Election Integrity (evidence of lack)

Author: ADreamOfLiberty

Posts

Total: 173
#91
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do a cost-benefit analysis on that. What if you're wrong, the right-tribe will submit to a real/proven democracy and you're just barreling on into a civil war for no good reason?
The left tribe are not the ones barreling towards a civil war. This kind of talk only exists in Rightwingville, because right wingers are obsessed with making themselves out to be the hero when the reality is that this is all because they know the world is moving past them.

The idea that we would barrel towards a civil war over disagreements in how far we should go to ensure ballot integrity is absolutely absurd. You have no evidence of widespread fraud, you have no legitimate reason to suspect widespread fraud, and most remarkably every study that has been done on this shows there is no correlation between voter fraud and political ideology. So even if there was voter fraud on a scale where fraudulent ballots surpassed the margin of victory, you still would have no reason to believe that fraud changed the outcome. Thus the idea that we should not accept and respect election outcomes over this is patiently absurd.

That "logic" of yours works just as well in reverse. "If the left-tribe really believed their ideology was popular, they wouldn't be afraid of accurate voting"
Complete strawman and you know that. Nothing I've argued implies in any way that the left is afraid of accurate voting.

Where in all of this do you address the fact that belief in god was nearly universal in certain societies for a long time?
I don't because it has nothing to do with the conversation.
Then I will consider all your statements about burden of proof as moot as you refuse to defend your implicit claims on the subject.
lol yep that sounds about right.

Step 1: Strawman my position. In this case by claiming that I argued believing something for a long time makes it the default position

Step 2: Ignore any response I give showing you how you strawmanned my position. Notice how the very next paragraph I wrote explained what my point actually was and how you didn't bother to include it here anywhere, as if it doesn't exist.

Step 3: Use your own made up version of what I said along with your intentional blindness to my response as an excuse to hand waive away a central point in this debate showing your position to be wrong.

This is what arguing with you is like. But that's fine because it's very illuminating to see the hoops people jump through to believe these things.

you are the one expecting us to proceed as if there is fraud.
You are the ones expecting us to proceed as if there was an election.
Uh, yeah, it's hard to have fraud if no election took place, so looks like my burden of proof has been long satisfied.

Citation please.
Be more specific.
You're arguing that legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election information, and this is what lead to distrust in elections. I'm telling you that's nonsense. There is an easy fix to this, provide the example you are talking about so we can take a closer look.

Yeah, for MAGA that's definitely right.
You basically conceded that MAGA are the real americans.
No, I "conceded" that MAGA's definition of what it means to be a real American is to value guns over democracy. Why you think that's a good thing is beyond me along with the rest of the world.

Because the guy is a crackpot conspiracy theorist whose own family doesn't take his candidacy seriously.
Notice how you get to disclaim RFK at will but refuse to allow me to do the same for Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensburger.
I get to disclaim RFK because he is in fact a crackpot conspiracy theorist and because his beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued.

That is not the case with your position and Kemp/Raffensburger. You are claiming the election was full of fraud and that those in charge of elections (like Kemp and Raffensburger) are actively working to hide the massive fraud that would show Biden lost. Except, aside from being extraordinary and completely baseless and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously, also completely goes against the known political ideology and more importantly against the political interests of these two individuals. So no you don't get to pretend that isn't a serious problem for your position.
Topic's author
#92
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,118
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Do a cost-benefit analysis on that. What if you're wrong, the right-tribe will submit to a real/proven democracy and you're just barreling on into a civil war for no good reason?
The left tribe are not the ones barreling towards a civil war.
Interesting new theory of conflict you got there.


The idea that we would barrel towards a civil war over disagreements in how far we should go to ensure ballot integrity is absolutely absurd.
The idea that people get into wars because they delude themselves about what potential belligerents believe and care about is the most realistic element in any prediction of the future.


You have no evidence of widespread fraud, you have no legitimate reason to suspect widespread fraud, and most remarkably every study that has been done on this shows there is no correlation between voter fraud and political ideology.
We've already established in this thread that you ignore all evidence, all legitimate reasons, and no study can be done on the types of people who commit fraud because no one can possibly have a representative sample since nobody is caught since no useful data is collected or investigated. Your denials may be infinite, but my patience is not and I won't repeat the entire thread just because you pretend nothing happened.


