One of the main "story behind the story" bits of this election was how the conservative media completely failed. Dick Morris predicting a landslide? Karl Rove whining to the other Fox anchors about how we shouldn't rush to judgment on Ohio, even though their guys in the backroom just called it? It was really a sad thing to watch.
Conor Fridersdorf pretty much nailed it.
Before rank-and-file conservatives ask, "What went wrong?", they should ask themselves a question every bit as important: "Why were we the last to realize that things were going wrong for us?"
Because they live in a bubble.
It is easy to close oneself off inside a conservative echo chamber. And right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012. Some pundits engaged in wishful thinking; others feigned confidence in hopes that it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy; still others decided it was smart to keep telling right-leaning audiences what they wanted to hear.
But guess what?
You haven't just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven't tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they've done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election.
So why do you keep putting up with them?
My only hope now is that readers of Kevin Baker's site (and other right wing blogs) will realize that all the talk of impending Armageddon is failing them as well.
63 comments:
There are a lot of reasons why Romney lost, and why conservative media failed to predict it. But perhaps the biggest reason is that Democrats were able to turn out voters at a high rate in places that Republicans didn't think they'd be able to.
An article on Slate discusses how the Obama campaign won Ohio.
Rove was most likely privy to the same numbers that Romney had in Ohio, and they assumed that Democrats would not be able to turn out voters in the numbers they actually did. To quote the article: African-American participation in Ohio jumped from 11 percent of the electorate to 15 percent between the 2008 and 2012 elections. "We could never see that coming. We thought they'd gotten a lot last time."
Now you can see how critical voter suppression tactics are to Republicans winning elections. This is exactly why they've been pushing photo ID laws, eliminating same-day registration and stopping early voting.
Mark asked earlier why turnout is so low, and while the biggest answer is apathy, the path to voting is strewn with numerous roadblocks for millions of Americans: Most people vote only in presidential elections. Some states toss your registration if you don't vote at least every two years. Americans on average move every five years, while renters and low-income people move much more frequently. Registering to vote in most states must be done months before election day, long before most people are paying serious attention to the election. If you move close to an election you're not going to be able to vote anywhere.
Voter turnout in Minnesota this year was 76%. We have same-day registration at the polls. In one precinct in my city a quarter of the voters (mostly renters) registered on election day. Same-day registration requires a photo ID and proof of residency in the precinct. Voter fraud is a felony, and every same-day registration is checked, so fraud almost non-existent: the only documented cases of in-person "fraud" in Minnesota have been paroled felons who mistakenly thought they were eligible to vote (in fact, they can vote in two states, but not Minnesota).
Ohio doesn't have same-day registration on election day, but it does for early voting. Still they managed to get 62% turnout.
That's why that guy in Pennsylvania said photo ID was going to win the state for Romney. That's why they constantly scrub voter rolls in Florida of black and Democratic voters. That's why Republicans were trying to limit early registration in Ohio in predominantly black counties. That's why Romney was blindsided in Ohio, and why Rove was so flummoxed when Fox News called Ohio for Obama.
Rove thought the fix was in to suppress Democratic votes in Ohio, and just could not believe that Obama was able to get those lazy SOBs to actually register to vote in time and haul their asses off their couches in front of their welfare-paid-for flat-panel TVs.
It is their caricatures that Republicans have of Democrats, blacks and Hispanics that caused them to lose the election.
to actually register to vote in time and haul their asses off their couches in front of their welfare-paid-for flat-panel TVs.
Yep, that's what they think, don't they? Another classic in the bubble perception that cost them the election.
Kevin Baker's site (and other right wing blogs)
TSM isn't right-wing, but you keep saying it is. You just can't get out of that us or them mentality can you?
And yet 85% didn't vote even with the massive Obama "get out the black vote" effort. Wonder why that was?
That's why that guy in Pennsylvania said photo ID was going to win the state for Romney. That's why they constantly scrub voter rolls in Florida of black and Democratic voters.
I'm all for suppressing ILLEGAL voting. Why do you support it? And why aren't you up in arms over the votes of those in the military being supressed?
Because it's not illegal voting and that's a "how long have you been beating your wife" question, Noni.
