No, I'm saying that the same reasons that people object to voter ID laws, that it unfairly benefits one political party over another, should be applied equally.
A review of the Trump Presidency
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Since Reagan, the U.S. has been following two ideologies promoted by both political parties: neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism. Both can be seen prominently in the two previous Presidents--Bush and Obama--who promoted war and bailouts for Wall Street.
Trump was literally an outsider, a non-politician who belonged outside this establishment, and tried to challenge it through peace negotiations with various countries, border control, and restrictions in trade. But he is also part of the rich that profited from the same, which is why he considered bombing Iran and gave tax cuts to billionaires. Also, many of his appointed officials came from the same establishment or worked for the same rich.
Trump was literally an outsider, a non-politician who belonged outside this establishment, and tried to challenge it through peace negotiations with various countries, border control, and restrictions in trade. But he is also part of the rich that profited from the same, which is why he considered bombing Iran and gave tax cuts to billionaires. Also, many of his appointed officials came from the same establishment or worked for the same rich.
House? You do realize this is not a private conversation, do you not? My post is literally right above yours for everyone to see. Anyone reading the thread can - and probably will - read the other posts. They can follow the conversation. They can see that I gave you a 186 word response explaining the flaws in your juvenile attempt at a "gotcha". They can see that you ignored all of that to focus on the three words you thought you could spin. They can see that those three words were part of both a chastisement of how you argue and a reminder that what you were arguing against wasn't personal opinion but statement of fact reflected in court documents. So who exactly do you think you're fooling?
Well that's a bald-faced lie right there. The entire post was about how your point was bullshit.
So you argued the point, and then said "I'm not interested" and then said "You want to argue this point? Take it up with the courts"?
Sounds legit, Socrates was a loudmouth bullshit artist too.
Not quite. I called you out on equivocating two very different points and fundamentally misrepresenting why the measures pushing for Voter ID were ruled as discriminatory. I then proceeded to give the cliff notes version of how those measures had barriers to entry that unfairly disadvantaged several extant demographics of people. What I then told you was that the argument you were attempting with that comparison was blatant, intellectually dishonest 'whataboutism' and that I had no intention of humoring it any further.
I then capped it off by reminding you that the post you were disputing with whataboutism was not personal opinion or philosophy, but an explanation reflected in court documents about why Trump et al's attempts at using "Equal Protection" as an argument against mail-in voting was nonsensical and not based in reality. Indeed, the post you were disputing actually contained a lengthy quote from those same documents explaining exactly why. In case that isn't wholly clear, I was expressing contempt for your usual childish tactic of trying to twist a posters words until you can spin them as showing personal hypocrisy, and I was pointing out that in this case it means even less than it usually does. This is to say that because I was not expressing personal opinion but explaining and summarizing the legal principle that is reflected in the official rulings, it does you no good to try and paint me as a hypocrite, as your bone of contention must first be with the court ruling. Hence "take it up with the courts". Or if you'd like me to be more crass about it: Stop trying to bullshit your way through an argument and actually do some research.
]
Except many states do still have strict voter id requirements, so I don't what you're referring to when you say "ruled as discriminatory".
That's irrelevant, because I was not defending Trump's argument.
LOL! I bet they're the same ones that told Biden to get that Ukrainian prosecutor fired.
I have heard it posited that in Presidential elections, the more likeable candidate will win. Clinton vs. Bush. Bush vs. Gore. Obama vs. McCain, etc. Seems to be some validity to the theory.
Last edited:
I think you've made yourself a straw man there.
Most people object to voter ID laws because they are likely to disenfranchise poor people. Some of us actually believe in the principle of democracy, that people who have the right to vote should have that right facilitated rather than impeded.
I'm basing the idea that the "against" argument is that it would skew the vote because of posts like these:
But if that's not everyone's argument, then okay.
People are complaining that the Republicans may be trying to disenfranchise voters because it is electorally beneficial to the Republicans.
Claiming that these people therefore are okay with voting being skewed as long as it benefits the Democrats is clearly an extrapolation not evident from their own posts.
Considering that we're in this spat wholly because you decided to contest a post focusing exclusively on the flaws with the Trump campaign's "Equal Protection" argument against mail-in ballots by what amounted to "well what about Voter ID?", that's both breathtakingly dishonest and hypocritical of you.
Just because I quote you and reply, it doesn't mean I'm talking about all the same things you're talking about. Take post #214 at face value instead of viewing it as having anything to do with Trump's legal argument.
See "breathtakingly hypocritical", Mr. "That's irrelevant because I was not talking about that". You might notice that the post you responded to had absolutely nothing to do with Voter ID.
Yes, I've known that the entire time. Hence "Just because I quote you and reply, it doesn't mean I'm talking about all the same things you're talking about"
So shall we take this to mean that you are admitting to your post being both total non-sequitur and an attempt at thread derailment?
Sure, if you think that discussing voter ID and/or skewing the vote is "derailing", feel free.