(07-15-2021 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 09:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im not the one staunchly against equal access. Pointing out that you are is 'bile'. Got it.


each is an element in voter access. More to come in later point in this fisking


Just like your mind numbingly shallow distinction on 'discrimination' I see. Your previously stated stance on 'various races de jour only farm funding' was that it was (stupidly) not subject to being called 'discrimination' because 'it wasnt an impediment, but was an added opportunity'. Same false point you make in this case, lad.

In this case, when you open the doors time-wise to a group at an option that *will* and *cannot* be met by all jurisdictions, you also act in the relative sense to diminish the voting power statewide to other groups. That is the fundamental reason, and across the 50 states mind you, why states have enacted *uniform* poll hour laws.

But, here comes the lad 'selective definition hour' where an addition cant be bad.


Again, I previously used the term 'diminished the power of other counties'. That is the best description. Please use it properly. Or, please change the golapost.


Basic English and math lad. When you change the goalpost from 'dilute the power of other counties' (as has been used before) to 'excluded' -- you would be correct. Changing the hours in Harris County does not 'exclude' voters in Crane County. What it does do is dilute the other's vote.

But, please feel the need to use an improper verb continuously to make your strawman argument oh so much more effective.


One might imagine non-standardized voting hours to have a much more significant effect on voting. Even in the shitbird counties that dont have or know about Kinkos or are clueless that cell phones can capture and store images. Please put your real world thinking cap on.

And perhaps actually read the news from time to time. Texas actually requires minimum polling place access requirements. As do most jurisdictions. Texas makes an attempt to to keep those numbers in rough balance due to such voter *dilution* issues.


To be honest, given your stance on what *you* selectively deem to be issues in 'equal access' seem very shallowly time/place/manner dependent.

To be straight, here is your history on 'equal access':

Voter ID -- impediment, based on economics

Non-uniform voting hours, richer jurisdictions may have more ---- completely copacetic on the underlying side effect of voter dilution, based economics.

Basing loans strictly on racial grounds --- completely fine with it.

That is quite the road record and a almost pure definition of a massively fuzzy and fairly confused idea of 'equal access' might be.

The *only* string that ties them together is a complete regurgitation of Democratic talking points, since the direction of 'equal access' seems to be in a unitary direction for you.

Darn, went back on my comment already...

You're blinded by your own sense of moral righteousness and superiority if you think the ONLY string tying those together is a Dem talking point.

In all instances, the specific actions I've came out in support of are meant to help people - not requiring voter ID helps more people vote, providing loan forgiveness to farmers of color helps to reduce burdens, allowing counties to expand voting hours helps voters get to the polls on their schedule.

Or, you know, I'm in cahoots with the DNC. Yeah, that's it.

In all instances, your arguments against those actions hinge on a perceived negative that they do against people that do not either need or receive said benefit. I don't agree with your perspective that it creates a negative if one county allows its voters to vote 24 hours a day, so long as others meet a reasonable floor for access. If other counties want to set up 24 hr polling places, they can elect election officials who will operate them.

I have the same opinion on schools - we should strive to set a good, minimum floor of education. But if a school district wants to invest more heavily in its students, let's let them do so.

Separate but equal also had that underpinning. Glad to know you are for that because it was meant to 'help people'. It was meant to 'help people'. Selectively, and on race as well.

So please keep your dance going there.

If the rationale is solely to 'help people' that is quite the shallow reasoning.

Keep calling it shallow if it makes you feel better.

I have used your in-depth distinction to show that the situation before Brown v Board of Education would be copacetic under the standard you used.

So yes, it is shallow. As long as a program 'helps people' it should be allowable.

Stealing 500k from an intestate, no heirs, dead client would 'help me' --- thus insto presto allowable under your view of things. Interesting.

Or, helping any subset of people, that has no detriment to others, is allowable in that formulation.

So, a city instituting white-only advanced schooling elementary through high school and still maintaining a 'fixed floor' schooling for everyone else is also allowable. Since one is only providing a benefit to one group, that is acey deucey okey dokey in that formulation.

After looking at that, yes, your formulation is simplistically shallow.

Quote:If not, can you explain the argument against more clearly?

Poll times should be as nearly uniform across the state as possible.

If that meant 24 hour voting across the state, then that is uniform.

If there was a floor of, say 20 hours, with allowances to 24, that would be as nearly uniform as practicable.

If there is a floor of 14 hours, with allowances to 24, then there is no way that one can state that uniformity in access to voting is anywhere near equal.

Your idea is, in plain English, if County A can supply more voting to the people, at the expense of diluting the voting by access to other residents in other counties, that is acceptable. In short, one can buy more access to the voting process is what you are in favor of.

If you wish, let's transfer this to the education realm. In your construct, the inherent tax base of the school district should determine what level of education is meted out, subject to some minimal standard.

In this case, Westlake High School should be able to buy more education, and the expense is indirectly borne by people at Akins High, since, they cant pay for that.

That is facially stupid. In fact, Texas has had literally scores of years of litigation precisely on that point.

But, since you are for different levels of 'services' based on inherent wealth, I will take it you are not for the idea and concept of school equalization across the state? Me, I see the reason and rationale behind the school Robin Hood plans. And support them to an extent simply because: in the alternative, the Eanes school district, a vastly wealthy school district, will simply out service every other disrict,

And that, my friend, throws the idea of 'equal access' completely away. Just as your idea of allowing wealthy counties dilute the vote of poorer ones.

But again, my Kinkos and no cellphone camera view of the world actually gives import to the full term of 'equal access under the law'. Not in the situational dependent and/or shallow one that you march forward with. Nor in the one that I have to continuously redefine the term 'racial discrimination' that is the bugaboo panacea that you find yourself in from time to time.

But, I am glad the sole criteria for 'good denial of equality' is that the action in question 'helps people'. And no lad, even by that shallow distinction, the 24 hour vs 14 hour only helps one group of people, and you leave out that it does so in a manner detrimental to those other groups who cant pay for that privilege.

The bolded is a great example of why trying to have an actual conversation with you is so difficult. After throwing as many ad homs and disingenuous arguments against me about supporting racial segregation, you prove a point that you don't actually disagree with the fundamental issue of the "inequitable" outcomes.

You're fine if voting hours differ, so long as your personal line in the sand of what is defined as practicable is not crossed. So it's not about having uniform hours as you have bellowed about. It's about your personal perception of how much the difference in hours matters.

Christ on a cracker. I would have thought, based on your diabtribes, you would not support ANY deviation of polling hours across the entire state. After all, if one county has its polls open 2 hrs longer each day during the voting period, that is diluting the votes of counties that don't...