We all know what this photo ID nonsense is all about and the people in my state (as well as the courts in others) have rejected it. It was a nice try but you lost. Time to come terms with reality.
Illegal voting:
• Voting in more than one state.
• Voting more than once.
• Voting as someone else, living OR dead.
• Convicted felons voting.
• Coercing someone to vote as you want.
• Paying someone to vote as you want.
Those are all FELONIES under Federal law. That means they're ILLEGAL.
You've apparently forgotten the meaning of yet another English word. Here, let me help you:
Illegal
1. forbidden by law or statute.
Oops, forgot one:
• Non-citizens voting.
Violations of Election Laws
Do you think any of these actions are acceptable in any fashion, Mark?
These are great examples of why you guys lost this election, Noni. You live inside of bubble and believe only what you want to believe. People looked at the things you were saying and saw that they weren't true. They sure did in my state. No problem if you want to continue to believe this stuff as that simply means you are going to lose election after election.
People looked at the things you were saying and saw that they weren't true.
What the heck does that mean? What does "they" refer to? Are you claiming that it's not against the law to do these things?
Are you claiming that it's not against the law to do these things?
No, he's saying that when it benefits the Dems it is good. Now, if it happened to benefit the Reps then it would be bad.
I'm surprised you have that much trouble understanding M.
No, I'm saying that there is very minimal evidence of voter fraud based on the facts. In person voter fraud is very rare and absentee is only slightly more prevalent.
It's just not happening and you are clinging to these falsehoods because you are in denial about the electorate. The changes don't favor your ideology and it's only going to get worse...unless you change, of course, which is likely not to happen.
So, continue to play make believe, if you like, but it's obviously not going to do you any good.
No, I'm saying that there is very minimal evidence of voter fraud based on the facts.
But I didn't make that argument! I'm addressing the basic principle of what is illegal voting.
Stop arguing with those goddamned voices in your head and start addressing MY posts!!!
God damn Mark you are dense.
There's no evidence of cockroaches in the cupboards when you don't open the door and look.
But I didn't make that argument! I'm addressing the basic principle of what is illegal voting.
C'mon, Noni, I know where you are headed with this. It's a weasel question...again! What a shock...
I know where you are headed with this.
Oh, so now you're claiming to be a mind reader again. That's voices in your head, Mark. (You can't do it at all, and you suck at pretending you can.) No wonder you're not surprised. When you read your own mind instead of actually talking to the person in front of you, you're NEVER surprised. When you ask yourself the questions, you will always get the answer you expect!
Even if we were to go beyond basic principles (not my current plan), you still can't skip the basics because that's how logic WORKS. If you get ANY step wrong, or skip any step (as you're trying to do), then you are practically GUARANTEED to come up with an illogical answer. (Go ask one of your fellow math teacher how well skipping steps works.)
One thing is crystal clear from this exchange so far: You are actively avoiding answering this question:
Do you think any of these actions [voting actions which are against the law] are acceptable in any fashion, Mark?
So now the question becomes, why are you so anxious to avoid answering this question? Since you refuse to answer it yourself, that leaves speculation as the only way to get an answer.
I think it's because you think those voting actions should be legal. You have no problem with non-citizens, dead people, and felons voting in American elections. I think you have no problem with people voting more than once, voting as someone else, or coercing people to vote the way you want them to vote. I think that the reason you are actively avoiding condemnations of illegal voting is because you like illegal voting, but you just don't want to admit it publicly.
Now I could be wrong. But it seems to be the most likely reason given your active refusal to answer for yourself. So if I'm wrong, then answer the questions. Otherwise, continued dodging just suggests that I'm right.
(formerly known as A. Noni Mouse)
Look, Noni, you know that I think that those things are wrong. Then you say that's what the Democrats are doing and you present me with some magical proof from a right wing blog and then wonder why I support breaking the law. It's a tiresome game. Voter fraud is not a problem in this country. Give it up, dude.
Look, Noni, you know that I think that those things are wrong.
Funny how you don't make any effort to agree that such things ARE wrong. You make a great effort to avoid agreeing with that - only doing so, in a backhanded way (lest any of your liberal friends catch you at it) as a last resort.
you know that I think that those things are wrong.
