Nope, you revealed yourself to be a liar almost immediately. And the cost of linking databases is in fact trivial. I work in that field. I link massive databases with billions of entries in them all the time to databases they've never been linked to before.
Possibly the government has a problem with this because they're often run by idiots and the corrupt. But it isn't hard and we do it all the time.
Signing up for voter registration could provide the ID very easily and the cost could be rendered irrelevant but bundling it with existing ID systems such as driver's licenses etc.
That is you get issued a special version of it that signifies that you're eligible to vote.
Pretty much everyone has a government issued ID of some description. Driver's licenses, personal state issued ID, passports, etc. We can provide a special stamp these that signifies that you're eligible to vote.
The cost of altering the ID etc would be near zero and would not add any cost to the ID holder.
Then we would allow polling stations to scan your ID in much the same way that a liquor store can scan your driver's license.
What you're ultimately saying is that you want more security on alchohol in a liquior store than the ballot box at a polling station.
You haven't a leg to stand on. You're just mouthing transparently absurd talking points you heard somewhere. You've demostrated no ability to think for yourself by not issuing a unqiue idea even once in this discussion.
I'e been dynamic the entire time. I've been responsive and able to offer point and counter point off the top of my head. I have been willing to work with you.
But you literally can't do that because you're not even thinking about it. You're just vomiting your sad talking points.
You're basically a political chat bot that has failed the Turing test.
"
Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded. "
In any case, you're officially the python's black knight. I know I know... Only a flesh wound.
Interesting how "liberals" seem to have a serious problem with concepts like "freedom of speech"... and "free association"... and "due process".
Why is that? Because they're not liberals. They're illiberals. They don't advocate for freedom but rather against freedom.
They do not idealize freedom but rather are threatened by it.
Real liberals value freedom... liberty... hence "liberal". These people are ideological skinwalkers that ripped the flesh off some classical liberals and have been wearing their rotting skin around as masks ever since.
I could as easily cite you as confessing to be a pedophile as you could cite me as conceding that the voter ID issue.
As to insults, argumentum ad autism as pointed out to you now three or four times was to address your myopic arguments. If you think it is insulting to point out an argument is myopic then you're probably one of those people that finds anyone that contradicts you to be "triggering".
Frankly, as I said, your position is laughable and unsupportable. I even proved that you don't care about the minor ticky tacky issues by offering to let you design the system yourself. You made it clear that none of the ticky tacky issues actually matter and what actually bothers you is any system that prevents people that shouldn't be allowed to vote by law from voting.
You conceded.
The logic on this is really inescapable and yet... you don't see it.
What am I to assume here if someone doesn't 1+1=2?
Do you not understand?
Do you understand and are trying to play some sort of game with me?
Either way, you're not interesting and this is boring. Kindly go back to your proctor, check out a jigsaw puzzle, and enjoy your life time supply of pudding.
Well, MY "we" thinks you didn't understand what I was saying if you think I was making a medical diagnosis of autism. My "we" thinks you're actually doubling down on yet more myopic arguments... failing to see the forest for the trees. My "we" even explained what "we" were talking about. And yet, your "collective" didn't grasp a pretty simple observation and statement even after it was explained very plainly.
Odd. Your collective might want to get checked out. Consistently not grasping a broader perspective and instead fixating on minor points of no relevance is a symptom of the "spectrum".
Both suggested changing the voting system. Argumentum ad Autism is not a valid rebuttal.
You've proved my point by saying that the details of how it is applied don't matter. So all the ticky tacky this and that on the issue is conceded by you in that as a smoke screen.
We could come up with literally ANY way of applying more reasonable standards to the ballot box and you'd reject them it on one specious pretense or another. Yes, specious... because you were focusing on the ticky tacky when you just conceded that isn't your real problem. You want the ballot box open to exploitation and abuse.
You'll make any kind of false moralizing argument you think will confuse the dull witted... and move forward with this concept of gaining power by gathering together a critical mass of the unaware and gullible.
So be it.
