Can we donate, and uselessly bitch about ID’s on a message board too?
Of course! 
I read only a few of the threads on SDMB. Sometimes I read a Gun thread just because it amuses me how self-righteous American gun-nuts can be. This thread I read primarily in a vain attempt to psychoanalyze Mr. Bricker.
[SPOILER]What we know about Bricker so far:
[ul][li] He is very intelligent. If he turned his attention to pleasuring us (“to good instead of evil”!) he might give Elucidater a run for wittiest Doper. As is he’s, maybe, #192. (Stranger on a Train is a runner-up to 'Luci. Who else?)[/li][li] He seems competent enough. (Perhaps all the SDMB Esquires should nominate “Smartest SDMB Attorney.”)[/li][li] He espouses right-wing views in political debates. By itself this is of course no problem. There are several conservatives who frequently post here and, although jeered at by the majority in some cases, they get a hearing and aren’t banned unless they break the rules.[/li]It does make some of us wonder how a man with such high IQ can side with the ilk he does. Is he an Ayn Rand nut? I dunno …
[li] He sides with the GOP secure-voting hypocrites. I’ve never been fully clear whether, on this topic,/li He is one of the sub-100 IQ types who think the GOP claim (that they can make voting more secure and democratic) is sincere; or
(2) He is just a partisan hack in the Karl Rove mode, happy to muddy the waters on vote-suppression, feeding the lies. Why the need for such disinformation? Disinformation is why Trump got elected instead of Hillary.
I’m almost tempted to model him as a sort of Shrödinger’s Cat, shifting between the (1) and (2) modalities according to some … what? But, unless we conclude that Bricker does indeed possess a Rove-like ruthlessness (or that his posts do not conform to my models of human volition) I’m really confused! And that is why I continue to read this thread. Meanwhile I’ll call him Bricködinger’s Cat.
[li] Finally, we note that when arguing against another poster the Doper known as Bricködinger’s Cat pulls no stops in (a) deliberate misconstructions, (b) nitpicking in various forms, (c) arrogantly citing case law, when it tangentially decides his way, (d) posts intended to make the replied-to feel inferior or humiliated, (e) refusal to accept evidence or new facts. Obviously this can annoy or even irritate other Dopers. He complains that he’s just reciprocating for the abuse that’s piled on him. :([/li][/ul]
In a recent thread Brickinger’s Cat conceded that federal funding for the arts might be more acceptable than he’d previously thought. Is there some particular concession you’d like to hear from liberals, Mr. Cat? And after 7272 posts he conceded IIRC that some GOP politicians may have malicious intent when they support voter ID lies. Is this “some” closer to 1% or 99%? Until you answer this question, I’m asking
To Mods and Everyone:
I have changed the thread title to
Should one-eyed unicorns be allowed in the public courtyard on Wednesdays?
Please make a note. This matter is surely at least as pressing as the latest GOP make-believe.
I hope the pro-unicorn Dopers will take note that I’m exempting two-eyed unicorns from the ban. Unicorns with both eyes are less likely to trample on children. And I don’t extend the ban to other days of the week: worried parents can take care to come only on Wednesdays. If they need 2 days a week, ***let them pay to join a private club – what do they think this is? A Pol Pot-Stalinist utopia? :mad:
There I’m done. Shall I sound the gavel?
Did we ever get the 10,000-post summary for the old thread? Here I’ll do it:
First some definitions:
Trumpist - Either a red-neck probably ignorant voter (perhaps even in a deplorable category) OR a cynical GOP politician or pundit (etc.) happy to ally with the ignorant Trumpists. Brickinger’s Cat alternates between the two different modalities of Trumpist. (He was even forthcoming enough to post his experience casting a ballot on Erection Day. At the climax he was like a Jekyll and Hyde transmogrifying at the public polling booth!)
[ul][li]There are several different types of vote fraud; it is a large interesting topic. Voter ID helps in only a small number of cases. In some cases it actually hurts![/li][li] The voter fraud Trumpists(*) appear to worry about (illegal immigrant turnout) is not one of the major fraud types. Note that it presumes that a person with no desire for police contact commits a felony for … for, what? $50? Anybody offering more than $50 would attract attention.) In a nation with over 100 million voters I’ve heard about zero claims of vote buying or illegals voting. How about you guys?[/li][li] If the topic seems interesting, start a thread in IMHO “What would you do to generally improve the voting system’s legitimacy and efficacy?” That’s not this thread. This thread is about how malicious, corrupt and fraudulent Republican vote suppression policies are.[/li][li] Instead the GOP pursues “voter ID” as just one of a large package of ideas, whose purpose is to circumvent legal votes. (Various “You’re denied the vote unless you appeal this notice one month before election day” plans are already in place, e.g. one which find name matches, with detailed criteria that make Hispanic and especially Afro-American surnames especially eligible.)[/li][/ul]
Mr. elucidator produced such a cogent, eloquent and thorough summary of the old thread that I’ll quote him in entirety:
[/SPOILER]
Are you a newcomer to this thread? Read 'Luci’s excellent summary. Also tell us where you stand on Resolved: One-eyed unicorns should be barred from the public courtyard on Wednesdays.
(Isn’t one completely irrelevant matter as good as another?)
:eek:
I agree that one-eyed unicorns should be barred from the public courtyard on Wednesdays. I would also add Thursdays and Fridays.
I am also overjoyed at your prolific use of ellipses. However, my joy is tempered by your disturbingly detailed synopsis of Bricker. You may need some help.
Well, shit, I was misled and confused by the title of the thread! I thought the thread was about the GOP using voter ID as a way to suppress voters.