No. I don't know that's what you think. Neither one of us can read minds, and I freely admit that fact (unlike you). As far as I can remember, you have never said that such behavior is wrong. And even this statement is loaded with weasel words. It's about "knowing" what you "think", not a clear statement that such behavior is wrong.
Here's what I do know:
1. You've actively twisted, and dodged, and done everything possible to avoid saying that those behaviors are wrong, violate the law, and that they should be against the law. Simply extracting this weasely statement from you has required constant pressure. Those are not the actions of someone who clearly thinks such behavior is Wrong.
2. You are the one who frequently champions adding more and more regulations to business to proactively prevent certain actions. Yet at even the slightest mention of adding regulations to make sure the most important civic duty available to the average citizen is carried out honestly and fairly, you go balls-to-the-wall in arguments against such regulations. First off, that's hypocritical to suddenly be anti-regulation when coming from such a "pro-regulations" guys. Second, it means that you consider illegal voting to be less wrong than, say, businesses earning a profit. Again, your actions are not those of someone who thinks they're wrong.
So again, are you capable of giving a clear statement that the actions described above are Wrong? Do you agree that they should remain illegal?
Noni, you're just pissed off because I know where you are leading me. You ask weasel questions and then when I don't answer them, you get to make points 1 and 2. How about trying something different...like starting with the facts?
There is no widespread voter fraud in the United States which essentially makes your list meaningless. Why are you even bringing it up?
There you go again; trying to skip a crucial step, not to mention twisting, dodging, doing whatever you can to avoid making a clear statement that vote fraud is Wrong.
It doesn't MATTER what does or does not happen if you don't see it as Wrong. It could be happening in every single polling place in every single state, and it would still not matter if you don't think it's Wrong.
Your ACTIONS scream that you like vote fraud because it benefits your side. And by "actions" I mean that you seem constitutionally incapable of making a clear statement like "yes, vote fraud is wrong."
In other words, when you say:
There is no widespread voter fraud in the United States
while you actively avoid saying that voting multiple times, or as someone else, or as a non-citizen is Wrong, then it seems as though you are weaseling by saying, "even though those things are happening, they're not vote fraud, so there is no vote fraud…".
The foundation must be build before the house. The fundamental principles about what "fraud" is must be established before discussing whether or not there is "fraud".
I know where you are leading me
You know you'd be better off pretending that you don't know what a dishonest child you really are.
There is no widespread voter fraud in the United States which essentially makes your list meaningless.
There is no widespread murder either - so I guess we shouldn't bother calling that wrong and illegal.
Have either of you noticed that we are no longer talking about actual incidents of voter fraud? Just talking about me with a dash of in the bubble stuff. See, this is why you guys lose elections. And will lose one after another:)
Oops, I forgot. Why don't either one of you put up that photo of that New Black panther guy and blow a bowel about voter irregularities? That's one of my favorites!
we are no longer talking about actual incidents of voter fraud?
I never started talking about actual incidents.
Dodge, spin, twist, wave hands, move mirrors, shift goalposts; anything to avoid agreeing that the listed actions are vote fraud and are Wrong.
Might as well admit it, Mark—since your actions are doing that anyway—you like vote fraud.
Here's how this would work, Noni.
1. I say I agree with your list.
2. You post links from right wing pundits and blogs and say, "See? These things are happening that you agree are wrong. What's the matter with you? You just agreed they were wrong and now you don't. Are you flip flopping?"
So, skip to the part where you post your (ahem) evidence that these things are going on across our great nation and I'll evaluate whether or not they are wrong. Try to do it without your usual childish baiting and adolescent behavior.
On second thought, maybe you should. Where's that photo of the New Black Panther? That worked so well for you guys in the election recently.
Here's how this would work
Oh looky. Yet another "hypothetical" instead of saying that "Yes, these actions are FRAUD and are Wrong." (And in so many words, admittedly skipping a fundamental step in logic.)
You're still arguing with the damned Voices In Your Head™. (And losing even to them; which is really funny!)
Why can't you admit that these are Wrong? This isn't supposed to be a controversial point! Anyone should be able to say those actions lead to invalid elections and should not be permitted. But you absolutely REFUSE. It sure seems like you like vote fraud.