So even if there was voter fraud on a scale where fraudulent ballots surpassed the margin of victory, you still would have no reason to believe that fraud changed the outcome.
Yes, lets just assume completely uniform cheating. Then it doesn't matter how much fraud there is. New message for the public: If you're not cheating, you're not trying!

It hasn't been more than a paragraph since you dared utter: "The idea that we would barrel towards a civil war over disagreements in how far we should go to ensure ballot integrity is absolutely absurd."

The person who doesn't care if anyone knows how much fraud or what bias the fraud might have dares to call warnings about the collapse of the American experiment over this issue absurd.

This is going in the list. Who was saying you had reasonable political opinions or something like that? @Wylted? I sure can pull the crazy out of you can't I?


Nothing I've argued implies in any way that the left is afraid of accurate voting.
They act like it regardless.


you are the one expecting us to proceed as if there is fraud.
You are the ones expecting us to proceed as if there was an election.
Uh, yeah, it's hard to have fraud if no election took place, so looks like my burden of proof has been long satisfied.
Putin and Stalin, the most democratically elected leaders in history :)


You're arguing that legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election information
No, I'm arguing that people broke laws requiring elections to be transparent; which was highly suspicious and by Occam's razor is the simpler explanation for loss of faith in American elections.


There is an easy fix to this, provide the example you are talking about so we can take a closer look.
You've already admitted you thought election transparency laws were "giving into conspiracy theorists", there is nothing that need be proved on that point.


Yeah, for MAGA that's definitely right.
You basically conceded that MAGA are the real americans.
No, I "conceded" that MAGA's definition of what it means to be a real American is to value guns over democracy
It's you vs MAGA and the bill of rights on this one. If following the constitution isn't the definition of being American nothing is.


Because the guy is a crackpot conspiracy theorist whose own family doesn't take his candidacy seriously.
Notice how you get to disclaim RFK at will but refuse to allow me to do the same for Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensburger.
I get to disclaim RFK because he is in fact a crackpot conspiracy theorist and because his beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued.
lol ok, you get to disclaim people because you're just that correct about everything. Fair enough. I take the same privilege.


You are claiming the election was full of fraud and that those in charge of elections (like Kemp and Raffensburger) are actively working to hide the massive fraud that would show Biden lost
They don't have to actively do anything except fraudulently claim the election was accurate on official documents and in public.


also completely goes against the known political ideology and more importantly against the political interests of these two individuals.
The political interests of those two might just be to keep themselves in power in Georgia.


So no you don't get to pretend that isn't a serious problem for your position.
Sure I do. "They're crackpot conspiracy theorists" there we go now I don't have to explain anything. Crackpots aren't rational after all. You claim that you must know they would do anything to keep Biden from being unduly elected regardless of personal consequences or beliefs but they're crackpots so who knows?
#93
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The left tribe are not the ones barreling towards a civil war.
Interesting new theory of conflict you got there.
Asserting one side as an instigator of a conflict is not interesting or new. It's common sense. Well, to the rest of us.

We've already established in this thread that you ignore all evidence
You haven't provided any. You've even admitted that your claim isn't that widespread fraud occurred but that it's possible, so there's not even anything for me to ignore.

Moreover, you're just lying as usual. I haven't ignored anything you've provided. I've explained to you in far more words than you've bothered to type in response why your examples are meaningless and what would need to happen to make them meaningful. You don't address any of that because you have no response other than to retreat to the abstract which you always do, probably because it's much easier to strawman me that way.

no study can be done on the types of people who commit fraud because no one can possibly have a representative sample since nobody is caught since no useful data is collected or investigated.
Then you have no evidence.

I'm not buying your premises, just pointing out the conclusion of yours.

Yes, lets just assume completely uniform cheating. Then it doesn't matter how much fraud there is.
Another strawman

The person who doesn't care if anyone knows how much fraud or what bias the fraud might have
Another strawman

This is going in the list.
Your strawman is famous. Congratulations.

