It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement, the administration has been pretty clear about this. I asked you to also consider the other angle, it doesn't somehow invalidate the president's objective.
the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed?
Tell me, what is the correct procedure for this, under the US Constitution?
I don't care about the correct procedure, I'm only interested in the disenfranchisement angle. So, how does "It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement" square with the overwhelming majority of democracies also restricting mail-in voting? Is it only disenfranchisement when Trump does it?
I'm not making my case "for Trump", I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic. If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution.
What other countries do is completely immaterial.
I disagree. I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis. In any case, following this change, voters in the US will be no more disenfranchised than voters in France, Iceland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, and every single country in South America (except Guyana and Suriname), where they have no voting by mail whatsoever.
You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly. Maybe you are just a firm supporter of ideological consistency.
I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic.
Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that this is his intention. I agree that restricting voting by mail is not inherently undemocratic although restricting ballot access is almost always going carry disenfranchisement. Regardless, you cannot claim that restricting voting by mail cannot possibly be a means of disenfranchisment, with plenty of very obvious examples. Since we already know that is the goal here, you're using the dumbest possible opportunity to make a pedantic argument. It's like making a case for communism by talking about how great Kim Jong Un is.
I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis
If you're making a definitional argument then the status quo is immaterial. If you are worried about poor Trump getting unfair treatment, it's a worthwhile thing to point out. But you aren't doing that! Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery with the goal of keeping power.
If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution.
I never claimed the US Constitution determines whether or not something is democratic outside its borders. In any venue, for something to be democratic it ought to follow the rule of law.
You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly.
Maybe keep your attempts at mindreading to yourself. I'm concerned that secure voting is being treated unfairly.
Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that [disenfranchisement] is his intention.
I couldn't find claims to that effect. All I found was that he claimed it was to secure elections, and his critics claimed it would result in disenfranchisement. Perhaps you could be kind enough to share your source?
Though regardless of what his intent is, the result will be parity with France and Iceland. I support good laws passed for bad reasons, and oppose bad laws passed for good reasons. The state of politics is not so great that I could be so picky to demand good laws also have good intentions behind them. This is the same.
a pedantic argument.
Right, the minor detail that a majority of democracies disallow vote by mail. How silly of me to get hung up on this tiny technicality.
Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery
The method and intent by which a policy is enacted, does not change the effects of that policy. But I'm sure you'll find some clever new way to avoid arguing about the policy itself. But you'll have to argue with someone else, I've humored you long enough.
Comments
Lol, "are you going to issue a correction!?!"
It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement, the administration has been pretty clear about this. I asked you to also consider the other angle, it doesn't somehow invalidate the president's objective.
Tell me, what is the correct procedure for this, under the US Constitution?
I don't care about the correct procedure, I'm only interested in the disenfranchisement angle. So, how does "It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement" square with the overwhelming majority of democracies also restricting mail-in voting? Is it only disenfranchisement when Trump does it?
Quite simply because that is both the intent and the effect. What other countries do is completely immaterial.
You mean constitutional procedure. Which is something you out to pretend to care about while you're making your case for Trump.
I'm not making my case "for Trump", I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic. If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution.
I disagree. I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis. In any case, following this change, voters in the US will be no more disenfranchised than voters in France, Iceland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, and every single country in South America (except Guyana and Suriname), where they have no voting by mail whatsoever.
You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly. Maybe you are just a firm supporter of ideological consistency.
Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that this is his intention. I agree that restricting voting by mail is not inherently undemocratic although restricting ballot access is almost always going carry disenfranchisement. Regardless, you cannot claim that restricting voting by mail cannot possibly be a means of disenfranchisment, with plenty of very obvious examples. Since we already know that is the goal here, you're using the dumbest possible opportunity to make a pedantic argument. It's like making a case for communism by talking about how great Kim Jong Un is.
If you're making a definitional argument then the status quo is immaterial. If you are worried about poor Trump getting unfair treatment, it's a worthwhile thing to point out. But you aren't doing that! Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery with the goal of keeping power.
I never claimed the US Constitution determines whether or not something is democratic outside its borders. In any venue, for something to be democratic it ought to follow the rule of law.
Maybe keep your attempts at mindreading to yourself. I'm concerned that secure voting is being treated unfairly.
I couldn't find claims to that effect. All I found was that he claimed it was to secure elections, and his critics claimed it would result in disenfranchisement. Perhaps you could be kind enough to share your source?
Though regardless of what his intent is, the result will be parity with France and Iceland. I support good laws passed for bad reasons, and oppose bad laws passed for good reasons. The state of politics is not so great that I could be so picky to demand good laws also have good intentions behind them. This is the same.
Right, the minor detail that a majority of democracies disallow vote by mail. How silly of me to get hung up on this tiny technicality.
The method and intent by which a policy is enacted, does not change the effects of that policy. But I'm sure you'll find some clever new way to avoid arguing about the policy itself. But you'll have to argue with someone else, I've humored you long enough.
Lmao imagine not being familiar with the concept of discretion.