So, skip to the part where you post your…
This part is REALLY funny! You try to tell me what my own argument should be. No! I'm not a damned Voice In Your Head™! Get that through your thick skull!!!
But the funniest part of all is how to clearly expose to the world your prejudice for all to see.
…(ahem) evidence…
That's right, a textbook example of Prejudice:
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
You have literally decided before you even know what I'm planning to bring up (and you don't), that it's not valid. Admit it, Mark. You're a dead obvious bigot and partisan hack. Though you claim to be a "critical thinker", your blind prejudice and denial of even simple logic and reality demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are the exact OPPOSITE of a critical thinker: a blind ideologue full of fantasies and wishful thinking.
Or I figured out your little game and now you are stomping down the hallway to your room to read Ayn Rand:)
Nope. Not a big fan of Ayn Rand.
C'mon, Mark. Why can't you admit those things are Wrong? What's that projection you use against us, something about saying anything to win? Apparently YOU are so terrified of the thought that I'm right (and thus might win the argument) that you're digging in your heels and refusing to admit to the obvious answer to what should be a simple, uncontroversial question? You are clearly the one doing anything to win, no matter how foolish and irrational.
YOU are so terrified of the thought that I'm right
Yeah, I'm really quaking in my boots, dude. After the JD of the guy you voted for in 2000 and 2004 found out there was no real voter fraud going on in the country.
Again, just skip to the part where you direct me hotair, biggovernment or redstate and "reveal" how your list has been happening all along. Don't forget the photo of the New Black Panther (s) !
Yeah, I'm really quaking in my boots, dude.
Actions speak louder than words.
It's simple, Mark. You flat REFUSE to confirm the patently uncontroversial and fundamental concept that things like voting multiple times, voting as someone else, voting as a non-citizen, or many other actions I previously described, are Wrong and Fraud.
You also deny that there is any motivation for this active refusal. So what's left? Just this:
#12 The "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response.
You seem to think voting multiple times is just fine/not fraud as long as it's Your Side doing it.
You seem to think voting as someone else is just fine/not fraud as long as it's Your Side doing it.
You seem to think non-citizens voting is just fine as long as it's Your Side doing it.
You seem to think it's just fine to prevent some voters from voting as long as it's Your Side doing it.
Have I missed anything?
Only your evidence of this rampant wrongdoing regarding voter fraud:) Any day now...tick tock...
Get this straight!
I
AM
NOT
A
VOICE
IN
YOUR
DAMN
HEAD!!!
You do not get to demand supporting evidence for arguments I have not made. My focus has been on the basic, foundational principle. You REJECT that fundamental principle.
Your complete dishonesty (in both that you like vote fraud and in how you argue) is clear for all to see.
There is no truth in you.
Is this where you were going to point me?
http://www.barackofraudo.com/
Hmm....
No.
I am not the Voices In Your Head.
There is no truth in you.
Funny, because his accusations pretty much match your list.
Gee, what a surprise. Me pulling a list off the top of my head (and minimal research into what the law says) of actions which can be easily identified as vote fraud sort of matches someone else's list of what vote fraud is. What are the odds of that? If it's not 100%, it's knocking on the door.
Yet you still refuse to agree that such things are fraud.
BTW, I had never heard of that site until you posted a link. You keep arguing with the Voices In Your Head. Will you ever start being honest?
Yet you still refuse to agree that such things are fraud.
20 comments or so ago from me...
Look, Noni, you know that I think that those things are wrong
So, I did agree once. Do I have to do it again just so you can be extra super duper sure?
Now that that is all settled...your next point is?
you know that I think
And in my response to that I pointed out that these are weasel words. Your statement was not a clear "these things are wrong", it was about what I am supposed to think about you.
And after hammering you again, and again, and again, and again, and again on this point, both before and after that statement, you still REFUSE to make a clear statement.
Now that that is all settled
Settled? By you referring back to that evasive muddled comment that I already responded to and still not making a clear and simple statement? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You are soooo funny!
Nope. Still not honest and straightforward.
My statement was "not a clear those things are wrong" even though I said "of course I think those things are wrong?" Wow. And you chide me for not understanding what words mean...