You're arguing that legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election information
No, I'm arguing that people broke laws requiring elections to be transparent; which was highly suspicious and by Occam's razor is the simpler explanation for loss of faith in American elections.
Translation: 'legislators changed the laws to hide crucial election information'

That's what you're implying by saying it's suspicious. If you didn't think that is what might be going on here there would be nothing suspicious about it.

Stop tap dancing and just own your position.

You've already admitted you thought election transparency laws were "giving into conspiracy theorists", there is nothing that need be proved on that point.
Yes and now I'm giving you the opportunity to provide the example that proves that point wrong but you passed. I wonder why.

It's you vs MAGA and the bill of rights on this one. If following the constitution isn't the definition of being American nothing is.
The constitution says black people are 3/5th's of a person and that the only people who get to vote are rich white men. Would believing that make me a "real" American in your view?

I get to disclaim RFK because he is in fact a crackpot conspiracy theorist and because his beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued.
lol ok, you get to disclaim people because you're just that correct about everything. Fair enough. I take the same privilege.
What a stupid and childish response.

Here, I bolded the part of my post that was far more important but for some reason you missed.

The political interests of those two might just be to keep themselves in power in Georgia.
Ah. So according to you, ignoring all of the Democratic cheating that changed the results and won Joe Biden the state was all part of the plan for the top two republicans in the state to get reelected. Got it.

Not going to pretend you just made a serious point.
Topic's author
#94
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,118
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
We've already established in this thread that you ignore all evidence
You haven't provided any.
Like I said...


It's you vs MAGA and the bill of rights on this one. If following the constitution isn't the definition of being American nothing is.
The constitution says black people are 3/5th's of a person and that the only people who get to vote are rich white men.
Questionable on the first, wrong on the second; and a red herring regardless. There is no current amendment which makes voting for the president a right. It is therefore not a constitutional right.


Would believing that make me a "real" American in your view?
Knowing what is in there would get you closer.


Not going to pretend you just made a serious point.
I too have run out of pretend-dust.
#95
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,531
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I think Trump will move to Moscow after he looses the election.
#96
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
#97
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Yes, I believe it will be a loose election as well.
#98
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Questionable on the first, wrong on the second; and a red herring regardless. There is no current amendment which makes voting for the president a right. It is therefore not a constitutional right.
It's not a red herring, you know that. You are trying to argue that believing inthe right to a gun is more fundamental to being a "real American" than believing in the right to vote, and your justification for this opinion is that it's what the constitution puts first. And yet like I already pointed out, that same document you are holding up also explicitly does not consider black people as full people and limits voting to a specific segment of white men.

You either believe that this document is the defining metric of what real American looks like or you don't.
#99
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,531
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

Sorry, I meant Trump will move to Moscow after he looses abortions before the next election.
#100
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
I agree, the laws are very loose.

Make laws great again.
#101
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
explicitly does not consider black people as full people and limits voting to a specific segment of white men.
You either believe that this document is the defining metric of what real American looks like or you don't.
Only a partisan hack would say today's Constitution currently states this. (As if sec 2 of the 14th amendment doesn't exist.) "DID"...yes..."DOES"...get some better gaslighting talking points from crony establishment sir. Voting rights were never granted universally, or there would be zero restrictions on voting. It's not even debatable. Putin can't just send 10,000 KGB agents to fill out absentee ballots to interfere in an election. Well maybe they can, but they have no constitutional RIGHT TO VOTE.

#102
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,531
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

I told you to not buy DJT stock.

Trump's "Truth Social" Stock Crashes as Soon as Market Opens  (4-8-24)
#103
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
It's ok, the US Treasury will cover the losses just like it does in Ukraine.
#104
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,531
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

You can call me Bernie.
#105
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW

A great movie about Joe Biden. Excellent choice sir.
#106
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Only a partisan hack would say today's Constitution currently states this.
No one here suggested that.

get some better gaslighting talking points from crony establishment sir. Voting rights were never granted universally, or there would be zero restrictions on voting.
No one said voting rights were granted universally (by which you clearly mean to every living breathing person in the country).

Read what I wrote and I'd be happy to enlighten you on what you are missing.
Topic's author
#107
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,118
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
"DID"...yes..."DOES"...
No, it never "DID".

