Author Topic: What to do when you don't believe you can legitimately win elections  (Read 7786 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
Re: What to do when you don't believe you can legitimately win elections
« Reply #60 on: January 03, 2008, 12:20:10 AM »
<<Ahh, so you did have a big beef when the Dems tried to pull that on our military personel, in the 2000 elections.  >>

Wrong again, sirs.  I had no beef since the objections to military votes that breached the deadline were well-founded.

Ahhh, so trying to apply simple common sense voter ID verification to inhibit voter fraud is completely bogus because of the inconvenience it would potentially bring about to the poor, the minorities, the elderly, etc, while sticking to the "law" and not providing any flexibility to overseas military personel, due to the inconenience & logistics of their locations, thus disenfranchsing them is perfectly ok.

Gotcha.  Under the dictionary, we can apply this under Hypocrisy.  Well, at least we got that cleared up


"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
Re: What to do when you don't believe you can legitimately win elections
« Reply #61 on: January 03, 2008, 12:35:13 AM »
<<Ahhh, so trying to apply simple common sense voter ID verification to inhibit voter fraud is completely bogus because of the inconvenience it would potentially bring about to the poor, the minorities, the elderly, etc, . . . >>

Simple common sense would tell us that voter fraud can still be committed with phony ID's.  Simple common sense would tell us that retinal scans actually would prevent voter fraud AND do so without disenfranchising anyone.  Simple common sense would tell us that before we undertake a radical change in voting procedures, we should at least determine (a) how much voter fraud actually occurs in the country and (b) how many folks would be prevented or seriously deterred from voting by photo ID, so that some kind of cost-benefit analysis could be made before the big step is taken. 

Your attempt to misrepresent the argument against photo ID by limiting it to "inconvenience" instead of actual disenfranchisement is duly noted.  Crude, amateurish and ineffective, but deserving of some recognition for the effort  expended.


<< . . . while sticking to the "law" and not providing any flexibility to overseas military personel, due to the inconenience & logistics of their locations, thus disenfranchsing them is perfectly ok.>>

Uhh, in the calculation of the original time limits for the submission of their vote, I believe the inconvenience and "logistics" of their locations would have been duly noted and taken into account.  In any event, I was not aware of any case where specific problems of particular "inconvenience" and/or "logistics" were cited as reasons for the late vote.  Furthermore, I would think that if any base commander felt that his base was at some particular disadvantage in meeting the timelines, he would have had plenty of time before the elections to make his difficulties known to his Congressional representatives, who could then move for an emergency amendment to the statute.  I can't think of too many Senators or Congressmen of either party who would want to be painted as disenfranchisers of the American military during a shooting war.

<<Gotcha.  Under the dictionary, we can apply this under Hypocrisy.  Well, at least we got that cleared up>>

Don't make me laugh, sirs.  When did YOU ever get ANYTHING "cleared up?"