You are legitimately a test for this republic. If we cannot overcome you, then we were unworthy of our freedoms and you'll cause us to slip into tyranny. Time will judge.
Nope, Al Gore and Hillary both whined about the voting process when they didn't win.
Look, the fact that you perceive a threat to your political power by increasing integrity of the ballot box is the smoking gun here.
That you don't see how transparent this is... well... you need to work on your mask. It has some big gaps.
Here is the proof to the point.
I'll let YOU come up with the way voter ID would work. My only condition is that you ensure that the IDs are only issued to people that should be allowed to vote.
circular reasoning... the concept was rejected and thus fleshed out plans didn't happen... requiring the fleshed out plans when you rejected the basic concept is nonsense.
Again... Let it go. This argument fools none but the fools.
I'm not interested in your talking points. The entire issue is very obvious.
They were offered free and subsidized and it basically boiled down to the argument that black people can't get ID's never mind that they do get them to drive etc.
It is not supportable and when you make unsupportable arguments it leaves anyone judging the matter to question why you're making objectively unsupportable arguments.
If I can't protect my data with encryption then I have to go to other means. Data that cannot be found cannot be demanded.
Here people will say "but that isn't how I do things right now"... always the way with everything since always. We don't do things a certain way until we do.
Easy enough to do... does require pushing the data to secured remote servers or obscuring the data on the phone such that it doesn't appear to be data... at least enough so that the investigators and courts don't notice it.
Nope. Your only possible problem is the expense of the ID and that was addressed many times with these voter ID laws.
Free IDs were offered to low income people as part of the negotiations and that had no impact on people saying it was racism. The position is intellectually bankrupt and either is ignorance of the issue which you're posturing yourself to not be... or it is deceit. Either way... *shrug*
The tribalistic talking points are boring. There are people that want to pervert the ballot box because they know their ideas actually aren't very popular or good. And that is why games like this get played.
Anyone paying attention can see it plain as day. Sadly, a lot of people just aren't. The life blood of democracy is information and education. And there are a lot of people spreading bullshit and encouraging ignorance.
That is how we got to this place. The corruption is easily dealt with via a few easy fixes that wouldn't hurt anyone but the corrupt. But if you find the corruption either convenient or necessary to your tribalistic political postures... So much for democracy and we'll probably regress back into some flavor of tyranny... where upon people that keep thinking like peasants will ultimately get that status again.
But say there is an issue with registration fraud, voter fraud, polling station security, vote counting systems, etc and suddenly you get some very suspicious push back.
Say you want ID to make sure people aren't running around to different polling stations and pretending to be people they aren't... and you get accused of racism.
Why? Because black people can't get ID cards apparently.
Say you want to secure polling station security, and you'll get the assertion that polling stations where operate under very lax oversight are beyond repute... even though stories of bags full of pre-filled out voter cards exist everywhere.
You say that vote counting systems that often use something like Microsoft Access to tabulate the votes of an entire state are perhaps not the best options... and that the digital security of the records has issues... that the underlying digital voting systems themselves in some states are open to abuse... prove it with an 11 year old busting the system... well, no action.
Frankly, at this point, anyone arguing against this thing can't be doing it in good faith anymore. The overwhelming evidence is that we need reform.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, you revealed yourself to be a liar almost immediately. And the cost of linking databases is in fact trivial. I work in that field. I link massive databases with billions of entries in them all the time to databases they've never been linked to before.
Possibly the government has a problem with this because they're often run by idiots and the corrupt. But it isn't hard and we do it all the time.
I say again, GOOD DAY, SIR.
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/
Notice how even though you spent lots of time throwing out baseless insults... you spent zero time explaining how I misused the word.
Strange. It is almost as you have no argument. Almost... as if...
No, just kidding... you're full of shit and know it.
Actually, no.
Signing up for voter registration could provide the ID very easily and the cost could be rendered irrelevant but bundling it with existing ID systems such as driver's licenses etc.
That is you get issued a special version of it that signifies that you're eligible to vote.
