And yes, you provide the heart wrenching single case anecdote that you chastise OO for previously. Good grief....

To be honest, a .3% rate doesnt seem horribly excessive and such a perversion of justice, apple pie, and everything that you seemingly imply.

(01-22-2020 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes, you provide the heart wrenching single case anecdote that you chastise OO for previously. Good grief....

To be honest, a .3% rate doesnt seem horribly excessive and such a perversion of justice, apple pie, and everything that you seemingly imply.

0.3% of the 4.8MM vote turnout in Michigan in 2016 is ~14,000 people. So there are 14,000 anecdotes in one state...

(01-22-2020 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes, you provide the heart wrenching single case anecdote that you chastise OO for previously. Good grief....

To be honest, a .3% rate doesnt seem horribly excessive and such a perversion of justice, apple pie, and everything that you seemingly imply.

0.3% of the 4.8MM vote turnout in Michigan in 2016 is ~14,000 people. So there are 14,000 anecdotes in one state...

Leroy was from WI lad. I suggest you read.

(01-22-2020 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes, you provide the heart wrenching single case anecdote that you chastise OO for previously. Good grief....

To be honest, a .3% rate doesnt seem horribly excessive and such a perversion of justice, apple pie, and everything that you seemingly imply.

0.3% of the 4.8MM vote turnout in Michigan in 2016 is ~14,000 people. So there are 14,000 anecdotes in one state...

Leroy was from WI lad. I suggest you read.

The 0.3% referenced was from Michigan... From Big:

Quote:Meredith and his colleagues estimate that 0.3 to 0.6 percent of Michigan voters didn’t have photo IDs when they showed up to vote during the 2016 general election.

You previously said:

Quote:But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

I suggest you both read AND remember what you said, ya' dingus. (or just leave off the completely unnecessary, and rather hilariously bad, extra curricular language at the end).

The 0.3% figure is in reference to Michigan voters who didn't have photo ID when they arrived to vote in 2016.

Leroy was indeed from WI.

(01-22-2020 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes, you provide the heart wrenching single case anecdote that you chastise OO for previously. Good grief....

To be honest, a .3% rate doesnt seem horribly excessive and such a perversion of justice, apple pie, and everything that you seemingly imply.

0.3% of the 4.8MM vote turnout in Michigan in 2016 is ~14,000 people. So there are 14,000 anecdotes in one state...

Leroy was from WI lad. I suggest you read.

The 0.3% referenced was from Michigan... From Big:

Quote:Meredith and his colleagues estimate that 0.3 to 0.6 percent of Michigan voters didn’t have photo IDs when they showed up to vote during the 2016 general election.

You previously said:

Quote:But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

And *surprisingly* (not) one of the pieces that was brought out was the heart-wrenching saga of Leroy from Wisconsin. Thus the reason for my comment. You apparently blipped over that. Too excited to get off the oh-so solemn ode to anecdotes, I guess. Well perhpaps let's look at that as well.

Funny you now state so solemnly that there are umpteen thousand anecdotes. Really? They could be umpteen thousand absolute morons who dont realize that they may have needed to register, but you blip over that as well.

Or, it could be umpteen thousand shitbirds who want to vote knowing full well that they havent fulfilled the prerequisites. Again, you blip over that possibility in your oh-so solemn 'umpteen thousand anecdotes' proclamation.

Funny that.

I guess in your mind all the umpteen thousand you so solemnly proclaim as heart-wrenching anecdotes all have the same back story as Larry from Wisconsin.

Quote:I suggest you both read AND remember what you said, ya' dingus. (or just leave off the completely unnecessary, and rather hilariously bad, extra curricular language at the end).

My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes, you provide the heart wrenching single case anecdote that you chastise OO for previously. Good grief....

To be honest, a .3% rate doesnt seem horribly excessive and such a perversion of justice, apple pie, and everything that you seemingly imply.

0.3% of the 4.8MM vote turnout in Michigan in 2016 is ~14,000 people. So there are 14,000 anecdotes in one state...

