Christianity Today Op Ed

[lilpixieofterror]

You didn't. He apparently took your sarcasm to be a statement of your actual beliefs. Whether his mistake was feigned or genuine is hard to say, but knowing ox, I suspect the former.

It’s truly bizarre really, “You expect them to be adults, responsible for their own actions and choices, for shame racist!!” Which is itself, racist since all it assumes is the minority community is too dumb to care for themselves and need help from the rich, educated, white folk to do anything in life. One of my favorite commanders (who was a black, full bird) said, ‘Expecting high exceptions is how you get high performance,’ I try to follow that and expect all my airmen and junior NCO’s to perform at their best. Minorities don’t need rich, educated, whites to lift them up, they need them to always expect the best and nothing else.

[Sam]

IIRC Technomage's issue was he was missing some paperwork needed to get the ID (i.e., to prove his identity) which itself cost money.

Yes; he did not have the appropriate ID that would be required under Strict Voter ID policy, did not have the money to obtain the documents necessary to get one without forgoing a month's worth of medication, and could not make the hour+ trip to the place he had to obtain the documents.

His personal account, which at the time was corroborating reports and studies being used to show this is a widespread problem with people in many states incorporating Strict Voter ID, was disregarded. And, here again, we still see people using the "it's free" or "it's easy to get" canard just the same as the first time.

--Sam

[Sam]

For what it's worth, I'm not sure I could have hoped for a better proof-of-concept from several of the people here. Same old deflections, same old faux-outrage, same old refusal to deal with the question of balancing election security against disenfranchisement. Pointing out that in-person voter fraud remains vanishingly rare -- and voter impersonation even rarer still -- is just as futile now as it was back in 2011.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

Yes; he did not have the appropriate ID that would be required under Strict Voter ID policy, did not have the money to obtain the documents necessary to get one without forgoing a month's worth of medication, and could not make the hour+ trip to the place he had to obtain the documents.

His personal account, which at the time was corroborating reports and studies being used to show this is a widespread problem with people in many states incorporating Strict Voter ID, was disregarded. And, here again, we still see people using the "it's free" or "it's easy to get" canard just the same as the first time.

--Sam

And not a single Democrat offered to help TM with any of these things. It's far easier to use him as an example of "it's NOT easy" than to actually do something about it.

[Sam]

And not a single Democrat offered to help TM with any of these things. It's far easier to use him as an example of "it's NOT easy" than to actually do something about it.

This is untrue.

[Bill the Cat]

This is untrue.

No it isn't.

[Sam]

No it isn't.

If that's how you feel about it, by all means.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

If that's how you feel about it, by all means.

--Sam

It's not how I feel. It's the facts.

[Sam]

It's not how I feel. It's the facts.

No, again, it's not. And unless you're omniscient, you wouldn't be making such a categorical claim.

[lilpixieofterror]

For what it's worth, I'm not sure I could have hoped for a better proof-of-concept from several of the people here. Same old deflections, same old faux-outrage, same old refusal to deal with the question of balancing election security against disenfranchisement. Pointing out that in-person voter fraud remains vanishingly rare -- and voter impersonation even rarer still -- is just as futile now as it was back in 2011.

--Sam

Studies based on 2016 and 2018, most couldn’t find a difference in minority turn out, and few that did, showed less than a 3% difference. If this is such a massive problem, you should be able to show just a few republicans that won due to voter ID laws. Do you have even one? In fact, your statement that minorities were stupid and needed rich, educated, white people to lift them up is as racist as you can get. There is one person dodging and deflecting alright.

[Jaecp]

Sam, I think I'm out. We've reached peak TWeb

[DivineOb]

Studies based on 2016 and 2018, most couldn’t find a difference in minority turn out, and few that did, showed less than a 3% difference.

3% is HUGE! If it was even 0.5% of White Christians you'd be screaming bloody murder (as would I).

Last night you agreed that voter suppression was wrong and should be condemned wherever it occurs. Will you now join me in condemning laws which led to such a drop in minority participation?

[lilpixieofterror]

3% is HUGE! If it was even 0.5% of White Christians you'd be screaming bloody murder (as would I).

Last night you agreed that voter suppression was wrong and should be condemned wherever it occurs. Will you now join me in condemning laws which led to such a drop in minority participation?

Half of them, showed none at all. You should know (as well as I do) that sociological studies are not nearly as set in stone as harder science studies are. It’s curious though that you ignored that part and decided to latch onto the part that told you things you wanted to hear...

[Mountain Man]

3% is HUGE! If it was even 0.5% of White Christians you'd be screaming bloody murder (as would I).

Last night you agreed that voter suppression was wrong and should be condemned wherever it occurs. Will you now join me in condemning laws which led to such a drop in minority participation?

I love it when people say, "Oh yeah? Well, if X was the case, then you would be doing Y!" with Y just happening to be supportive of whatever point you're trying to make.

[DivineOb]

Half of them, showed none at all. You should know (as well as I do) that sociological studies are not nearly as set in stone as harder science studies are. It’s curious though that you ignored that part and decided to latch onto the part that told you things you wanted to hear...

Given our shared loathing of voter suppression I'm sure you'll agree that any indication that a law reduces voting must solve a significant and pressing issue in order to justify its existence. Taking this into account the fact that *half* of the studies showed a decrease is extremely alarming, especially given that these laws solve a problem which *doesn't* exist. Doubly so given that we have Republican officials admitting that traditionally Republicans have engaged in voter suppression, so we don't have to speculate as to why they exist.

Truth time: If we moved the election to Sunday and found a reduction of 0.5% in voting among White Christians in half the studies with no studies finding a "counterbalancing" increase in voting among White Christians wouldn't you have questions? Wouldn't you want to know if the solution was worse than the problem. I would and I'm certain to get an electoral result I'd prefer with such a law in place.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.