It is a fact because you say so! Illogical reasoning at its zenith.
*read, but omitted to get under character limit*
I've read them, which is in part why I know what is in them, and why they do not reach as far as you portray them here. I read them, which is why I knew there were facts and a judge's opinion of what those facts say, what those facts do, what those facts accomplish, how those facts operate, and admittedly I knew it was likely you'd confuse the difference between facts and a judge's interpretation of them, a judge's reading of them, a judge's opinion of them, which you did. The error has always been with your argument and calling people liars, lazy, etcetera, doesn't diminish the innumerable reasoning errors in your posts.
Another word fort trying to play semantic word games. My favorite part is your complete lack of understanding of the definition of the word "likely". Only in your world does the word "likely" means someone believes the opposite of what the say, despite the overwhelming evidence of context proving what they mean. Unreal how you are continuing to twist and bastardize the English language because of your intense refusal to admit you were wrong.
You didn't read the links. This is all but certain. You asked for examples, I gave them to you. Now you're left to playing the "well he could have meant this" card, when he clearly did not mean that because he said he did not mean that. He further went on to note the FACTS I related to you, facts which are not "because someone said so", but rather facts which anyone who lives in reality recognize as facts.
At the end of the day, this law disproportionately affects low income voters (which, when combined with the disproportionate number of minorities who are low income, is the reason the law was struck down), not because I or a judge said so, but because census data, maps, math and other non-opinionated FACTS say so. I understand you don't understand the meanings of words. I get you don't understand how $100 means a lot more to a poor person than a rich person (percentages are harder for some people, I guess). And I know geography seems to be difficult for you. But at the end of the day, I have MORE than proven my position this disproportionately affects low income voters and have also more than refuted your ridiculous assertion of "because someone said so". I mean, for goodness sake, even the state's own attorneys didn't argue it wasn't a burden, only that it wasn't a "severe" burden. Hell, they even tried to use the fact it was a burden on poor people as part of their case!
Verdict said:
Significantly, Texas disputes none of the facts underlying this conclusion—not the $22 cost for a birth certificate, not the distance between DPS offices, not the poverty rates for minorities in Texas, not the disproportionate vehicle access rates. Instead, in a hodgepodge of arguments, Texas seeks to downplay SB 14’s impact, contending, in essence, that the law’s retrogressive effect will not be particularly severe
...
This brings us to Texas’s second—and primary—argument. Relying on the literal language of section 5, which prohibits states from “ denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,” or “ because [a voter] is a member of a language minority group, ” 42 U.S.C.§§1973c(a), 1973b(f)(2) (emphasis added), Texas argues: The “effects” prong of section 5 does not extend to laws that merely have a disparate impact on the races. It allows courts to deny preclearance only if the effect of SB 14 is to deny or
abridge the right to vote “on account of ” race or color, or “because of ”one’s membership in a language minority group.52 Texas Proposed Findings, ECF No. 202 at 44.
According to Texas, if SB 14 denies or abridges the right to vote at all, it does so “on account of” factors like poverty or lack of vehicular access. To be sure, these factors may correlate with racial minority status, but because disenfranchisement is proximately caused by something other than race, Texas contends, this court may not deny preclearance under section 5’s effect element.
Even the people trying to pass the law agree these are facts. For crying out loud, they tried to use it as their argument, that the burdens felt would be felt by poor people (instead of minorities)! And yet you're still trying to say they are not facts, because you simply can't admit you were wrong. That's rather sad and a little disturbing.
You can try and pretend facts aren't facts because you don't understand the word "likely" is a word related to probability and because an absolute is never guaranteed. But we both know your original position was wrong. All you are doing now is trying to salvage some ridiculous notion of Internet ego, by posting asinine statements I doubt even you believe. Certainly the state of Texas doesn't believe it, because they were arguing the very thing you claim to not be fact.
"Lost"? I didn't know we were playing a game.
Who said anything about a game. We were having a debate. You've lost.
The OP was about racism. My first post to you was asking about the cost of the IDs.
Who cares? You asked me what it had to do with racism, a question I had already answered in my first post of the thread. That's why I told you to read the thread. It's one thing to shut your eyes to the obvious reality around you, but could you at least remember your own words? It sure would make things so much easier.
rof The medical insurance card Obama requires that person to have counts as non photo ID for voting.