Leroy was from WI lad. I suggest you read.

The 0.3% referenced was from Michigan... From Big:

Quote:Meredith and his colleagues estimate that 0.3 to 0.6 percent of Michigan voters didn’t have photo IDs when they showed up to vote during the 2016 general election.

You previously said:

Quote:But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

And *surprisingly* (not) one of the pieces that was brought out was the heart-wrenching saga of Leroy from Wisconsin. Thus the reason for my comment. You apparently blipped over that. Too excited to get off the oh-so solemn ode to anecdotes, I guess. Well perhpaps let's look at that as well.

No it wasn't! The quote from you (post 10616) was from a post before Big's that referenced the Wisconsin anecdote (post 10620).

Why not just say you misunderstood what post I was referencing?

Talk about being too excited - fricken hilarious.

Quote:Funny you now state so solemnly that there are umpteen thousand anecdotes. Really? They could be umpteen thousand absolute morons who dont realize that they may have needed to register, but you blip over that as well.

Or, it could be umpteen thousand shitbirds who want to vote knowing full well that they havent fulfilled the prerequisites. Again, you blip over that possibility in your oh-so solemn 'umpteen thousand anecdotes' proclamation.

Funny that.

I guess in your mind all the umpteen thousand you so solemnly proclaim as heart-wrenching anecdotes all have the same back story as Larry from Wisconsin.

Ok? You're making a lot of inferences about what I was trying to say or what is in my mind.

Look at my initial reply to your comment about anecdotes (post 10618) - you'll see how I said "I have primarily seen people discuss studies evaluating the potential or actual effect of voter ID laws and not single individuals' anecdotes."

So, in my mind, there has been actual work done to evaluate the effect of these sorts of laws that can quantify the number of people affected. I stated there were 14,000 anecdotes in Michigan as a play on your argument about anecdotes being the evidence "trotted out."

Quote:I suggest you both read AND remember what you said, ya' dingus. (or just leave off the completely unnecessary, and rather hilariously bad, extra curricular language at the end).

My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.
[/quote]

Uh, you actually said:

" But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

I think you need to show us objective proof of how bad Voter ID laws inhibit voting, come to think of it....."

You said nothing about the prevalence of using these as the LEDE, but rather that they were the evidence. And then you asked for objective proof, which Big gave you.

(01-22-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  0.3% of the 4.8MM vote turnout in Michigan in 2016 is ~14,000 people. So there are 14,000 anecdotes in one state...

Leroy was from WI lad. I suggest you read.

The 0.3% referenced was from Michigan... From Big:

Quote:Meredith and his colleagues estimate that 0.3 to 0.6 percent of Michigan voters didn’t have photo IDs when they showed up to vote during the 2016 general election.

You previously said:

Quote:But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

And *surprisingly* (not) one of the pieces that was brought out was the heart-wrenching saga of Leroy from Wisconsin. Thus the reason for my comment. You apparently blipped over that. Too excited to get off the oh-so solemn ode to anecdotes, I guess. Well perhpaps let's look at that as well.

No it wasn't! The quote from you (post 10616) was from a post before Big's that referenced the Wisconsin anecdote (post 10620).

Why not just say you misunderstood what post I was referencing?

Talk about being too excited - fricken hilarious.

Quote:Funny you now state so solemnly that there are umpteen thousand anecdotes. Really? They could be umpteen thousand absolute morons who dont realize that they may have needed to register, but you blip over that as well.

Or, it could be umpteen thousand shitbirds who want to vote knowing full well that they havent fulfilled the prerequisites. Again, you blip over that possibility in your oh-so solemn 'umpteen thousand anecdotes' proclamation.

Funny that.

I guess in your mind all the umpteen thousand you so solemnly proclaim as heart-wrenching anecdotes all have the same back story as Larry from Wisconsin.

Ok? You're making a lot of inferences about what I was trying to say or what is in my mind.

Look at my initial reply to your comment about anecdotes (post 10618) - you'll see how I said "I have primarily seen people discuss studies evaluating the potential or actual effect of voter ID laws and not single individuals' anecdotes."