I get that you don't want to budge, Noni. That is how you folks are, after all. But I think it's time you made your next point lest your cheese fully slip off your cracker.
even though I said "of course I think those things are wrong?"
But that's not what you said! Hell, you even quoted what you did say! So now you're pulling the Humpty Dumpty response to claim that "you know" and "of course" mean exactly the same thing!
That is how you folks are, after all.
Mark, you define unwilling to budge in ways I never thought possible. If you really meant "of course", then all you had to do was say, "Sorry I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was…" and that would have been the end of it. But nooooo, you couldn't do that. No, not the high and mighty, never budge in the slightest, stiff-necked to the core, "I am a legendary rock in my own mind" Marxaphasia! Being clear and straightforwardly honest isn't possible to you. Instead, you spent DAYS dancing and dodging like you are desperate to avoid touching a live wire.
Since you seem to forgotten my response to your weasel words, here it is again. Try reading for comprehension this time:
--------------------
No. I don't know that's what you think. Neither one of us can read minds, and I freely admit that fact (unlike you). As far as I can remember, you have never said that such behavior is wrong. And even this statement is loaded with weasel words. It's about "knowing" what you "think", not a clear statement that such behavior is wrong.
Here's what I do know:
1. You've actively twisted, and dodged, and done everything possible to avoid saying that those behaviors are wrong, violate the law, and that they should be against the law. Simply extracting this weasely statement from you has required constant pressure. Those are not the actions of someone who clearly thinks such behavior is Wrong.
2. You are the one who frequently champions adding more and more regulations to business to proactively prevent certain actions. Yet at even the slightest mention of adding regulations to make sure the most important civic duty available to the average citizen is carried out honestly and fairly, you go balls-to-the-wall in arguments against such regulations. First off, that's hypocritical to suddenly be anti-regulation when coming from such a "pro-regulations" guys. Second, it means that you consider illegal voting to be less wrong than, say, businesses earning a profit. Again, your actions are not those of someone who thinks they're wrong.
So again, are you capable of giving a clear statement that the actions described above are Wrong? Do you agree that they should remain illegal?
--------------------
Are you even able to shock me? Are able to clearly say those actions are Wrong without sounding like O. J. Simpson?
I can do this all day, Noni, and sooner or later, you're going to have to make your point. The only dodging going on here is you so, since I agreed above by saying, "I think that those things are wrong" what's your next point after that?
I would think that all of your frustration about "voices in my head" would then be put to rest because you could then "prove me wrong" by showing that my following comments were way off in characterizing you.
So, what is your point, since we agreed several comments ago that those things are wrong? Where are they happening? What is your evidence? Facts? Unbiased sources? If you come back with more dancing and talking about me, then I guess we'll know that you have nothing:)
There you go again. By saying "I agreed above by saying", and "we agreed several comments ago" you are weaseling again. It's yet another way of saying "C'mon, let's just pretend I said it and move on."
Why can't you simply be honest and say it straight out?
If you come back with more dancing…
You're the one dancing monkey boy. I'm just staying put and rubbing your nose in your own shit until finally stop taking a dump all over the floor.
As for "nothing", I've got plenty of places to go from here. But I'm starting with the something that's right in front of us: your fundamental dishonesty on this foundational point.
Plenty of places, huh? Then why the stall and the obsessive focus on me? Thus far, you've given no reason to think that you actually have any evidence. Let's see if we can get the ball rolling with the first item on your list...voting in more than one state. Now, I seem to recall Ann Colter doing that a few years back. I could be wrong but that is illegal, no doubt, right? And very, very wrong:)
Is this the evidence you have? Or is it something else?
Then why the stall and the obsessive focus on me?
Because you're continuing to act like a weasel. You're doing more dancing than the Moscow Ballet. You're being more evasive than James Bond with an army of bad guys shooting at him. You're playing more word games that Johnny Cochran and Slick Willy Clinton put together.
It makes no sense to build a step-by-step argument when you REFUSE to acknowlege Step One. So far, you've posted 17 comments covering nearly a week where you've done everything possible to avoid making a clear statement that certain actions relating to voting are Wrong. How else am I supposed to take that except that you're a lying weasel who actively runs from the truth?
