MTG Salvation

Sigarda, Host of Herons.

So, I got an email about some changes to WotC's account structure. This affects things like the PlaneswalkerPoints account. You now have to sign up for a "Wizards Account". Fine, no problem there...in theory.

I tried to sign up, but it wants a DCI# and an Activation Code that it claims is printed on the card. Well, I've got my DCI card in my wallet. I've been using it for years. It's one of those plastic Magic Rewards cards that they sent in the mail after a certain number of tournament points. So, unlike a paper card, much of the ink has rubbed off. It either never had an Activation Code or that section has been completely wiped clean.

So, I clicked the "Wizards Account FAQ". It told me Contact Customer Support. So, I clicked that, and it says "To send us an email, you will need to log into your Wizards support account. If you do not have one, you can create one by going to the Wizards Accounts page."

So, in short, to get customer support on how to create an account, I must first create an account. Any clue how to remedy this situation?

Thanks. That helps a lot. That is an absolutely asinine "improvement". I can't see how literally anyone could see this as a good change.

As I've posted somewhere near 1000 images between this and the old version of this thread, I won't be going back and updating all of those links. But, at least, now I know how to link future images.

Quote from Xenocyde3000 »

@HolyProxyBatman: I can't see that image or any other image you posted up until now... What happened?

I have no clue. I've literally changed nothing. Those are all Dropbox links. And if I input the actual link into my browser, it brings up the correct image. So I suppose that means something changed with the way this forum handles links.

That being said, can someone tell me how I should be linking images. I've been using this (without the spaces of course):
[spoiler ][IMG ]image-link-goes-here[/IMG ][/spoiler ]

Shield by Faith.


Can anybody see this image? It's coming up as a broken link for me. And the same goes for every post I've got in this thread. None of them are loading an image for me now.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Murder, assault, sexual assault and stealing are all oddly illegal then aren't they? Literally almost every possible action can be considered expression. You can't consider that freedom of speech. Speech is more than just any form of expression whatsoever.

No, because those infringe upon the rights of other people. That's the standard. There's nothing unclear about that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.d492055b3370

"A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport"
"A recent voter-ID study by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.”
"In 2012, a federal court in Washington concluded that the burden of obtaining a state voter-ID certificate would weigh disproportionately on minorities living in poverty, with many having to travel as much as 200 to 250 miles round trip."

And voter identity fraud is 99% emotional overreaction, 1% real. It doesn't significantly affect any elections.

Well, here's the thing. The Federal government should have dealt with this issue themselves. They left it to the state for no logical reason. Voting in state elections is in the domain of the state, but Federal elections are the domain of the Federal government. Voter ID laws need to reach the Supreme Court and get a wide-sweeping ruling. That would fix the issue completely.

Possibility #1 is that they'd declare that it's illegal to require an ID and this issue would immediately end.

Possibility #2 is that they'd declare it legal in which case they'd almost certainly put it solely in the Federal government's domain. That would prompt Congress to pass a Federal ID law, thereby invalidating all State laws on the issue. They'd then face legal challenges as to the manner in which it is applied. But, because the Supreme Court already ruled it legal, the result would almost certainly be a free ID program. And let's be honest, this is something Democrats have desired for decades.

If in fact people are having to travel 250 miles to get a voter ID in Washington, maybe that says more about Washington than it does about the ID law. I live in rural Wisconsin. There are at least 6 locations within 20 miles of me that I can get a voter ID. Bump that radius up to 50 miles and there's more like 20+ locations. It would be more, but some of that 50 mile radius includes another state and Lake Michigan.

I agree that voter fraud is a very small amount. But, that shouldn't mean we pretend it doesn't exist. But, please try to realize that it's not just the Right that believes in the existence of voter fraud. Jill Stein, a Leftist-Socialist alleged voter fraud in 3 states last year.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Quote from HolyProxyBatman »

The ACLU is a left-leaning organization that actually argues in favor of racial discrimination as long as it benefits minorities. To any logical person, Affirmative Action is clearly an example of discrimination. But, neither the ACLU nor the US government is willing to admit that on the basis that it would be unfair to minorities NOT to give them racial preferences.

You missed the point. No serious constitutional lawyer of any political affiliation is going to want to touch the argument against the 16th Amendment that you allege exists. It is, as you say of the First Amendment just a paragraph prior, a matter of settled law.

You misunderstand my point. I'm not suggesting it's a winning argument. Certainly, the US government would never allow their ability to collect Income Tax to be overturned. But, as for it being settled law, that's not entirely accurate or even relevant. Many issues have been seen as settled law only to be completely thrown out and replaced a century later: slavery, voting rights (who can vote), gay marriage, gun ownership, and a multitude of other things have been radically altered from the way they were for decades. Slavery was legal in the South. That was a matter of settled law until the Civil War began.