So, in my mind, there has been actual work done to evaluate the effect of these sorts of laws that can quantify the number of people affected. I stated there were 14,000 anecdotes in Michigan as a play on your argument about anecdotes being the evidence "trotted out."

Quote:I suggest you both read AND remember what you said, ya' dingus. (or just leave off the completely unnecessary, and rather hilariously bad, extra curricular language at the end).

My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Uh, you actually said:

" But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

I think you need to show us objective proof of how bad Voter ID laws inhibit voting, come to think of it....."

You said nothing about the prevalence of using these as the LEDE, but rather that they were the evidence. And then you asked for objective proof, which Big gave you.
[/quote]

And then I chided him on the inclusion of the Larry sob story. You know, the very extraneous Larry sob story. The Larry sob story that is seemingly within every progressive comment or argument on the subject. I guess you didnt see that.....

(01-22-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

Is he running for office this year?

With respect to impeachment, THE issue is that Trump only pressured Ukraine because Biden is likely to be his opponent in the election.

Between testimony during the impeachment hearings (like the testimony that made it clear the Biden angle was a personal/campaign matter and not official US policy), Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption effort in Ukraine (his admin has cut Ukrainian anti-corruption funding), and Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption efforts at home and abroad, it is clear that all he wanted was some political leverage.

(01-22-2020 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And the gnashing has begun. BAM!

I SAID it was an anecdote. I did not claim it was a POLL.

I used words like "think", and "hope", and "doubt". I guess some people cannot stand even that much equivocation or opinion.

And, Big, I never, never, never thought that this anecdote would move you in any way.

Uh, you said:

Quote:It made me wonder: how many people are neither pro or anti Trump, but they are anti impeachment? And, I wonder how those people may vote in November.

I think the Democrats may be surprised unpleasantly by the back lash in November. I hope so. I doubt they will generate a groundswell of support for their party with this action.

Polls have been done that provide insight into how much support the impeachment has overall. You can dig deeper into Dems/Reps/Ind. 538 shows a % split of 87/11/47 in favor of impeachment.

And yet I think I shall wait until November to see how this works out.

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Leroy was from WI lad. I suggest you read.

The 0.3% referenced was from Michigan... From Big:

Quote:Meredith and his colleagues estimate that 0.3 to 0.6 percent of Michigan voters didn’t have photo IDs when they showed up to vote during the 2016 general election.

You previously said:

Quote:But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

And *surprisingly* (not) one of the pieces that was brought out was the heart-wrenching saga of Leroy from Wisconsin. Thus the reason for my comment. You apparently blipped over that. Too excited to get off the oh-so solemn ode to anecdotes, I guess. Well perhpaps let's look at that as well.

No it wasn't! The quote from you (post 10616) was from a post before Big's that referenced the Wisconsin anecdote (post 10620).

Why not just say you misunderstood what post I was referencing?

Talk about being too excited - fricken hilarious.

Quote:Funny you now state so solemnly that there are umpteen thousand anecdotes. Really? They could be umpteen thousand absolute morons who dont realize that they may have needed to register, but you blip over that as well.

Or, it could be umpteen thousand shitbirds who want to vote knowing full well that they havent fulfilled the prerequisites. Again, you blip over that possibility in your oh-so solemn 'umpteen thousand anecdotes' proclamation.

Funny that.

I guess in your mind all the umpteen thousand you so solemnly proclaim as heart-wrenching anecdotes all have the same back story as Larry from Wisconsin.

Ok? You're making a lot of inferences about what I was trying to say or what is in my mind.

Look at my initial reply to your comment about anecdotes (post 10618) - you'll see how I said "I have primarily seen people discuss studies evaluating the potential or actual effect of voter ID laws and not single individuals' anecdotes."

So, in my mind, there has been actual work done to evaluate the effect of these sorts of laws that can quantify the number of people affected. I stated there were 14,000 anecdotes in Michigan as a play on your argument about anecdotes being the evidence "trotted out."

