Can we take the print using permanent purple ink? Then I’m all for it too. No ID needed, just a clean middle finger on the right hand. Besides preventing voter fraud, it gives people a whole new way to say “Look, I voted!!”.
(Yes, I suppose we’ll need a fallback finger-order to accommodate amputees. But then we open ourselves up to voter fraud by multiple votes. All you have to do is cut off that finger…)
I’m okay with letting someone that hardcore vote ten times. Or 20.
Or 21!!!11 :eek:
OK, but after toe prints, we go to forehead print. That should set an upper bound for fraudulent votes at 21 
Aw, I can never stay mad at you!
Yes, to me it seems the fingerprint is cheaper than issuing ID cards, provides greater proof for a prosecutor, and as you say would be intimidating only to someone with something to hide.
I wonder what the** most likely** explanation for Wright’s comments could be:
a) Black strangers were smuggled into small towns in Maine where they had been secretly registered to vote in order to cast false ballots for Obama, thus ensuring his win in this critical swing state.
b) Wright is relying on poor information from sore losers who are not familiar with their own black neighbors in their area.
Which of these is most likely do you think?
I guess though that stories like this ( and other nonsensical stories being circulated by the sore losers) are contributing to the “loss of confidence in the system” by the public.
So do you still think that “loss of confidence” is a valid reason to institute voter ID, when it is clear that the problem ID is trying to address (confidence) is actually a problem that is being created by the same people who want voter ID to surpress turnout?
Why raise suspicion with black voters? They couldn’t find any pale skin communist agents?
If there were any real, genuine problem with in-person voter fraud, and if preventing it were the legitimate reason for wishing to enact voter ID laws, and sufficient time and effort were put into designing a system whereby anyone and everyone who was eligible to vote could easily and at no cost to them, acquire the necessary ID prior to a major election, I doubt you’d have many objecting to the concept or the execution.
But people who aren’t twisted partisan hacks have been able to see through the transparent efforts at Democratic voter suppression that these laws were actually designed for. And in light of that obvious motivation, and in support of every American’s constitutional right to vote without hindrance, we have maintained, correctly, that these laws should be struck down as unconstitutional until such time as all efforts to make ID 100% available to the voting population is complete.
The same goes for cutting early voting hours and locations (along with cutting locations where ID would be made available):
Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law
"Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.
"Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
‘The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,’ Greer told The Post. ‘It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’’ Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
‘They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,’ Greer said. ‘It’s all a marketing ploy.’"
Subterfuge. A ploy. Anyone who supported this effort ought to be ashamed of themselves. Especially those inventing excuses and jumping through convoluted hoops to justify it. It’s downright unAmerican.
If I knew it was that kinda Fraudulent Party, I’da stuck my …
I’m sure it would violate some protected class if you suggested that males might get one extra shot at fraudulent votes. But hey, whatever cranks your giggle box! 
Me, I’d have turned honest long before the count got to 3.
Gee whillikers Shayna, Jim Greer says it, it must be so.
Because as a former chairmen, naturally he has no motive to discredit Republicans.
Does he? Does he have any motive to discredit Republicans, Shayna? That you know of?
Watch out, Shayna! Its a trap!
Eh? What could be more American?
Greer is a conniving, thieving, fuckwad; pretty much the definition of being a Republican Party operative. If anyone would know just exactly how conniving and thieving those in his inner circle are, it would be him.
I notice you completely disregarded the fact that the observation was echoed by Charlie Crist.
But I guess you’re ready to impugn him, as well, since he realized just exactly what cowardly, conniving, thieving fuckwads his former Party was filled with, and dumped them for the better Party, right?
You’re a real piece of shit, you know that, don’t you?
I don’t think you can call him that, because you don’t know the legal sufficiency of the evidence.
Or, alternatively, you failed to fully and completely describe the shit. The english language is nuanced and complex you know, and there are a lot of very descriptive words you could have used.
Color me gullible, but when David Brock wrote The Real Anita Hill (which opened with Brock’s “I began this project with an open mind”), I believed it. :smack:
Brock’s subsequent confession that he was instead a lying whore the whole time awakened me. I mentioned to this to a right-wing acquaintance who said “How do you know he was lying in the book? Maybe he’s lying now!” But there’s a blatant fallacy there, based on
[ul][li] We do know at least one of the statements is a lie.[/li][li] What’s the motive?[/li][/ul]
AFAIK, my acquaintance’s fallacy doesn’t have a name: can anyone articulate it better?
Maybe Brickhead knows his fallacy’s name. Nahh… He’s good at producing fallacies, but it isn’t even clear he knows they’re fallacies. :dubious:
How about it, Brickhead? Are you a clever troll that’s been parodying right-wing idiots the whole time? Are you saying stupid things for fun, hoping some Dopers will fall for them? I used to think you were relatively smart: Is it really possible you don’t even know how stupid some of the things you say are?
That’s exactly what the courts have stated must happen with these ID laws. Why, then, are you still objecting to them?
Here in PA, prior to the election, there was an informational campaign that was initially telling everyone that they needed to show an ID in order to vote. After the court decision, they continued with essentially the same campaign, slightly modified, so that if you paid attention you would notice it said you would be asked to show your
ID, but could still vote anyway.
Since the election, there has been no informational campaign about how to obtain sufficient ID in order to vote next time.
I’m simply shocked. Why would they put so much effort in to making people believe they needed ID to vote prior to the election, and none in to helping people to get the ID after the election?
Bricker, if the Commonwealth of PA does nothing to help inform people about getting an ID, or otherwise facilitates
the process prior to the next election, would you still be content with that? Would you have any concern that the whole thing was a partisan scam?
No, he’s free to change parties without being impugned by me.
It’s his subsequent criminal trial for theft and embezzlement that has me doubting his basic honesty.
Shockingly, you failed to mention that aspect of his life. Probably ran out of room, didja?
What’s the fallacy?
See, to me – and I know this is crazy talk to persons such as yourself – someone who’s in the middle of a criminal trial for embezzlement from his former bosses has a motive to talk bad about his former bosses.
I can talk bad about anybody you care to mention without lying. Must be a unique skill that I have.