The next item on your list is voting more than once (also wrong and illegal). Other than the usual sites that "reveal this hidden problem," I found no evidence that this is happening on a widespread basis. Maybe one case here and there?
Anyway, this is kinda fun doing your work for you. You want to take the next one? By the way, where does this fall on your list?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/virginia-voter-fraud-case-expands-to-focus-on-gop-firm/2012/11/02/76285252-24eb-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html
I think this is wrong and illegal.
There you go again, trying to skip Step One: Agreeing to the basic principle. You're also still trying to argue with the Voices In Your Head™.
I think this is wrong and illegal.
Define "this". Anyone voting more than once? Or only when the GOP does it? And per your previous comment, anyone voting in more than one state? Or only when a conservative does it?
You're still equivocating, Mark. You're still writing as though you support a double standard. (Which is alive and well in just about everything you write.) Stop trying to get fancy. It's not working.
Are the things I mentioned in my list (among other things) always Wrong, no matter who does them?
That's now 18 times that you've dodged. There is no truth in you.
Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge:
The third item on your list is voting as someone else alive or dead. Wrong and illegal. Also, not happening with any significance anywhere...unless you live in the bubble and believe James O'Keefe's psychosis.
A couple of other things to consider....first, as the site owner, I track who reads this site and where. No one is reading this thread except us and juris, Noni. The game you are playing is essentially for me alone. Kinda weird if you think you are trying to win or convince someone of something. I've gone throught three items on your list and said they were illegal and wrong. You have yet to present your evidence for any of them which more or less says you only have ring wing blogs as your "proof."
The other thing I find fucking hilarious is how conservatives like you who claim to be anti-authority are, in fact, closet fascists. Every post from you is an exercise in getting me to obey your will...sorry, VILL. What's up with that?
The third item on your list is voting as someone else alive or dead. Wrong and illegal.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! After more than a week and 18 comments, you actually admitted that one type of vote fraud is actually wrong without any evasions, weasel words, or double standards. Congratulations!
But then you had to go and ruin the celebration by immediately following it up by exposing your intense and active prejudice with a "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" statement, followed by the genetic fallacy. We've been over this before, Marxy. Prejudice is the opposite of Critical Thinking. And "fallacy" means that the argument is NOT. VALID, PERIOD.
The game you are playing…
You're the one playing the word games (it is soooo incredibly tempting to call you a well-earned name here), not me. You are the one who took more than a week to be even a tiny bit straightforward on what should have been an uncontroversial question. Can you honestly say that degree of evasiveness is not "playing games"?
…is essentially for me alone.
I'm trying to get you to UNDERSTAND. Are you telling me you're a lost cause? You're aggressive evasiveness and time wasting certainly suggests such a conclusion.
I've gone throught three items on your list and said they were illegal and wrong.
And only ONE of those was not desperately vague. Yes, I noticed that you did NOT answer the clarifying questions I asked.
closet fascists
Is that what you call your students when they ask you to clarify something you said?
Only you, Marxy, could call the necessity of every single step in a chain of logic being valid "fascism". Only you could claim the necessity of intellectual assent and agreement on (what should be uncontroversial) basics before moving on to the next level in a debate is "force".
If it's really just the two of us, can't you actually try a little honesty for a change?
You've clearly agreed on One activity as always wrong. How about the rest of them?
The fourth item in your list is convicted felons voting. Here we get into a states' rights issue as some states allow it and others don't. My view is that it should be up to each state whether or not to make it illegal. For my own state, I think the law is just fine (they can vote upon completion of sentence). If you are the consevative you say you are, then the only state you should concern yourself with is yours.
Of course, the in the bubble world says this why Al Franken won in 2008 which is likely why you brought it up, right? In the real world, it's simply not true.
Hello? Hellllooo? Is this thing on?
Apparently I'm not even here anymore.
Those Voices In Your Head are all you hear.
Pathetic Mark. Just pathetic.
The fifth item in your list is coercing someone to vote as you would vote. I guess I don't see how this is wrong or illegal. What are the circumstances? Since you refuse to give any more details and continue to obsess over me responding in a the exact way you want me to ("You are disobeying my VILL!"), I can't judge this one accurately.