Representative apportionment was reduced for slaves, it was ridiculous to give the slave states any seats based on populations that weren't allowed to vote; but it certainly wasn't even close  to a statement about percentage of person hood or even explicitly about race. Natives (not taxed) were excluded entirely.

Also the completely false part was always completely false: no restrictions on voting based on race or sex were ever in the constitution.

#108
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Agree, it's laughable to think a slave got to cast a 3/5 vote. Or that a slave was 3/5 a free person with rights and 2/5 a slave.

Dred Scott SCOTUS case specifically said a slave wasn't a person, nor 3/5 a person.
#109
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, it never "DID".

Representative apportionment was reduced for slaves, it was ridiculous to give the slave states any seats based on populations that weren't allowed to vote; but it certainly wasn't even close  to a statement about percentage of person hood or even explicitly about race.
The 3/5th compromise was about apportionment and not a statement of personhood, but the entire reason why it's in the constitution is because slaves were not considered people, so to pretend that's some kind of logical leap to get from one to another is ridiculous.

When a document codifies that slaves will only count as partial people for the purposes of apportionment, that is at the very least a direct and explicit sanction of slavery as an institution.

So back to the point here, you are holding up a document that sanctions slavery as the end-all-be-all arbiter of what defines a "real" American, so if you are being consistent then you too must sanction slavery, and yet it appears you don't.

So just call this argument what it is; an attempt to sheild your views from moral and philosophical scrutiny as well as critical thinking by hiding behind a document you don't fully accept yourself.
Topic's author
#110
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,118
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
The 3/5th compromise was about apportionment and not a statement of personhood, but the entire reason why it's in the constitution is because slaves were not considered people, so to pretend that's some kind of logical leap to get from one to another is ridiculous.
"I'm wrong, but somehow I'm still right"

The reason why it's in the constitution is because the abolitionists couldn't form a union where no slave is considered in apportionment. Counting any part of a population that can't vote with representatives is simply solidifying the status of the enfranchised population as the true masters and motivates increasing  the population of non-citizens for political power.

Sound familiar? Yea they're doing it again. There are seats in congress right now representing  illegal aliens who have NO RIGHT TO VOTE. End result? Fewer people have more representation if they live next to non-citizen yet  apportionment worthy people.

Imagine a state with five slave holders and 10,000,000 slaves getting the same congressional representation as a state with 10,000,010 free men.

That means 5 slave holders have the same say in congress and in POTUS as 10,000,010 freemen.

That's not a statement of "personhood" but of profoundly undemocratic privilege.


When a document codifies that slaves will only count as partial people for the purposes of apportionment, that is at the very least a direct and explicit sanction of slavery as an institution.
Look up the word "explicit". Contrast with "implicit"

If it was explicit it would contradict the 14th amendment, but it doesn't. We still apportion 3/5 of the representatives to those held in service. There just aren't any (officially).


So back to the point here, you are holding up a document that sanctions slavery as the end-all-be-all arbiter of what defines a "real" American
What happened to all that "rule of law" nonsense you prattle on about so long as your biases are being stroked by "the law"?

You tried to pearl clutch with "constitutional rights", you didn't care about a real constitutional right. End of story.


So just call this argument what it is; an attempt to sheild your views from moral and philosophical scrutiny as well as critical thinking by hiding behind a document you don't fully accept yourself.
I never said I accepted the document. I've only ever said it's the closest thing to a real social contract we have. It's the thing that causes people to give a shit what people in NYC or Los Angeles want instead of just shooting  them when they come streaming out desperate for food.

You are the one who tried to shame me for daring to slightly impede what you falsely called a "constitutional right".

You want to disclaim the constitution? Absolutely fine by me, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. We wouldn't have to argue about whether governments have to prove they held legitimate elections because we would both agree election outcomes have no significance whether rigged or genuine.
#111
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"I'm wrong, but somehow I'm still right"
No, you're correct on a technicality but wrong on the entire point of the conversation. That was obviously what I was saying.

I never said I accepted the document. I've only ever said it's the closest thing to a real social contract we have.
You tried to argue that gun rights are more fundamental than the right to vote, and went as far as to claim your views reflect what it means to be a "real American" while mines do not. And your support for this notion? Argument based on sound and consistent moral or philosophical principals? No, but 'because the constitution says so'. Now you claim you never said you accept the document. Talk about having it both ways.

