Evidence of Incitement

[forkup]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

Neither is voting by mail. By the way extending the election timeline is something

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

By all means, extent the timeline, make election day a Saturday. I'm for all of that. None of it is on the table though. The reason being that the GOP doesn't want any of that. Just like they don't want to get rid of the electoral college. So fair voting in the US will continue to mean that the Democrats have to get 3 to 5 percent more votes for the presidency. None of that is on the table tough. And what is, you object to. Again to you it is worth it and I can't help to think that it's just cynical self-serving.

Stop discussing F*CKING politics. I am speaking as a logical person. And you agreed. So voting in person is more secure. Why not work on measures that help people vote in person rather than avoiding it?

Do you think one disqualifies the other? Your position is that you don't like mail in voting. Fine. We both know that without this voting turnout would be severely depressed. As a reason you give that fraud is easier. You don't know how much more easy, yet you feel justified in what is a de facto disenfranchisement of millions of people because of it. When confronted with that fact you come up with another way to get more people to vote currently NOT even considered by the GOP. When you bring up measures that the GOP wont consider why shouldn't I just say that?

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote. I'm consistent in that. You on the other are not.

I just said --- increase the window for in person voting. Allow people to do so at the Post Office or other Gov't locations. Town Hall, etc. Or they may REQUEST mail in ballots. Why is that so onerous?

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that you, by protesting against mail voting are for disenfranchising millions of people and the best defense you have is that you're for other ways to increase turnout. Ways that are not being considered. That, in my view, is not consistent.

I am not "protesting". I am giving an opinion on a message board. I am not writing my Congressperson about it.

Then your opinion is not consistent within the framework of the fairest election process.

I disagree. And you agreed with me that in person voting has the least chance of fraud.

Disagree all you want. You are advocating for millions of people not to cast their vote on the assumption that a certain percentage that you don't know, and have no evidence for, so you can't know, will cheat. That is not fair. In fact, it's an argument that has been rejected several times during this election cycle.

Why can't those people cast their vote? Explain that to me? What is preventing them?

Fear of Covid, not being totally committed, a cold, what does it matter? If you can make the argument that it's evident that mail-in voting increases voting fraud without any actual evidence, I can make the argument that mail-in voting increases turnout as being evidenced by the highest turnout in history.

You admitted that in person has less of a chance to be Fraud. COVID is temporary and a cold? Lol. You’re grasping. Highest and 40% believes it was dishonest and we have major civil unrest.

You keep on citing my admission that it probably increases fraud as it helps you. Can you quantify the increase? Do you have evidence of an increase? Does it justify the lower turnout? The answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

I think you missed the point. I DO NOT care what the reason is people vote more when they have the option to vote by mail. I simply care that it does.

And please stop this vote by mail crap as the reason people distrust the election. They distrust the result because Trump said they should. The reason I know that is because in 2016 Trump also claimed a rigged election. Voting by mail wasn't an issue then and yet he still said it was rigged AFTER he won. And he was followed by his supporters in that assertion.

I know this because before Trump there was no talk about widespread voter fraud and voting by mail was encouraged by the GOP and already decades old.

Why not eliminate in person voting? Why have it at all? Why do I need to quantify it when we agree that the optics are bad?

You need to quantify it because you are using it as a justification for depressing voter turnout by millions. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

I'll see if I can put it in an analogy. Let's say that a certain percentage of people are killed by seatbelts because they can't escape a burning vehicle. And you propose as a result that seatbelts should therefore be outlawed. Wouldn't the reasonable thing for me to ask you is for you to show me the numbers for people who have died by seatbelts vs those that have been saved?

OMG you long winded buffoon. If Trump won and the landslide mail in voting favored him I would say the same exact thing. It looks bad. I swear On my kids. Common sense is also reasonable and we would surmise that seatbelts save lives.

Two paragraphs is long-winded?

Common sense also dictates that because of mail-in voting millions more people voted while you have ZERO idea how many people committed fraud. That is the point.

Refrain from calling me names, please. I haven't done so to you.

Again the optics look bad. It would look bad if Trump won for the same reason as well. You may as well call me names by dismissing my opinion. What is the difference? Show me proof that if people had more time to vote that they could not do the same as vote by mail. Thanks.

So you want me to prove a hypothetical? How do you suggest I go about doing that? I can prove that more people voted in this election cycle than ever before.

And no disagreeing with someone isn't the same as calling people names. One leads to a conversation the other leads to an argument.

No. You can prove more votes were counted. How those votes got there is the question mark. You don't disagree. You dismiss. Big difference.