Pretty much everyone has a government issued ID of some description. Driver's licenses, personal state issued ID, passports, etc. We can provide a special stamp these that signifies that you're eligible to vote.
The cost of altering the ID etc would be near zero and would not add any cost to the ID holder.
Then we would allow polling stations to scan your ID in much the same way that a liquor store can scan your driver's license.
What you're ultimately saying is that you want more security on alchohol in a liquior store than the ballot box at a polling station.
You haven't a leg to stand on. You're just mouthing transparently absurd talking points you heard somewhere. You've demostrated no ability to think for yourself by not issuing a unqiue idea even once in this discussion.
I'e been dynamic the entire time. I've been responsive and able to offer point and counter point off the top of my head. I have been willing to work with you.
But you literally can't do that because you're not even thinking about it. You're just vomiting your sad talking points.
You're basically a political chat bot that has failed the Turing test.
We're done here. Good day, sir.
... So you've gone from myopic to full retard?
Daring move in your quest to make a bigger ass of yourself with every post.
Definition:
https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
"
Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.
"
In any case, you're officially the python's black knight. I know I know... Only a flesh wound.
*coconut claps off into the sunset*
You don't know what you're talking about. Please give up now and find a new hobby.
Interesting how "liberals" seem to have a serious problem with concepts like "freedom of speech"... and "free association"... and "due process".
Why is that? Because they're not liberals. They're illiberals. They don't advocate for freedom but rather against freedom.
They do not idealize freedom but rather are threatened by it.
Real liberals value freedom... liberty... hence "liberal". These people are ideological skinwalkers that ripped the flesh off some classical liberals and have been wearing their rotting skin around as masks ever since.
You messed up your comment. Try again.
I offered you the ability to set how it would work. You proved my point by rejecting it even if you could control all the variables.
That's checkmate.
I could as easily cite you as confessing to be a pedophile as you could cite me as conceding that the voter ID issue.
As to insults, argumentum ad autism as pointed out to you now three or four times was to address your myopic arguments. If you think it is insulting to point out an argument is myopic then you're probably one of those people that finds anyone that contradicts you to be "triggering".
Frankly, as I said, your position is laughable and unsupportable. I even proved that you don't care about the minor ticky tacky issues by offering to let you design the system yourself. You made it clear that none of the ticky tacky issues actually matter and what actually bothers you is any system that prevents people that shouldn't be allowed to vote by law from voting.
You conceded.
The logic on this is really inescapable and yet... you don't see it.
What am I to assume here if someone doesn't 1+1=2?
Do you not understand?
Do you understand and are trying to play some sort of game with me?
Either way, you're not interesting and this is boring. Kindly go back to your proctor, check out a jigsaw puzzle, and enjoy your life time supply of pudding.
when was the last time you criticized a government you supported?
... they're still blocking Tienanmen square. Because, remembering the tyranny of their own government is lacking in righteousness?... or cleanliness?
"we"?
Well, MY "we" thinks you didn't understand what I was saying if you think I was making a medical diagnosis of autism. My "we" thinks you're actually doubling down on yet more myopic arguments... failing to see the forest for the trees. My "we" even explained what "we" were talking about. And yet, your "collective" didn't grasp a pretty simple observation and statement even after it was explained very plainly.
Odd. Your collective might want to get checked out. Consistently not grasping a broader perspective and instead fixating on minor points of no relevance is a symptom of the "spectrum".
argumentum ad autism is not a silly insult. You made a myopic rebuttal that attempted to argue against a forest with a tree.
A trait of autism is being myopic. You made an argument that either suggested you're autistic or think I'm autistic.
I'm not autistic... and whether you are or not... the argument fails on the previously stated basis.
Both suggested changing the voting system. Argumentum ad Autism is not a valid rebuttal.
You've proved my point by saying that the details of how it is applied don't matter. So all the ticky tacky this and that on the issue is conceded by you in that as a smoke screen.
We could come up with literally ANY way of applying more reasonable standards to the ballot box and you'd reject them it on one specious pretense or another. Yes, specious... because you were focusing on the ticky tacky when you just conceded that isn't your real problem. You want the ballot box open to exploitation and abuse.
