3720301398664056
Allow me to quote myself as my premise: Because my position is: they should ALL have a <u>fighting chance</u> for a win, period.
Friend, I was responding to J4rno who was discussing the situation with the inconsistent tire performance which had an effect on the results. My point being, even if they all had great performing tires (after all, they get the spec tires allotted) they'd still be subject to the disparity of the machines. It seems trivial to me to point an inconsistency in tires (when they all have the same specs to choose from accordingly) while the larger issue is the built in disparity surrounding whatever tires used. The reality of the parity is not in question here, it exist, the point was of mere discussion regarding what plays the significant role in results (finishing order, one we have come to 'expect' the question is why...). Now contrast this with the likes of Povo's premise which is affirmation of disparity to be built into the system by any means (power lobbying, collusion, financial leveraging, etc.) Its curious, but Pov sides with the tactics of executives who find creative ways to subjugate the line workers as his life's perspective. Great if he were an executive, but he's a line worker. Its the same why he believes unions are the devil's work (curious indeed). This is the man's starting point, and those of his ilk. You are not providing any insight by pointing out that disparity exists except to the people who don't believe it exist or worse, don't understand its impact (as do several members here). The question is, do riders have a fighting chance? That doesn't mean they all need to be on equal machinery, nor should you interprets it as such. Lets take your analogy in reverse, put Marquez on Broc Parks bike. How many races would he have a fighting chance at a win? We are talking about several tiers of machines built into the system. Sure you are correct in stating the obvious that there is s spectrum of talent, but the way the disparity is stacked in the field today, the assumptions are easily made devoid coupling the finishing order with the disparity of machine. The best I can describe it is this way, its not a foot race, though it seems most people talk about the finishing order as if it is. If we insist on giving all the acolades based on finishing order, lets at least talk about some were running with lead boots and various handicaps and advantages.
Well good sir, my 2 cents.
Simple, because its a form of voter suppression buddy. Are you familiar with Jim Crow laws? At one time there was a literacy test to vote. Sound like a great idea? Of course right? I mean, if you can't read, you won't be "destined to accomplish much in life." Thing is that all these ploys and tactics have little to nothing to do with "fraud" (look it up, you will see its an insignificant issue UNLIKE say election stealing: see 2000 presidential election; Florida). Getting an ID may seem easy enough, like say getting an education "in the richest nation" as you say. But its still a form of voter suppression. Are you familiar with a "think tank"? These are political operatives who literally sit around and "think" of ways they can gain political elections by any means possible. They may sell you on it as combating "voter fraud" ( where none really exist). .... if you want to talk rigging elections, you should see how these "think tanks" gerrymander the game. I don't know how old you are, but do you remember when a rash of advertisements suddenly came out offering you "free checking" accounts? Well, that was produced by a "think tank". You see, through "thinking" about it, they figured out they could get more costumers by offering "free" accounts, but subtly they increased fees and fines. The account holders were screwed. But Pov would say, well they didn't have to get an account. Not recognizing that this is a ploy by executives who employ sophisticated means to screw people. Its not different with the creations of "think tanks" who propose certain requirements that on the surface seem benign.
Yeah, what's the problem with getting a photo ID? Easy right? Just like a literacy test. Whats the big deal? Lets require people pass a minimum reading test, I know how to read. Everyboby should know how to read, right? I can come up with 10 other things voters should be "required to have" seemingly more important than an ID. But like the tires argument, lets put the cart before the horse, shall we. First of all, its not a significant voter fraud problem, so you are solving nothing with requiring IDs. Second, you are being naive if you think this is not purposefully devised to suppress votes. Check out how voter eligibility has changed throughout American history. Pov won't see it, but perhaps you will pick up on a pattern, of attempts to restrict the vote. Its not a coincidence my friend.
