re: Populism (and Dobbs) is the basis for "muh democracy" rants and ravings from the DEMs

quote:

---

Because people keep trying to push it off the rails.

---

do you think you're the first person to ever construct an argument such that you tried to dictate the ground on which your opponents must argue such that the conversation is rigged from the start? I mean seriously do you think you have happened upon some brilliant new rhetorical device? It's kind of pathetic really

quote:

---

No partisanship detected

---

there's nothing partisan about wanting policies that maximize election security. It's not my fault that the other party doesn't seem to want those policies. There was a time in the past when they claimed they did. It wasn't that long ago they were issuing some of the same gripes that conservatives issue now. There's always more than one argument to anything. Using your toddler approach would require literally dismissing every argument available because they would all be considered partisan. That's childish

quote:

---

there's nothing partisan about wanting policies that maximize election security

---

It can be partisan, especially when you literally follow up this noble ideal with a partisan commentary about the policies

quote:

---

It's not my fault that the other party doesn't seem to want those policies.

---

And again.

quote:

---

Using your toddler approach would require literally dismissing every argument available because they would all be considered partisan.

---

This thread isn't discussing "every argument available" because it's not discussing "every topic available"

quote:

---

You don't get to ignore history or reality. Separate but equal was constitutional for a period of our country. That's just a fact

---

Which amendment removed it from the Constitution?

quote:

---

nothing in Robert's Rules allows the originator of an argument to dictate the content of the opposition but nice try

---

Am I a moderator deleting comments? No.

Then your "argument' is without merit

quote:

---

that's not what you're trying to do.

---

You are a mind reader on the level of a Liberal

quote:

---

You are trying to in advance take off the table all arguments that could potentially be made against your primary point.

---

Not in any way, shape, or form.

quote:

---

feel free to point me in the direction of any Democrats that are currently proposing increasing election security.

---

Partisan doesn't imply it has to be GOP-friendly exclusively.

quote:

---

You know the point he's making and the point he's making is perfectly valid.

---

Only if Plessy was a bad ruling, hence asking if he was a Plessy-denier.

quote:

---

Regulations like requiring voter ID, restricting felons from voting, etc. consolidate power by restricting a disproportionate amount of opposition from participating. That is a fact.

---

That is an absolute bald faced lie

quote:

---

you have to have an ID to vote, then that's restricting everyone who doesn't have an ID.

---

quote:

---

You just like the policies that help your team so you want to pretend they're noble

---

There is no way you can argue for no voter ID if it isn’t specifically to help your own “team”. None.

I mean are voter roles seen as a restriction? Having to actually register to vote?

Pushing not having to have an ID to vote is pushing for cheating. It’s a simple mitigating control to reconcile the voters available to the ones that actually vote.