Like, if I saw a thread title about the Defenestration at Prague, where those guys were thrown out the window (and, according to legend, were saved by landing in a passing wagon loaded with horse droppings…) I am likely to disapprove of throwing people out windows. Even if you’re pretty sure there’s a convenient load of horseshit passing beneath. Even Hollywood stuntmen get hurt, and they plan things out pretty carefully!
Or maybe make some joke about somebody kiting a Czech. (I wouldn’t really, because that’s a bad pun, just illustrating…)
It would never occur to me, being a boor of little brain, that the real subject of the thread was the necessity of windows as a means to ventilation! Only really smart people see that.
The report was by an independent commission. They don’t have any power to prosecute any violations of the law. Since report was just released prosecutors will need time to look over them to determine which are appropriate to prosecute.
I hope the 24 cases of double-voting and two cases of voter impersonation (one by mail so photo ID wouldn’t have helped) are pursued by prosecutors. Since the majority of the remaining instances appear to be people who mistakenly believed they were allowed to vote (felons out on parole and non-citizens) it will probably be hard to win convictions for those.
About that “felon voting” thing. There was a minor kerfluffle about that here in Baja Canada. What happened was that Minnesota started a policy of releasing ex-offenders from some of the burdens of probation, like weekly reporting, drug tests, stuff like that. Of course, only if they had shown some clear improvement during their time of probation.
As it happened, it turned out that quite a few felons thought this early release from the burdens of probation was the same thing as no longer being on probation. Which they thought meant that their civil rights were fully restored, as they were to be once probation was successfully completed. Technically, their attempt to register to vote was a violation of the law, and they were guilty of a crime. My understanding is limited, but it is that the matter was resolved without a great deal of trouble to anyone concerned. They wanted to be citizens again, and I can’t find it in my heart to blame them.
Personally, I approve of efforts to bring ex-felons back into the fold. Punish and forgive. I recognize that I am much outnumbered by people of the punish forever mindset. No country approves of criminals, but America seems to stand out in terms of a visceral hatred of criminals. I think that is a large part of recidivism. We punish them, and if they try to do better, we won’t encourage them. I have little hope of prevailing anytime soon. America hates them, and that’s that.
Strange, I find nothing in this post that condemns those dirty ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors. You are clearly in the wrong thread! 
Ooh. snap.
Getting off the topic of voter ID here, but I agree that if people who have made mistakes have paid their debt to society, and shown that they are not any more likely to reoffend then the general populace, then I see no reason to continue to sanction them. Restoring voting rights is just one of many things I would be in favor of changing in the ways we treat people who have been convicted of crimes.
In fact, I would be in favor of people on parole, probation, and even in jail voting, with the only reasons to have your suffrage taken away would be for the crimes of voter fraud or treason. And in the case of voter fraud, your rights should still be restored after a period of time and reparations.
In fact, there was a bill pending in the Minnesota Legislature at the time this occurred, which would have restored voting rights to anyone when they were released from incarceration, even if they were still on parole or probation.
Unfortunately, that bill died in committee. The GOP vote-suppressors said they would amend it to also allow these released convicts to obtain permits to carry concealed handguns. That killed any support from DFL members of the Legislature, and the bill died, and those people on parole or probation remain unable to vote.
I agree with this.
Nobody’s posted this delicious story?
I’ll let someone else post a summary — I’m reduced to heaves of laughter whenever I try to read the story. But, briefly, it involves former Colorado Republican Party chairman Steve Curtis who’s a staunch opponent of voter fraud and said “every case of voter fraud I can remember in my lifetime was committed by Democrats.” Recently felony charges were brought in Colorado against a voting fraudster(*) — read the article to see if the fraudster was a Democrat, as Curtis predicted.
(* - No, like most voter fraud it wouldn’t have been prevented with ID. Are you having trouble following the discussion?)
Why shouldn’t such persons be able to carry concealed? I thought they had “paid their debt to society?”
And the non-citizens voting?
Is that why you got so mad about my support of the fingerprint plan? Afraid that it would cause flashbacks with ex-felons?
All one of him, allegedly? Is it time to cue up Ramon again?
Why didn’t you read post 10443?
Here’s the portion of post 10443 that spawned my comment and is relevant:
I have added bold and color for emphasis, and to help you find the significant portion. If you have some sort of perception or cognitive difficulty that prevents your reading numbers presented in this way, perhaps we can get an NEA grant for the information to be presented by interpretive dance.
Evidently it’s not the 1% Americans should be concerned about, but the 1% of 1% of 10%.
Okay, a reliable number (I’ll assume) is known to exist. Now what’s North Carolina going to do about it that won’t make it impossible (or at least unreasonably burdensome) for 42 or more eligible voters to cast their votes in 2018 and beyond?
Of course, if you’re seriously asking why I didn’t read 10443… well, to be honest - it really doesn’t matter because I’d still have the same question - how to remedy this without creating a larger problem, or letting it be used as an excuse to those who want to bias the vote.
And you deserved the mockery anyway for repeatedly using Ramon Cue as your whipping boy.
In fairness, we need more information. How did those non-citizens vote? Presumably not by pretending to be someone who they weren’t (as there’s already a category for voter impersonation), which means that I guess they were registered and weren’t impersonating someone, so they were registered but shouldn’t have been registered? So the problem would not be solved by voter ID, but by some tightening of the voter registration process? Maybe?
I admit I’m a bit puzzled by what actually happened. (Also unclear from the information provided is whether any part of the fraudulent voting was intentional, or whether they just incorrectly believed they were allowed to vote, and the registration process didn’t stop them.)