It's not a question mark. It's been investigated, challenged, and dismissed by the courts. The final entity that can make that determination.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

Neither is voting by mail. By the way extending the election timeline is something

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

By all means, extent the timeline, make election day a Saturday. I'm for all of that. None of it is on the table though. The reason being that the GOP doesn't want any of that. Just like they don't want to get rid of the electoral college. So fair voting in the US will continue to mean that the Democrats have to get 3 to 5 percent more votes for the presidency. None of that is on the table tough. And what is, you object to. Again to you it is worth it and I can't help to think that it's just cynical self-serving.

Stop discussing F*CKING politics. I am speaking as a logical person. And you agreed. So voting in person is more secure. Why not work on measures that help people vote in person rather than avoiding it?

Do you think one disqualifies the other? Your position is that you don't like mail in voting. Fine. We both know that without this voting turnout would be severely depressed. As a reason you give that fraud is easier. You don't know how much more easy, yet you feel justified in what is a de facto disenfranchisement of millions of people because of it. When confronted with that fact you come up with another way to get more people to vote currently NOT even considered by the GOP. When you bring up measures that the GOP wont consider why shouldn't I just say that?

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote. I'm consistent in that. You on the other are not.

I just said --- increase the window for in person voting. Allow people to do so at the Post Office or other Gov't locations. Town Hall, etc. Or they may REQUEST mail in ballots. Why is that so onerous?

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that you, by protesting against mail voting are for disenfranchising millions of people and the best defense you have is that you're for other ways to increase turnout. Ways that are not being considered. That, in my view, is not consistent.

I am not "protesting". I am giving an opinion on a message board. I am not writing my Congressperson about it.

Then your opinion is not consistent within the framework of the fairest election process.

I disagree. And you agreed with me that in person voting has the least chance of fraud.

Disagree all you want. You are advocating for millions of people not to cast their vote on the assumption that a certain percentage that you don't know, and have no evidence for, so you can't know, will cheat. That is not fair. In fact, it's an argument that has been rejected several times during this election cycle.

Why can't those people cast their vote? Explain that to me? What is preventing them?

Fear of Covid, not being totally committed, a cold, what does it matter? If you can make the argument that it's evident that mail-in voting increases voting fraud without any actual evidence, I can make the argument that mail-in voting increases turnout as being evidenced by the highest turnout in history.

You admitted that in person has less of a chance to be Fraud. COVID is temporary and a cold? Lol. You’re grasping. Highest and 40% believes it was dishonest and we have major civil unrest.

You keep on citing my admission that it probably increases fraud as it helps you. Can you quantify the increase? Do you have evidence of an increase? Does it justify the lower turnout? The answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

I think you missed the point. I DO NOT care what the reason is people vote more when they have the option to vote by mail. I simply care that it does.

And please stop this vote by mail crap as the reason people distrust the election. They distrust the result because Trump said they should. The reason I know that is because in 2016 Trump also claimed a rigged election. Voting by mail wasn't an issue then and yet he still said it was rigged AFTER he won. And he was followed by his supporters in that assertion.

I know this because before Trump there was no talk about widespread voter fraud and voting by mail was encouraged by the GOP and already decades old.

Why not eliminate in person voting? Why have it at all? Why do I need to quantify it when we agree that the optics are bad?

And you need in-person voting because as I said.

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote.

But everyone uses the mail. Why have in person at all? After all someone could have a cold. Lol

Sure, and people like you who don't trust the mail with their vote should have the opportunity to cast their vote in the manner you prefer because otherwise you might choose to forego voting. It works both ways you see.

Why would I forego it? That doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t work both ways because 40% of the country believes the election was stolen. If it was done same as prior elections then Trump or any of his supporters would not be able to bitch. Now they can and they have a case. Optics are bad.

Of course, they could bitch. They DID bitch in 2016 when there was maybe one state that had universal mail-in voting. He bitched even when he won.

Optics look bad. Not sure how many more times I must repeat myself.

Millions of people, not voting is worse. Don't know how many times I have to explain that.

In your opinion. I believe votes should be done fairly. If you want them to vote, extend the timeline and provide more places to do so.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

Neither is voting by mail. By the way extending the election timeline is something

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

By all means, extent the timeline, make election day a Saturday. I'm for all of that. None of it is on the table though. The reason being that the GOP doesn't want any of that. Just like they don't want to get rid of the electoral college. So fair voting in the US will continue to mean that the Democrats have to get 3 to 5 percent more votes for the presidency. None of that is on the table tough. And what is, you object to. Again to you it is worth it and I can't help to think that it's just cynical self-serving.

Stop discussing F*CKING politics. I am speaking as a logical person. And you agreed. So voting in person is more secure. Why not work on measures that help people vote in person rather than avoiding it?