Quote from jwf239 »

I think ranked choice voting is absolutely something the United States needs to adopt to allow there to be real discussion inside parties instead of the current "us against them" mentality; especially since we are simultaneously watching the collapse of both parties. Without it smart people are punished for creating discourse within a mostly like minded group while unquestioned solidarity is rewarded. It really just sets us up to evolve ridiculously slowly as a culture.

In theory, I agree with your analysis. But, the 2-party system is very entrenched. I suspect this would actually result in the creation of parties and candidates whose only purpose is to act as spoilers. SuperPACs would create candidates to go out and suck up votes from one specific issue-driven voter type. This is not the case in countries with more than 2 parties that are seen on a relatively equal level.

Quote from DJK3654 »

I can hardly see this interpretation ever working out. 'Any form of expression', that's easily arguable to be a massive percentage of all possible action, even all action. Speech, I would think, is about pure, direct communication. Writing out a vote is probably fair to consider speech, but what I am talking about does not compel anyone to speak any which way.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but this is a matter of settled law. The US Supreme Court has ruled many times on what constitutes speech and invariably, they have ruled that nearly all expressions (or the prevention thereof) are examples of types of speech.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

The role of the federal Department of Education is more limited than a lot of people assume. According to its own website, it coordinates federal assistance to schools, collects data on education, focuses national attention on major issues, and enforces anti-discrimination law. It does not establish, administer, mandate, or accredit educational institutions at any level in this country. If you are looking for the laws that do those things, look in state and local statutes.
That may be true. But, if the state of Alabama suddenly declared that it would no longer require nor provide public education, do you believe that the Federal government would acquiesce? No chance.

Quote from HolyProxyBatman »

I understand the argument surrounding the 16th Ammendment. I said that there's an argument that can be made to de-legitimize the current tax code. And that's absolutely true. The fact that the courts have denied that argument means very little. For a century, the courts denied the argument that a black man is a person.

Trained lawyers in the ACLU and other watchdogs will howl at the faintest whiff of racial discrimination or other civil rights violations. These same lawyers won't go anywhere near 16th Amendment denialism cases. They, the experts on the relevant law, know that [i]there is no argument there.

The ACLU is a left-leaning organization that actually argues in favor of racial discrimination as long as it benefits minorities. To any logical person, Affirmative Action is clearly an example of discrimination. But, neither the ACLU nor the US government is willing to admit that on the basis that it would be unfair to minorities NOT to give them racial preferences.

Quote from osieorb18 »

Okay, can we also institute mandatory voter registration from birth that lasts until death or uncleared felony conviction, and voter IDs provided at no particular cost to any individual citizen with enough regularity that there is no conceivable way that any American citizen will show up to vote without their ID, even if they are homeless and penniless, and there's no conceivable way that any American citizen will not know that they have the option to show up to vote? Because most people who support voter ID laws appear to support them while not considering or while hoping for the huge disenfranchisement of a massive number of American citizens. I'm not saying that is the case for you, but common sense should be applied when making laws.

Mandatory voter registration would probably be legal and acceptable as long as there was no cost involved, similar to the Selective Service law.

Voter IDs are available at low-to-no-cost in every state. You shouldn't use a phrase like "no conceivable way" because no matter what scenario you create, there is a conceivable (though improbable) counter-argument.

Seriously, who doesn't know when voting day is ?

The voter disenfranchisement issue is 99% emotional overreaction, 1% real.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Quote from HolyProxyBatman »

However, I disagree with your conclusion in this way: mandatory education almost certainly is a violation of the US Constitution. I don't know if there's ever been a serious attempt to fight it in court, but based on their attitude regarding dictatorial central governmental control, I'd bet that the Founding Fathers would been entirely opposed mandatory education.

Education is mandated at the state level -- it cannot be a violation of the US Constitution unless the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from doing that (which it doesn't). And the Founders, although a collection of various men with a variety of opinions, were overall strongly in favor.

Quote from HolyProxyBatman »

The 16th Ammendment which is the justification for the Income Tax was never properly ratified and has language that can be reasonably interpreted to de-legitimize the current tax code.

False on both counts.

Education may be mandated on the State level, but State laws cannot supercede Federal laws and if it was determined to be a violation on a Federal level, the States would not have the power to enforce it. Additionally, the Department of Education which oversees public education is a Federal agency, not a State one. So, to claim that the States have any actual ownership over education is untrue.

I understand the argument surrounding the 16th Ammendment. I said that there's an argument that can be made to de-legitimize the current tax code. And that's absolutely true. The fact that the courts have denied that argument means very little. For a century, the courts denied the argument that a black man is a person.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
On the subject of freedom of speech, to repeat myself again, you just have to show up and submit your ballot regardless of what you put on it- you don't actuallly have to cast a meaningful vote. Here's another example- education is mandatory in the US. Just look at that violation of your freedoms. Sacrifices, Highroller.

