Any love for DC Heroes?
I played DC Heroes for a bit, and I definitely liked the AP system. Strength AP - Weight AP = APs of distance you can throw something. Or Distance AP - Speed AP = the APs of time it takes to travel it.
Other than that, I felt it had a flawed character generation system. And the AP thing, or the same concept anyway, is in the Mutants and Masterminds system (because each level doubles, so it lends itself to that sort of manipulation).
But we had fun playing it years ago. Certainly better than the early Marvel system with the FASERIP stats and the chart.
Yes, I have read it, and have yet to see you present any convincing evidence that there is a real issue, much less that these types of laws meaningfully address it. Instead we get nonsensical moralizing about “skin in the game.” Like these people being disenfranchised don’t work and pay taxes or have the same rights as someone you consider properly deserving. Ridiculous.
And I stated the less-flattering-to-you alternative, so I guess we’ll go with that.
Oh, I can only speculate about whatever childhood formative experiences you underwent, but your pattern was obvious after that “liberal heart of hearts” thing a few years back. You said something stupid and insulting, I pointed out in detail how you were wrong, you apologized, but within a few months you were using similar rhetoric - you had not learned from the experience but had simply reverted to your earlier position. I’ve seen you do this a few times. Someone on this board could present unassailable evidence against your position, you’ll back down briefly, but a few threads later you’ll be back at that position, sniping at liberal phantoms, then accusing various posters of being liberal phantoms, until you get another defeat, withdraw and soon return with the same tired railing and ranting, accusing people who disagree with a law of wanting a dictatorship instead.
It’s genuinely not difficult to write simple satirical poetry. I suggest you might find it easier if you’re not sneering and sweating at the time.
I remember that system. Last time I played (1993 or so, probably) I random-rolled everything, trying for a chaos-character. I did pretty well, got a guy roughly on the same power level as Spider-Man.
I called him… The Slob!
I once rolled zombie animation, and water walking. I called him, The Messiah!
Ok, let’s play a game.
Here’s what you said:
If I can post links to previous posts by me in this thread that address what you posted above, namely:
(1) I have always been discussing votes on the order of dozens, as opposed to any “shockingly high number.”
(2) there is evidence of dozens of illegal votes cast in aggregate various elections
(3) there are elections in the past fifty years in this country that would be changed by as few as 24 votes
Then you will admit you were lying about having read this thread.
Is that a deal?
What? Recognizing that citizens have a stake in the outcome of elections in which they may vote (“skin in the game”) because said citizens live in the reality of the society their voting choices determine is something you see as aspirational but unreal?
And by your lights, if the currently powerful can put their thumb on the scale of electoral justice in a manner that would increase their power, and manage to keep it there through an election cycle despite efforts by the currently less powerful to remove it, that manner of cheating-to-be becomes validated and acceptable.
Damn, you have some rather unsavory beliefs, for sure.
Dozens in aggregate elections?
So… lets say 199 votes (because 200+ would allow you to discard the tepid “dozens” in favour of “hundreds”) across… 20 elections? How many in an aggregate? Your other point talks about the “past fifty years”, and that could be a thousand elections if we’re counting a broad range of federal, state and local votes…
Was there ever a dozen in one election?
Just curious.
Those are illegal votes. The people being impacted by these laws are entirely legal American citizens. By the thousands! This evidence has been offered to you but apparently not processed. (The impact on people using impersonation to cast illegal values is minimal, in that such persons, for all practical purposes, do not exist.)
*
They* are the one’s losing out here. Are they supposed to take one for the team, go the extra mile someone else does not? What about their voter confidence? What confidence can they have, having just been openly and legally insulted by their legislature?
Off the record, I admired this bit of rhetorical flim-flam…
The “aggregate”! Thats a beaut! How does one contradict such an iron-clad point! Yes, woefully, I accept the truth, that if you piled up all the votes and all the elections, you might find that there are as many as twenty-four. Which reminds me, got to call my brother, tell him not to use the same Powerball numbers as me. We both win, we got to share, that would be awkward…
Ok. You’re welcome to your opinion.
But the laws continue in force.
You asked me to let you know when you do one of those, “insufferable prick” comments.
When I discuss the death penalty, proponents thereof refuse to acknowledge that any innocent person has ever been put to death.
I point out how many people on Death Row have been freed by work from the Innocence Project…where over prosecutorial objections DNA tests reveal that the accused could not have possibly committed the crime. And then I point out that there are plenty of people who were sentenced to death and whose crimes did not involve DNA evidence, or whose case evidence was not preserved for later testing, through accident or design. And I argue that we not be able to point to a single specific name, but we can certainly infer there have been some. No, say the death penalty supporters, that’s not proof. Who was the specific innocent person? Without that, they say, they can be no admission that such an innocent person exists.
Isn’t that ridiculous?
I did?
You can stop.
So we rolling up that character? I see you as a Wolverine type, with close range illusion powers.
#BARB!#
Well, bless your heart!
Okay - either you think absentee ballots are an acceptable alternative to in-person voting in which case my previous point about fraud levels applies, or you don’t think absentee ballots are an acceptable alternative to in-person voting in which case your suggestion that I recommend it to these [del]liberal strawmen[/del] protesters is irrelevant to the aforementioned previous point and you’re just being a dick – a dick who, it is noted, continues to focus on an area where very little fraud occurs while ignoring the area where more actual fraud occurs.
As did Jim Crow laws, for many, many years.
Sounds like you shouldn’t have the death penalty because the odds of a false positive (an executed innocent), while low, are higher than acceptable. I take it you’re now arguing that you shouldn’t increase voter ID requirements because the odds of a false positive (a citizen left unable to vote), while low, are higher than acceptable?
If you’re going to use the death penalty as a reference, you should try arguing that the death penalty is needed because even if an innocent is executed, the greater good (preventing murderers from killing again) is more important. From there, you can argue that even if a citizen is denied a vote, strict voter ID laws are needed because the greater good (ensuring the integrity of elections, or at least public confidence in the integrity of elections) is more important.
The analogous action to determinedly denying that an innocent has ever been executed is determinedly denying that any citizen has even been denied his or her vote i.e. denying that a mechanism designed to punish criminals ever snagged an innocent.
If someone is determinedly denying that an illegal vote was ever cast (I’m not sure who is actually doing this, but I’ll play along for the sake of argument), that would be comparable to someone claiming that no-one had ever committed a crime that was deserving of the death penalty, hence there is no need for the death penalty.
Basically, your rhetoric has gone all Mobius Strip on you. Flat, with a twist.
(3) …unless the federal constitution that every state is bound to follow requires that it change. I’m not saying it does in this case, but it’s important to note that the U.S. Constitution binds the states, sovereignty notwithstanding, and that does include some issues of voting. Just making sure your list is complete.