. Your ignorance of theology and the role of a priest is total.
I do have several priest friends who I've known for a long time. I go to them for counsel when I need it. It is not their role to tell me what to do, or to "rule" anybody.
And yet, you seek his approval, as is clear. I'd wonder why, but perhaps that would make me seem "ignorant" to you to do so.
I'm not against seeking counsel from anyone, clergy included. I would do it myself. But not from someone as controlling and lacking in humility as the guy we're talking about.
No, it is not clear that I seek Fr. Fox's approval.
We share Catholic ideology and outlook, which, if you'd think about it, leads us often to agree.
I haven't noticed this controlling thing from Fr. Fox. He's made it clear he doesn't want to converse with you.
The priest I am closest to is a Filipino friend who has never been my parish priest. He came to me when Myrna passed. He has never sought to tell me what to do, as that is not his role.
In fact, I've served as a counsellor to him. He was so disturbed at the orders from his Bishop to return to Manila on one occasion that he asked me to out to dinner so that he could have somebody to talk with. He was seriously considering leaving the priesthood.
He's a friend as well as a counsellor.
My nephew is a fascinating case.
On a purely theoretical level, he's an absolutely brilliant programmer who always left me in the dust.
And he couldn't hold on to a job, while I always found fascinating projects to work on.
...he doesn't want to converse with you.
I think this was his shorthand for "I don't want you commenting on what I say on a public forum!" Which sounds very controlling to me. I even let him know I'd meant no disrespect, but his anger was apparently too great to hear that part. I felt sorry for the fact that he was so confused, perhaps in his anger, that I was not accusing him of spiritual beliefs that he protested (and I acknowledged) that he did not have. And that makes it hard for me to understand what kind of respect he'd, ideally speaking, prefer I'd show to him.
As for your friend, I'm glad he was there for you and I very much relate. A friend or two of mine from college went on to theological training and I consider their advice/counsel very enriching at times, but we always looked at each other on equal footing as human beings, too.
I am sorry to hear about your nephew, and wish things would have turned out better for him. It surely is interesting that talents in some areas don't translate to talents in other areas, but I am happy to have had a stable job at the same place for the last 6.5 years that I very much enjoy, not merely for the fun of what I do but because the people I work with are generally very kind and concerned folks who are honest with and work well with each other. I realize that this is not the case, unfortunately, at many workplaces in America.
I'm glad things are working out well for you, Ritmo.
I had the high IQ pride thing when I was young. It took me a long time to understand just how negatively people received my talking about it.
Well, I do agree that the humility you show each other on his website is a very nice and thing and I will try to do a better job of learning from it.
chick u know I love u but give u a hard time.
And yes, I actually know and have socialized with Sullivan. He was getting his Phd as I was getting my undergrad...and I kind of hate him...does that help?
Now off to Mendon by Barbara Lynch...prix fixe and she just won some James Beard shit.
"beard".
The eagerness of some to engage the idiot left is remarkable. I have no desire to discuss things with intellectually dishonest liberals who tap-dance, set up strawman, and commit so many illogical fallacies even Whoopi Goldberg would notice.
We all know that liberals would be in favor of Voter ID tomorrow if it benefited them. Their only guiding principle is wining power and imposing their political prejudices on the American people.
I don't argue with Used Car salesman about what's the best car to buy.
And if Ritmo has a "High IQ" he must hiding it well. Or maybe he's some kind of genius at something that doesn't take logic, reading comprehension, or common sense.
A high IQ is one thing. Wisdom is something different. And we could all use some of that.
Post a Comment