You'll make any kind of false moralizing argument you think will confuse the dull witted... and move forward with this concept of gaining power by gathering together a critical mass of the unaware and gullible.
So be it.
You are legitimately a test for this republic. If we cannot overcome you, then we were unworthy of our freedoms and you'll cause us to slip into tyranny. Time will judge.
Nope, Al Gore and Hillary both whined about the voting process when they didn't win.
Look, the fact that you perceive a threat to your political power by increasing integrity of the ballot box is the smoking gun here.
That you don't see how transparent this is... well... you need to work on your mask. It has some big gaps.
Here is the proof to the point.
I'll let YOU come up with the way voter ID would work. My only condition is that you ensure that the IDs are only issued to people that should be allowed to vote.
circular reasoning... the concept was rejected and thus fleshed out plans didn't happen... requiring the fleshed out plans when you rejected the basic concept is nonsense.
Again... Let it go. This argument fools none but the fools.
I'm not interested in your talking points. The entire issue is very obvious.
They were offered free and subsidized and it basically boiled down to the argument that black people can't get ID's never mind that they do get them to drive etc.
It is not supportable and when you make unsupportable arguments it leaves anyone judging the matter to question why you're making objectively unsupportable arguments.
If I can't protect my data with encryption then I have to go to other means. Data that cannot be found cannot be demanded.
Here people will say "but that isn't how I do things right now"... always the way with everything since always. We don't do things a certain way until we do.
Easy enough to do... does require pushing the data to secured remote servers or obscuring the data on the phone such that it doesn't appear to be data... at least enough so that the investigators and courts don't notice it.
Nope. Your only possible problem is the expense of the ID and that was addressed many times with these voter ID laws.
Free IDs were offered to low income people as part of the negotiations and that had no impact on people saying it was racism. The position is intellectually bankrupt and either is ignorance of the issue which you're posturing yourself to not be... or it is deceit. Either way... *shrug*
The tribalistic talking points are boring. There are people that want to pervert the ballot box because they know their ideas actually aren't very popular or good. And that is why games like this get played.
Anyone paying attention can see it plain as day. Sadly, a lot of people just aren't. The life blood of democracy is information and education. And there are a lot of people spreading bullshit and encouraging ignorance.
That is how we got to this place. The corruption is easily dealt with via a few easy fixes that wouldn't hurt anyone but the corrupt. But if you find the corruption either convenient or necessary to your tribalistic political postures... So much for democracy and we'll probably regress back into some flavor of tyranny... where upon people that keep thinking like peasants will ultimately get that status again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's nothing about voter ID in that.
Look, your political axe is boring. Its tiresome. Don't bother me with your talking points.
... the intentions are good... let us hope it isn't another brick on the road to hell.
The ids were offered at no cost to low income people. This was made clear from the start.
Bad faith has to be assumed.
if they effectively deny people the ability to vote then you have a supreme court case open and shut.
Let that not distract you from the other elements.
And if you refuse to deal with the obvious need for reform... I can't presume good faith.
This has been brought up for decades.
But say there is an issue with registration fraud, voter fraud, polling station security, vote counting systems, etc and suddenly you get some very suspicious push back.
Say you want ID to make sure people aren't running around to different polling stations and pretending to be people they aren't... and you get accused of racism.
Why? Because black people can't get ID cards apparently.
Say you want to secure polling station security, and you'll get the assertion that polling stations where operate under very lax oversight are beyond repute... even though stories of bags full of pre-filled out voter cards exist everywhere.
You say that vote counting systems that often use something like Microsoft Access to tabulate the votes of an entire state are perhaps not the best options... and that the digital security of the records has issues... that the underlying digital voting systems themselves in some states are open to abuse... prove it with an 11 year old busting the system... well, no action.
Frankly, at this point, anyone arguing against this thing can't be doing it in good faith anymore. The overwhelming evidence is that we need reform.
Can we cut this Orwellian shit out, please? It fools no one but the fools.