- Joined
- Nov 13, 2011
- Messages
- 19,711
- Reaction score
- 5,946
- Location
- kekistan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
It is a truism that DNA is a more reliable identifier than photo ID. It follows that if states should do whatever they can to protect the integrity of elections (Maggie's premise) then they should use DNA rather than IDs.
dna being more accurate wasnt your argument though,now you seem to think you can redefine your own words to suit your argument,were you hoping no one could go back and retrieve them
More absurd comments. If you really believe that we're entitled to a system "that does as much as possible to prevent unathorized voting", can I assume you would support a bill that requires everyone in the country to submit a DNA sample, followed by mandatory DNA collection at the polling place? It would probably cost a couple ten billion dollars, but hey, that shouldn't be any consideration if it means eliminating 10 or 20 fraudulent votes, right?
didnt think i would remember did you.