What happened to all that "rule of law" nonsense you prattle on about so long as your biases are being stroked by "the law"?
I never said the constitution wasn't the constitution.

The rule of law is just that, rules that are followed not only in governing our behavior but in how we deal with those who break them. Those were all followed in the examples we argued over, yet you not only pretended they weren't, but went way further as to claim the individuals appointed by these rules to enforce them didn't have that authority (because you said so) and that no one should follow them (because you said so).

Don't sit here and pretend what you did is remotely similar to my pointing out to you that your own standard for what qualifies as a real American fails according to your views.

You want to disclaim the constitution? Absolutely fine by me, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I did nothing of the sort, and if you were paying attention to this conversation you would know that.
#112
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Rules for thee but not for me is the current state. We currently do not live in the time when America was Greater than today.
Topic's author
#113
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,118
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I never said I accepted the document. I've only ever said it's the closest thing to a real social contract we have.
You tried to argue that gun rights are more fundamental than the right to vote
Vote for POTUS, I didn't just try; I succeeded.


Argument based on sound and consistent moral or philosophical principals? No, but 'because the constitution says so'.
That's what "constitutional right" means, "what the constitution says". Who said "constitutional right"?
#114
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Now you're just distorting the conversation. Let's go back to post 92 where this began:

No, I "conceded" that MAGA's definition of what it means to be a real American is to value guns over democracy
It's you vs MAGA and the bill of rights on this one. If following the constitution isn't the definition of being American nothing is.
So here you argued that the constitution and the principals enshrined within it is the metric by which a "real American" is defined. And you did this because I disagreed with you on the notion that the right to own a gun is more fundamental than democracy itself (or more specifically the right of everyone to participate in it).

So I pointed out how this very same document you are holding up and this sacred metric sanctions slavery. But you didn't seem to want to own that principal.

Either the constitution as it was written is your metric or it is not. Pick one.
#115
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The founding fathers hated democracy so much they set up a branch of unelected judicial officials to ensure tyranny of the majority would not be the default.

It's profoundly un-American to try to destroy the checks and balances on democracy that the founding fathers put in place.
#116
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
What does any of this have to do with the conversation?

#117
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
And you did this because I disagreed with you on the notion that the right to own a gun is more fundamental than democracy itself (or more specifically the right of everyone to participate in it).

#118
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you go by the actual words in the Constitution, the 2nd A says "shall not be infringed"

The 15th says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Which implies there are other conditions where you can infringe on the issue of voting, else why make a laundry list? The constitution does not say clearly the right to vote shall not be infringed. Period.
Topic's author
#119
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,118
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Now you're just distorting the conversation. Let's go back to post 92 where this began:
Let's go to #46 where this began:

The right wing ethos is that none of this matters, which is my point. It's easy when you already have a job, a car and a license. For many people it's not easy despite the fact that we're talking about something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

That something being voting for POTUS.

You claimed that any impedance of proof, fee, or paperwork is violating that right. I will concede that point if you apply the principle equally.
#120
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,219
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Let's go to #46 where this began:
Post 46 is irrelevant to this conversation. You took the position that the right to own a gun was more fundamental to being a "real American" than the right to vote. A ridiculous position in my view, but one you are entitled to hold and defend. But when challenged to defend it, offered nothing more than holding up the constitution, to which it was then pointed out that doing so is pure hypocrisy so long as you are unwilling to defend every other principal in it - which you are not.

Me pointing out that your defense of your position is hypocrisy, is irrelevant to whether my defense of voting rights is valid.

The right wing ethos is that none of this matters, which is my point. It's easy when you already have a job, a car and a license. For many people it's not easy despite the fact that we're talking about something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

That something being voting for POTUS.

You claimed that any impedance of proof, fee, or paperwork is violating that right.
No, I didn't. I argued that any *unnecessary* impedement to voting was a *practical* violation (ergo the specific phrase I used - "practical disenfranchisement"). There will always be costs on some level associated with voting, my point from the start has always been about the balance between maximizing civic participation and minimizing fraud. Meanwhile your position which you've expressed multiple times is that the former is simply not a value and the latter is all that matters. That is where our disagreement has been.