Do you think one disqualifies the other? Your position is that you don't like mail in voting. Fine. We both know that without this voting turnout would be severely depressed. As a reason you give that fraud is easier. You don't know how much more easy, yet you feel justified in what is a de facto disenfranchisement of millions of people because of it. When confronted with that fact you come up with another way to get more people to vote currently NOT even considered by the GOP. When you bring up measures that the GOP wont consider why shouldn't I just say that?

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote. I'm consistent in that. You on the other are not.

I just said --- increase the window for in person voting. Allow people to do so at the Post Office or other Gov't locations. Town Hall, etc. Or they may REQUEST mail in ballots. Why is that so onerous?

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that you, by protesting against mail voting are for disenfranchising millions of people and the best defense you have is that you're for other ways to increase turnout. Ways that are not being considered. That, in my view, is not consistent.

I am not "protesting". I am giving an opinion on a message board. I am not writing my Congressperson about it.

Then your opinion is not consistent within the framework of the fairest election process.

I disagree. And you agreed with me that in person voting has the least chance of fraud.

Disagree all you want. You are advocating for millions of people not to cast their vote on the assumption that a certain percentage that you don't know, and have no evidence for, so you can't know, will cheat. That is not fair. In fact, it's an argument that has been rejected several times during this election cycle.

Why can't those people cast their vote? Explain that to me? What is preventing them?

Fear of Covid, not being totally committed, a cold, what does it matter? If you can make the argument that it's evident that mail-in voting increases voting fraud without any actual evidence, I can make the argument that mail-in voting increases turnout as being evidenced by the highest turnout in history.

You admitted that in person has less of a chance to be Fraud. COVID is temporary and a cold? Lol. You’re grasping. Highest and 40% believes it was dishonest and we have major civil unrest.

You keep on citing my admission that it probably increases fraud as it helps you. Can you quantify the increase? Do you have evidence of an increase? Does it justify the lower turnout? The answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

I think you missed the point. I DO NOT care what the reason is people vote more when they have the option to vote by mail. I simply care that it does.

And please stop this vote by mail crap as the reason people distrust the election. They distrust the result because Trump said they should. The reason I know that is because in 2016 Trump also claimed a rigged election. Voting by mail wasn't an issue then and yet he still said it was rigged AFTER he won. And he was followed by his supporters in that assertion.

I know this because before Trump there was no talk about widespread voter fraud and voting by mail was encouraged by the GOP and already decades old.

Why not eliminate in person voting? Why have it at all? Why do I need to quantify it when we agree that the optics are bad?

You need to quantify it because you are using it as a justification for depressing voter turnout by millions. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

I'll see if I can put it in an analogy. Let's say that a certain percentage of people are killed by seatbelts because they can't escape a burning vehicle. And you propose as a result that seatbelts should therefore be outlawed. Wouldn't the reasonable thing for me to ask you is for you to show me the numbers for people who have died by seatbelts vs those that have been saved?

OMG you long winded buffoon. If Trump won and the landslide mail in voting favored him I would say the same exact thing. It looks bad. I swear On my kids. Common sense is also reasonable and we would surmise that seatbelts save lives.

Two paragraphs is long-winded?

Common sense also dictates that because of mail-in voting millions more people voted while you have ZERO idea how many people committed fraud. That is the point.

Refrain from calling me names, please. I haven't done so to you.

Again the optics look bad. It would look bad if Trump won for the same reason as well. You may as well call me names by dismissing my opinion. What is the difference? Show me proof that if people had more time to vote that they could not do the same as vote by mail. Thanks.

So optics outweigh the voice of millions in your opinion?

No. You may have both. Give them a longer period to vote and more voting places where they must show ID. Doesn't seem overly difficult. Do it at the local police stations.

Citing a possible alternative that isn't available doesn't make up for a for-real consequence of not allowing something that is available.

Why is it not available? Says who? We are going in circles:

#1) You admitted that in person voting is more secure
#2) You admitted the optics may look iffy.

You're OK with above so more people may hypothetically vote. I disagree. Debate over.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

Neither is voting by mail. By the way extending the election timeline is something

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

By all means, extent the timeline, make election day a Saturday. I'm for all of that. None of it is on the table though. The reason being that the GOP doesn't want any of that. Just like they don't want to get rid of the electoral college. So fair voting in the US will continue to mean that the Democrats have to get 3 to 5 percent more votes for the presidency. None of that is on the table tough. And what is, you object to. Again to you it is worth it and I can't help to think that it's just cynical self-serving.

Stop discussing F*CKING politics. I am speaking as a logical person. And you agreed. So voting in person is more secure. Why not work on measures that help people vote in person rather than avoiding it?