This means, of course, that I have to admit I was wrong when I said, "These things are wrong." That implied that they all were wrong and now it's clear (based on the last one as well) that only some are wrong and illegal.
Look up the definition of coerce. Do you still not see how it is wrong?
guardduck stole my answer.
Coerce
There is a small area for clarification in coercion. And there is definitely room for clarification in discussing voting by convicted felons. But…
Why should I answer your clarification questions since…
A) …you are refusing to answer mine?
B) …you seem to be ignoring what I write anyway?
C) …you seem to be more interesting in arguing with the Voices In Your Head™ than with me?
D) …you've apparently decided to simply talk past me instead of actually engaging in discussion?
E) …you've spent more than a week playing devious word games to avoid even simple agreement on simple basics that should be uncontroversial?
The next item on your list is paying someone to vote they way you want. I'd say that's wrong and illegal but how do you prove that it occurred? That could be a pretty slippery slope when you consider what form "payment" would take. It's the same problem with the coercion issue. Take the pro-life movement, for example. The whole concept of that movement is to coerce people to vote for pro life candidates and even buy their votes, right?
And there is definitely room for clarification in discussing voting by convicted felons.
Uh...what? From your list...
• Convicted felons voting.
followed by
Those are all FELONIES under Federal law. That means they're ILLEGAL.
Well, that seems to be quite the switch there, Noni. I wasn't going to say anything about this (I am a nice guy despite the in the bubble myths about liberals) but your list above has a glaring error in it. It is not a illegal to vote if you are a convicted felon in some states.
A) …you are refusing to answer mine?
B) …you seem to be ignoring what I write anyway?
Well, I'm not answering you in the way you want me to (you are disobeying my VILL!) but I am going down your list and saying whether or not your items are wrong/illegal. That IS what you requested, no? Or has that changed now.
Anyway, we've come to the end of the list so let's review.
Voting in more than one state, Voting more than once, Voting as someone else, living OR dead-illegal, wrong, and not happening in the United States in any sort of significant numbers
Convicted felons voting-Not illegal in some states and not really wrong in my view after one has finished his sentence. Again, I stand by my state's law on this one and have no say in other states' laws.
Coercing or paying someone to vote as you want-we need more clarification here but I would say that buying votes is illegal and wrong. Since you have continued to refuse to elaborate or offer evidence, I can't really comment further without more information.
Your original statement above was
I'm all for suppressing ILLEGAL voting. Why do you support it? And why aren't you up in arms over the votes of those in the military being supressed?
Since there really isn't any illegal voting going on, I don't think there is a need for laws to try to stop it (which I said many times above). I have commented on each of your points and illustrated that, while some are illegal and wrong, they aren't happening or aren't even illegal. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the military points being suppressed.
So, now it's your turn to present your evidence. No right wing blogs...no biased sites...what makes you think these things are happening? Where is your evidence?
.....Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it only took two freaking weeks to clarify your own position. Yet you still wonder why all discussions eventually center around you and your juvenile antics.
Sheesh.
Actually, all I did was come back to my original comment and repeat myself over and over again while Noni tried to figure out what to do after he realized I was three steps ahead of him. Usually, I would mind wasting so much time waiting for evidence and unbiased facts but this time around I appreciated the break from the family (love them but geez...) and I honestly feel bad for you guys after the election with your bubble shrinking and all.
Three steps ahead huh? Yeah.
Mayhaps the repeated requests to stop arguing with the voices in your head would have provided a clue that what you thought he was saying and was going to say was not what he was actually saying or was actually going to say.....
But keep patting your back and reveling in your cleverness.....
Well, I repeatedly asked Noni what for his position and evidence. He chose to obsessively keep the focus on me. In fact, look several comments above for the opening I offered him to prove me wrong and show that I was, in fact, arguing with VIMH.
repeatedly asked Noni what for his position and evidence.
No. You repeatedly asked noni to present the facts to back up the position that you said he had. Not the position he was attempting to present.
prove me wrong and show that I was, in fact, arguing with VIMH
Uh, how about when he said you were arguing a position he was not in fact trying to present? Yup, that pretty much proves that you were arguing with yourself.
Post a Comment