Quote:I suggest you both read AND remember what you said, ya' dingus. (or just leave off the completely unnecessary, and rather hilariously bad, extra curricular language at the end).

My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Uh, you actually said:

" But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

I think you need to show us objective proof of how bad Voter ID laws inhibit voting, come to think of it....."

You said nothing about the prevalence of using these as the LEDE, but rather that they were the evidence. And then you asked for objective proof, which Big gave you.

And then I chided him on the inclusion of the Larry sob story. You know, the very extraneous Larry sob story. The Larry sob story that is seemingly within every progressive comment or argument on the subject. I guess you didnt see that.....
[/quote]

Dude, can you not handle admitting you were wrong and overstepped?

There was no evidence I hadn't read all of Big's post, nor yours, and yet you came out and were a dick. Because I obviously read all of these posts if I knew what state the 0.3% you quoted referenced.

Not my fault you got butt hurt that I told you that 0.3% of Michigan's 2016 voters was ~14,000 people and they all have their own anecdote.

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

Is he running for office this year?

With respect to impeachment, THE issue is that Trump only pressured Ukraine because Biden is likely to be his opponent in the election.

Between testimony during the impeachment hearings (like the testimony that made it clear the Biden angle was a personal/campaign matter and not official US policy), Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption effort in Ukraine (his admin has cut Ukrainian anti-corruption funding), and Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption efforts at home and abroad, it is clear that all he wanted was some political leverage.

So the *only* reason that Trump is being impeached is the (D) behind Biden's name. Had it been *anyone* not running, nothing is wrong. That is interesting.

Kind of by itself shows the sham that it is.

If Trump said the same thing, but said 'Lindsey Graham Jr' --- copacetic by you. Very telling.

(01-22-2020 01:50 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The 0.3% figure is in reference to Michigan voters who didn't have photo ID when they arrived to vote in 2016.

"when they arrived to vote"



True, somebody can forget their wallet.

And of course, DLs can be lost (As Big has said, one is supposed to get a replacement for that), so I guess we can assume all the lost licenses were lost that day.

And all the other things listed that have zero to do with bad bus schedules and lack of money.

My son was one of those stopped from voting in 2016. He had just returned from Washington and had not changed his DL. They let him cast a provisional vote.

It's not a problem, and yet y'all want to make it a problem. I wonder why.

(01-22-2020 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The 0.3% referenced was from Michigan... From Big:


You previously said:

And *surprisingly* (not) one of the pieces that was brought out was the heart-wrenching saga of Leroy from Wisconsin. Thus the reason for my comment. You apparently blipped over that. Too excited to get off the oh-so solemn ode to anecdotes, I guess. Well perhpaps let's look at that as well.

No it wasn't! The quote from you (post 10616) was from a post before Big's that referenced the Wisconsin anecdote (post 10620).

Why not just say you misunderstood what post I was referencing?

Talk about being too excited - fricken hilarious.

Quote:Funny you now state so solemnly that there are umpteen thousand anecdotes. Really? They could be umpteen thousand absolute morons who dont realize that they may have needed to register, but you blip over that as well.

Or, it could be umpteen thousand shitbirds who want to vote knowing full well that they havent fulfilled the prerequisites. Again, you blip over that possibility in your oh-so solemn 'umpteen thousand anecdotes' proclamation.

Funny that.

I guess in your mind all the umpteen thousand you so solemnly proclaim as heart-wrenching anecdotes all have the same back story as Larry from Wisconsin.

Ok? You're making a lot of inferences about what I was trying to say or what is in my mind.

Look at my initial reply to your comment about anecdotes (post 10618) - you'll see how I said "I have primarily seen people discuss studies evaluating the potential or actual effect of voter ID laws and not single individuals' anecdotes."

So, in my mind, there has been actual work done to evaluate the effect of these sorts of laws that can quantify the number of people affected. I stated there were 14,000 anecdotes in Michigan as a play on your argument about anecdotes being the evidence "trotted out."

