GOP Moving the Goal Posts Just in Time For the 2012 Election

[RetiredGySgt]

Amendments to the constitution ARE the constitution. And I know the history about suffrage in the US. And I already pointed out that the states have the power to set voting laws, generally speaking. But the constitution does protect the right to vote inasmuch as it prevents that right from being limited based on certain criteria. Again, this is not the same degree of protection the constitution affords other things, like freedom of religion. But so say that the constitution does not address the right to vote is factually untrue.

Still waiting for some evidence that the decision to change the law was biased, was aimed specifically at Democrats and was somehow not in the best interest of the State.

 

[kwc57]

Amendments to the constitution ARE the constitution. And I know the history about suffrage in the US. And I already pointed out that the states have the power to set voting laws, generally speaking. But the constitution does protect the right to vote inasmuch as it prevents that right from being limited based on certain criteria. Again, this is not the same degree of protection the constitution affords other things, like freedom of religion. But so say that the constitution does not address the right to vote is factually untrue.

So you won't avail yourself of the factual information provided to make an informed decision. How "centrist" of you. Duly noted for future reference.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Still waiting for some evidence that the decision to change the law was biased, was aimed specifically at Democrats and was somehow not in the best interest of the State.

I already told you that's illogical. It's argumentum ad ignorantium. It's not for detractors to prove their detraction. It's for the supporter to prove their support.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting for some evidence that the decision to change the law was biased, was aimed specifically at Democrats and was somehow not in the best interest of the State.

I already told you that's illogical. It's argumentum ad ignorantium. It's not for detractors to prove their detraction. It's for the supporter to prove their support.

NO, one is not required to prove a negative. You made specific claims. One of which is that the Republicans changed the law for political gain. Prove it, provide some evidence.

You made another SPECIFIC claim. That somehow shortening the voting time was a specific determent to Democrats and Obama. Prove the claim.

 

[Inthemiddle]

NO, one is not required to prove a negative.

Yet that's what you're demanding I do; prove that there is no public benefit.

You made specific claims. One of which is that the Republicans changed the law for political gain.

I said that it appears that the move was intended to thwart Obama's earlier tactics in 2008, because there is no apparent public benefit being served, and the only apparent effect the new law can be expected to create is to thwart political tactics that Obama has previously employed.

Prove it, provide some evidence.

I don't have to prove anything. I've given my reasons why it appears as it does to me. That is enough. It's for those who support the measure to show what the purpose is in the first place.

You made another SPECIFIC claim. That somehow shortening the voting time was a specific determent to Democrats and Obama. Prove the claim.

Actually, my second "claim" is that this move appears to be a national trend of the GOP to change state laws with the intent to disadvantage Obama. You want me to "prove" it? Let's get some mind reading machines and we can "prove" it. Or we can simply look at the duck and call it a duck, instead of your asshat arguments that it's really a pretty baby swan deep down inside.

Do not bother replying. Your entire arguments are so damned illogical it's clear that you're nothing but a partisan hack. The GOP could pass a law that requires people to eat their own shit before voting and you'd support it, I've no doubt.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You think you can make specific claims against people, parties and States and that you do not have to provide evidence your claims are true. Then you demand evidence that they are not true. You are a RETARD.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You think you can make specific claims against people, parties and States and that you do not have to provide evidence your claims are true. Then you demand evidence that they are not true. You are a RETARD.

No, it's called logic. You might want to learn about it some time. You're violating it. Argumentum ad ignorantium and reductio ad absurdum.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You think you can make specific claims against people, parties and States and that you do not have to provide evidence your claims are true. Then you demand evidence that they are not true. You are a RETARD.

No, it's called logic. You might want to learn about it some time. You're violating it.

Yup I am violating logic by asking for evidence , proof or corroboration on specific claims made by you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yup I am violating logic by asking for evidence , proof or corroboration on specific claims made by you.

FIRST I did not make a "claim." I expressed my opinion about the motivations behind the law. I explained the reasons for my opinion. I don't have to provide statistics. Because I'm not arguing a statistical subject. This is why you are making irrational claims. Here's another opinion: chocolate is better than vanilla. You want statistics for that too? It's an opinion.

SECOND, it's not my burden to prove the motivations behind the law. That burden is on those who are passing the law. The burden of showing a public benefit is on those who are supporting the law. That is how logic works. You said it yourself, it's illogical to demand proof of a negative. So shut you damned mouth already. You contradict even your own arguments all in a futile attempt to distract attention away from the fact that there is no demonstrable public benefit that is served by this law. That is why you are arguing from ignorance.

But none of that really matters, does it? You're just a partisan hack who is so hellbent on getting Obama out of office and blinded by your own irrational hatred that you simply don't care if laws serve the public benefit or whether your arguments are irrational. All that matters to you is getting your way, like a 3 year old in a candy store who stomps his feet until mommy buys him a sucker.

 

[Sundial]

There's zero evidence that the laws we already have are inadequate, that voter fraud's a real threat, or that requiring people to obtain government-issued IDs would solve anything.

There's plenty of evidence that Pubs would like to prevent certain people from voting, if they can.

 

[kwc57]

There's zero evidence that the laws we already have are inadequate, that voter fraud's a real threat, or that requiring people to obtain government-issued IDs would solve anything.

There's plenty of evidence that Pubs would like to prevent certain people from voting, if they can.

Just as there is plenty of evidence that Dems like to bring illegal aliens and dead people to the polls. See how that works?

 

[kaz]

There's zero evidence that the laws we already have are inadequate, that voter fraud's a real threat, or that requiring people to obtain government-issued IDs would solve anything.

There's plenty of evidence that Pubs would like to prevent certain people from voting, if they can.

There's zero reason not to check ID at the polls in a society everyone already has a valid ID.

There's plenty of evidence that when you restrict voters to people who are alive and allow them to vote only once that Democrats don't do as well in the elections...