Education is once again, not a RIGHT. It's a governmentally mandated OBLIGATION.

Quote from DJK3654 »

3. You don't have to write anything, just submit the ballot, as I've said like ten times now. There's no speech involved, only showing up, signing on the roll and turning in the ballot. Actually putting a vote on the ballot is not actually the mandatory part.
So no, Highroller, it's not restricting your freedom of speech unless mandatory education which also compels you to turn up and sign onto a roll, is also.
Until you can tell me what mandatory voting involves that mandatory education doesn't, your argument there is clearly invalid.

Perhaps in your country, SPEECH is defined differently. In the US, speech includes any form of expression. This would include writing or the prevention thereof. So being required to turn in a ballot, blank or not, is in effect a forced act of speech and therefore violates Free Speech laws.

As far as your comparison with education, you're partly right. The US has not always had mandatory education. That was a creation of the Progressive movement. Instead of trying to argue against your point, I'll actually agree that there really isn't much of a difference. However, I disagree with your conclusion in this way: mandatory education almost certainly is a violation of the US Constitution. I don't know if there's ever been a serious attempt to fight it in court, but based on their attitude regarding dictatorial central governmental control, I'd bet that the Founding Fathers would been entirely opposed mandatory education.

And since it's been mentioned, there is a debate as to the legality of the Income Tax in the US. The 16th Ammendment which is the justification for the Income Tax was never properly ratified and has language that can be reasonably interpreted to de-legitimize the current tax code.

Quote from DJK3654 »

You pay tax despite the fact that it's mandatory- because it is the duty of citizens to contribute to maintain government. Is the vote not also important to maintaining government? And keep in mind here, you can still neglect to fill in the ballot and just leave it blank, effectively not voting. All you have to do is show up, even then you can neglect to and just essentially pay a voting tax and if you have a good reason you can avoid payment.
All in all, the system works more like a voting incentive than forcing people to vote.

You're confusing a RIGHT with a governmentally imposed OBLIGATION.

You also have the RIGHT to bear arms. I doubt you'd contend that the government should require everyone to own and carry a handgun.

Oh, and in the US, voting taxes are 100% ILLEGAL.

Quote from DJK3654 »

1. Voting day on a weekend or a federal holiday
2. The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
3. Mandatory voter attendance (like in Australia, you don't have to actually put anything down as a vote, but you have to turn up to cast one)

Reasoning for each being

1: People should not be denied the opportunity to vote because they cannot afford to take time of work to do so.
2: If the vote is the voter's representation in government, they should be able to represent something a little more sophisticated than simply picking a single favorite from a limited list.
3: Representative democracy relies on the people actually voting. It's too important of an issue to just leave to apathy and laziness. With a system like what I'm proposing, people can even still be apathetic and lazy, but they are at least given an incentive to take an interest if they have to make some kind of effort either way. The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well, unless it's not as important? Especially when paying taxes is a bigger deal than just showing up to vote once every four years.

In particular to Americans, which of these points do you agree/disagree with and why?

Voting on a weekend wouldn't really solve anything. A lot of people work on weekends too. You'd also get people complaining that they have to take time out of their day off to go vote.

Multiple options is a highly problematic issue. If you really believe that the electorate is educated and knowledgeable, this is a potentially good idea. However, I certainly don't believe the electorate is anywhere near competent enough to handle something like this. Most people have no idea what the people they vote for actually stand for. It's sad, but a very large chunk of voters choose entirely based on the D or R next to the name. For the Primary, a ranking system would actually be a good idea. But for the General Election (thinking Presidential elections here) it's almost always a 2-way race anyway. The non-main-party candidates have very little effect on the result. A ranking system wouldn't change this.

Mandatory voter turnout is clearly Unconstitutional in the US. To be honest, I'd rather go the other direction and require a competency test before allowing a voter to be allowed to vote. This is a very unpopular concept today, but it is the way things were done in the beginning and quite honestly, I think better decisions were made back then.

You're right that people shouldn't be prevented from voting because of their jobs. Fact is, it doesn't happen. If someone claims they couldn't vote because of their job, they're lying. The polls are open for at least 12 hours. Very few people have 12 hour shifts. Additionally, most employers are extremely accommodating in allowing workers to take an hour off to go vote. And then there's the fact that you can cast an absentee vote weeks ahead of time. Not finding an opportunity to vote is 100% the fault of the voter. There are many opportunities over a long period of time to vote.

Sorry, but people can't really handle nuance. All you have to do is watch a few political adds and you realize just how dumb people really are.

Relentless Dead.

Regal Behemoth.

Mind Grind.