Quote:I suggest you both read AND remember what you said, ya' dingus. (or just leave off the completely unnecessary, and rather hilariously bad, extra curricular language at the end).

My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Uh, you actually said:

" But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

I think you need to show us objective proof of how bad Voter ID laws inhibit voting, come to think of it....."

You said nothing about the prevalence of using these as the LEDE, but rather that they were the evidence. And then you asked for objective proof, which Big gave you.

And then I chided him on the inclusion of the Larry sob story. You know, the very extraneous Larry sob story. The Larry sob story that is seemingly within every progressive comment or argument on the subject. I guess you didnt see that.....

Dude, can you not handle admitting you were wrong and overstepped?

There was no evidence I hadn't read all of Big's post, nor yours, and yet you came out and were a dick. Because I obviously read all of these posts if I knew what state the 0.3% you quoted referenced.

Not my fault you got butt hurt that I told you that 0.3% of Michigan's 2016 voters was ~14,000 people and they all have their own anecdote.
[/quote]

It was mainly your (continued) pompous, preachy, and pious comment about umpteen thousand anecdotes --- all the while when you know nothing about any of them, to tell the truth.

(01-22-2020 04:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And *surprisingly* (not) one of the pieces that was brought out was the heart-wrenching saga of Leroy from Wisconsin. Thus the reason for my comment. You apparently blipped over that. Too excited to get off the oh-so solemn ode to anecdotes, I guess. Well perhpaps let's look at that as well.

No it wasn't! The quote from you (post 10616) was from a post before Big's that referenced the Wisconsin anecdote (post 10620).

Why not just say you misunderstood what post I was referencing?

Talk about being too excited - fricken hilarious.

Quote:Funny you now state so solemnly that there are umpteen thousand anecdotes. Really? They could be umpteen thousand absolute morons who dont realize that they may have needed to register, but you blip over that as well.

Or, it could be umpteen thousand shitbirds who want to vote knowing full well that they havent fulfilled the prerequisites. Again, you blip over that possibility in your oh-so solemn 'umpteen thousand anecdotes' proclamation.

Funny that.

I guess in your mind all the umpteen thousand you so solemnly proclaim as heart-wrenching anecdotes all have the same back story as Larry from Wisconsin.

Ok? You're making a lot of inferences about what I was trying to say or what is in my mind.

Look at my initial reply to your comment about anecdotes (post 10618) - you'll see how I said "I have primarily seen people discuss studies evaluating the potential or actual effect of voter ID laws and not single individuals' anecdotes."

So, in my mind, there has been actual work done to evaluate the effect of these sorts of laws that can quantify the number of people affected. I stated there were 14,000 anecdotes in Michigan as a play on your argument about anecdotes being the evidence "trotted out."

Quote:I suggest you both read AND remember what you said, ya' dingus. (or just leave off the completely unnecessary, and rather hilariously bad, extra curricular language at the end).

My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Uh, you actually said:

" But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

I think you need to show us objective proof of how bad Voter ID laws inhibit voting, come to think of it....."

You said nothing about the prevalence of using these as the LEDE, but rather that they were the evidence. And then you asked for objective proof, which Big gave you.

And then I chided him on the inclusion of the Larry sob story. You know, the very extraneous Larry sob story. The Larry sob story that is seemingly within every progressive comment or argument on the subject. I guess you didnt see that.....

Dude, can you not handle admitting you were wrong and overstepped?

There was no evidence I hadn't read all of Big's post, nor yours, and yet you came out and were a dick. Because I obviously read all of these posts if I knew what state the 0.3% you quoted referenced.

Not my fault you got butt hurt that I told you that 0.3% of Michigan's 2016 voters was ~14,000 people and they all have their own anecdote.

It was mainly your pompous, preachy, and pious comment about umpteen thousand anecdotes, all the while when you know nothing about any of them, to tell the truth.
[/quote]

So you responded to my tongue and cheek comment by saying I need to read (even though it was abundantly clear that I did)?

