Sorry, I guess this is the wrong forum for that. My bad.
So far as I recall, I was the first person on the SDMB to propose fingerprints as ID, and I completely favor the idea to this day.
You may have been. I do recall you mentioning it a few times, don’t recall who was first. I do not, however, really you mentioning it without saying why it did not work.
I was always disappointed that the discussion never went any further.
Anyway, really out of here for now.
Yes, and your being for it is meaningless, because you know the steaming, fetid cunts you vote for don’t have any intention of making it so.
I agree it’s a good idea. But because it would hurt GOP chances (by allowing those that currently don’t have IDs to vote), and the goofball privacy nuts on both sides would chafe at the idea, it is unlikely to come to pass.
Also, technical reasons. Fingerprint scans and fingerprint image matching are not concrete or foolproof technologies. The error rate would be higher than the current rate of fraudulent voting.
Whoa, that high?! Easy, tiger!
Bricker isn’t suggesting fingerprint scans, he’s saying putting a thumbprint next to your name when you sign in to vote. The thumbprint would let you throw the book at someone if they were found to be fraudulently voting.
He’s right, it’s a good idea, but as I said above, it’ll never happen, because the GOP doesn’t want rules that work. They want rules that give them unfair advantages.
I am a little stunned that you apparently believe that this is what happened. Yes, this elderly black man from Mississippi just woke up one day and said, “Imma change my name - but just alter the spelling a bit. That will …accomplish something.”
So, they don’t want to accept student IDs…close off the relevant offices, like DMV…try to trim back early voting, Sunday voting…work to make voter registration more complicated…growl menacingly at the League of Women Voters, fer cryin’ out loud…
I mean, you guys take all the disparate and unrelated events and claim that they are all somehow connected! to some big scheme. Like its all some kind of conspiracy, maybe something cooked up by a bunch of well-funded Republican activists like, say, ALEC, just to grab a name floating in the stench.
OK, sure the timing looks a bit suspicious, but maybe they are just responding to the overwhelming tide of popular demand. Failing voter confidence, the number two threat to the Republic!
How come no one talks about the many, many Republican sponsored programs for outreach, to “go the extra mile” to ensure universal access? Don’t ever hear anybody talking about them! Not very quick to talk about stuff that doesn’t fit your authoritarian agenda!
You guys seem to think its all some dastardly plot, but if you really knew all the facts, you’d be singing a different dirge.
The technical problem is still similar. Some other guy’s thumbprint might appear similar enough to yours as to be mistaken for it if you’re accused of having voted twice.
Agreed.
I have a great idea for a completely fair and reasonable election system. As I said in the other thread, Bricker is an impassioned advocate of vote suppression for the understandable reason that blacks and poor people are at high risk of having liberal ideas and therefore voting for the wrong party. So with that simply stated fact out of the way, we can move on to the following productive strategies – forgive the trademark symbols but I believe some of these phrases are trademarked by the RNC:
Anyone who looks like an African American or Hispanic or comes from a designated Poor Side of Town must be required to present 16 forms of ID, pass a literacy test, and be subject to a full body cavity inspection, because we cannot tolerate Election Fraud™. Anyone with a few billion dollars to spend on convincing the electorate to vote for their particular self-serving slimeball policies by totally lying about the alleged merits of said slimeball policies should naturally have complete freedom to lie as much as they like and bamboozle the electorate all they want, because Free Speech™. And also because Money is Speech™. When the middle and lower classes suffer, the rich prosper, and the entire nation goes to hell in a handbasket, the next strategy is to claim that The Government Isn’t the Solution, The Government is the Problem™.
I hope that clears up any lingering questions about the nature of democracy and the role therein of Bricker and all his fellow GOPers.
I am Hispanic.
This post is an example of an ad hominem attack. And it knowingly lies about me to create a poisoned well.
Or it’s a serious proposal, in which case it fits nicely into the category of people who wish to rule by fiat.
What about it, wolfpup? you want to actually impose that scheme even though the legislature hasn’t and would not vote for it?
Is this what the Left brings to the table, or tolerates without rebuke?
Third option, I think it was satire.
The fact that you are Hispanic does little to dispel the issue of GOP policies which in practice will place greater burdens on the poor, the vast majority of which are minorities. It doesn’t change the fact that you have expressed the view that potential voters who struggle to overcome those burdens must be insufficiently motivated (and don’t have enough “skin in the game”) and therefore it is their fault if the new laws prevent legitimate citizens from exercising a right they previously were able to exercise. It doesn’t change your repeated statements that these burdens are a necessary consequence of the need to fight election fraud - which you have admitted is minimal but nonetheless is needed to address all those elections won by single-digit margins - despite the methods addressing the means of voting with the least amount of fraud. It doesn’t change the fact that you have handwaved away statements by Republican politicians explicitly stating that the effects of the laws will create a partisan advantage for them.
wolfpup’s post was blatant hyperbole for satirical purposes, but there was no ad hominem about it, unless suggesting that you hold more exaggerated forms of positions for which you have already stated support is an ad hominem (in which case Pot, meet Kettle). You’re not being excoriated for what or who you are; you’re being excoriated for things you’ve actually said.
And whatever our views of you, I doubt any of us think you’re stupid enough to seriously believe wolfpup was advocating the aforementioned blatant hyperbole as actual policy, so that lovely Liberal Strawman you’ve constructed there is fooling no one.
Keep thumping that table, Counsellor.
Here is the line I contend is ad hominem:
Or is that also “satire?”
Same question:
Satire?
“Bricker is an impassioned advocate of vote suppression”
is true, if unflattering.
“for the understandable reason that blacks and poor people are at high risk of having liberal ideas and therefore voting for the wrong party.”
is his opinion as to why, which could be wrong, but I will agree that you have done a poor job as to explaining why exactly you are such a staunch defender of a policy that has an effect of voter suppression, so I can see how he could come to that conclusion.
If that is ad hominem, then what is accusing others of wishing to rule by fiat?
Ad hominem in the Pit? Why… I never!!!
I suppose that would be my opinion, since he’s done a poor job of explaining what his actual proposal is in light of the unanimity of the legislature’s duly passed law, signed by the governor, upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court, and enjoying strong popular support.
In contrast, I have offered a clear explanation of why I favor the Voter ID laws: while acknowledging they are not a perfect solution, they still serve a valuable purpose of communicating confidence in election results, especially in cases of ultra-close results.
Why is he entitled to reject that and substitute his own, much more invidious, notions of my motives?
Sure. It’s perfectly permitted…but the Pit does not magically remove the fallacious aspect of ad hominem attack. Does it?