Seems like a really weird response - but hey, if your preferred clapbacks are incorrect non sequiturs, you do you.

Actually Lad, you responded to only one half of the post that you quoted in full.

Yep I misconstrued what you replied to.

Still doesnt detract from your pompous and preachy attitude. Please do tell us how all those anecdotes do, when you are playing the maudlin violin so fing hard for them.....

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

Is he running for office this year?

With respect to impeachment, THE issue is that Trump only pressured Ukraine because Biden is likely to be his opponent in the election.

Between testimony during the impeachment hearings (like the testimony that made it clear the Biden angle was a personal/campaign matter and not official US policy), Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption effort in Ukraine (his admin has cut Ukrainian anti-corruption funding), and Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption efforts at home and abroad, it is clear that all he wanted was some political leverage.

BFD. So what. Aren't you the guys that sent Steele to did up dirt from russians?

If you are going to act holier than thou, best to be a little holier, at least.

Is it alleged to be bribery or treason? No. Is it a high crime? No. to be so, it would first have to be a crime.

Just leaves misdemeanors. What's a misdemeanor? Is acting up in class a misdemeanor?

(01-22-2020 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes, you provide the heart wrenching single case anecdote that you chastise OO for previously. Good grief....

Chastise? Good grief yourself. I didn't chastise, I just said that a single anecdote doesn't move me. If OO had come bearing polls then he would have made his point more effectively, that was all I was saying about the anecdote.

And unlike OO, I came bearing evidence, not just the single anecdote. The evidence demonstrates that voter ID laws had the potential to affects tens- or even hundreds-of-thousands of voters in a single state, depending on the strictness of the law and the population of the state.

(01-22-2020 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To be honest, a .3% rate doesn't seem horribly excessive and such a perversion of justice, apple pie, and everything that you seemingly imply.

Who said it was "horribly excessive or "a perversion of justice"? When did I imply such a thing? I think more citizens participating in our democracy is a good thing. Like ranked-choice voting, I believe this to be true regardless of whether it helps or hurts the left. My anti-hypocrisy principle in action!

Incidentally, while 0.3% doesn't sound like a lot, there have been a number of recent Gubernatorial, House, Senate, and state presidential elections decided by around that amount (or less). And many more state and local elections. I'm not arguing that voter ID laws changed any outcomes, just pointing out the potential in close elections.

2019:
KY Gov - 0.37%

2018:
FL Sen - 0.12%
GA-7 - 0.15%
UT-4 - 0.26%
NC-9 - 0.32%

2016:
MI Presidential - 0.23%
NH Presidential - 0.37%
NH Sen - 0.14%
NC Gov - 0.20%

2014:
AZ-2 - 0.06%

2012:
CA-52 - 0.36%
IL-13 - 0.34%
NC-7 - 0.19%

(01-22-2020 04:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

Is he running for office this year?

With respect to impeachment, THE issue is that Trump only pressured Ukraine because Biden is likely to be his opponent in the election.

Between testimony during the impeachment hearings (like the testimony that made it clear the Biden angle was a personal/campaign matter and not official US policy), Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption effort in Ukraine (his admin has cut Ukrainian anti-corruption funding), and Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption efforts at home and abroad, it is clear that all he wanted was some political leverage.

BFD. So what. Aren't you the guys that sent Steele to did up dirt from russians?

If you are going to act holier than thou, best to be a little holier, at least.

Is it alleged to be bribery or treason? No. Is it a high crime? No. to be so, it would first have to be a crime.

Just leaves misdemeanors. What's a misdemeanor? Is acting up in class a misdemeanor?

lad just told us the only thing that made it wrong was the (D) behind Biden's name and that Biden was running.

Apparently doing the exact same course of events but replacing the coke-whoring son of the then sitting VP with Ted Cruz Jr is hunky dory in lad-town.

When you make that name change and come to such amazingly dissimilar outcomes, it really kind of underlines the sham that is going on. Thank you, lad, for emphasizing that point of difference so startlingly for us.....