Do you think one disqualifies the other? Your position is that you don't like mail in voting. Fine. We both know that without this voting turnout would be severely depressed. As a reason you give that fraud is easier. You don't know how much more easy, yet you feel justified in what is a de facto disenfranchisement of millions of people because of it. When confronted with that fact you come up with another way to get more people to vote currently NOT even considered by the GOP. When you bring up measures that the GOP wont consider why shouldn't I just say that?

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote. I'm consistent in that. You on the other are not.

I just said --- increase the window for in person voting. Allow people to do so at the Post Office or other Gov't locations. Town Hall, etc. Or they may REQUEST mail in ballots. Why is that so onerous?

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that you, by protesting against mail voting are for disenfranchising millions of people and the best defense you have is that you're for other ways to increase turnout. Ways that are not being considered. That, in my view, is not consistent.

I am not "protesting". I am giving an opinion on a message board. I am not writing my Congressperson about it.

Then your opinion is not consistent within the framework of the fairest election process.

I disagree. And you agreed with me that in person voting has the least chance of fraud.

Disagree all you want. You are advocating for millions of people not to cast their vote on the assumption that a certain percentage that you don't know, and have no evidence for, so you can't know, will cheat. That is not fair. In fact, it's an argument that has been rejected several times during this election cycle.

Why can't those people cast their vote? Explain that to me? What is preventing them?

Fear of Covid, not being totally committed, a cold, what does it matter? If you can make the argument that it's evident that mail-in voting increases voting fraud without any actual evidence, I can make the argument that mail-in voting increases turnout as being evidenced by the highest turnout in history.

You admitted that in person has less of a chance to be Fraud. COVID is temporary and a cold? Lol. You’re grasping. Highest and 40% believes it was dishonest and we have major civil unrest.

You keep on citing my admission that it probably increases fraud as it helps you. Can you quantify the increase? Do you have evidence of an increase? Does it justify the lower turnout? The answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

I think you missed the point. I DO NOT care what the reason is people vote more when they have the option to vote by mail. I simply care that it does.

And please stop this vote by mail crap as the reason people distrust the election. They distrust the result because Trump said they should. The reason I know that is because in 2016 Trump also claimed a rigged election. Voting by mail wasn't an issue then and yet he still said it was rigged AFTER he won. And he was followed by his supporters in that assertion.

I know this because before Trump there was no talk about widespread voter fraud and voting by mail was encouraged by the GOP and already decades old.

Why not eliminate in person voting? Why have it at all? Why do I need to quantify it when we agree that the optics are bad?

You need to quantify it because you are using it as a justification for depressing voter turnout by millions. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

I'll see if I can put it in an analogy. Let's say that a certain percentage of people are killed by seatbelts because they can't escape a burning vehicle. And you propose as a result that seatbelts should therefore be outlawed. Wouldn't the reasonable thing for me to ask you is for you to show me the numbers for people who have died by seatbelts vs those that have been saved?

OMG you long winded buffoon. If Trump won and the landslide mail in voting favored him I would say the same exact thing. It looks bad. I swear On my kids. Common sense is also reasonable and we would surmise that seatbelts save lives.

Two paragraphs is long-winded?

Common sense also dictates that because of mail-in voting millions more people voted while you have ZERO idea how many people committed fraud. That is the point.

Refrain from calling me names, please. I haven't done so to you.

Again the optics look bad. It would look bad if Trump won for the same reason as well. You may as well call me names by dismissing my opinion. What is the difference? Show me proof that if people had more time to vote that they could not do the same as vote by mail. Thanks.

So you want me to prove a hypothetical? How do you suggest I go about doing that? I can prove that more people voted in this election cycle than ever before.

And no disagreeing with someone isn't the same as calling people names. One leads to a conversation the other leads to an argument.

No. You can prove more votes were counted. How those votes got there is the question mark. You don't disagree. You dismiss. Big difference.

It's not a question mark. It's been investigated, challenged, and dismissed by the courts. The final entity that can make that determination.

I don't believe our media. Sorry. I also don't believe the courts. Call me a skeptic. They said OJ was innocent too. Was he?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

But a cop did die..and someone is going to fry for that:

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-01-07/us-capitol-police-officer-dies-from-injuries-in-riot-by-trump-supporters

A U.S. Capitol Police officer, Brian Sicknick, has died of injuries suffered when supporters of President Donald Trump assaulted the legislative building, the force said, bringing to five the number dead from the riot.

Wednesday's breach of the U.S. Capitol building took place as lawmakers were in the building certifying the victory of President-elect Joe Biden.
"Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots...and was injured while physically engaging with protesters," police said in a statement.
He died on Thursday after being taken to hospital following his collapse afer he returned to his divisional office, it said. An affiliate of CBS News reported that Sicknick was a 15-year veteran of the force and 40-years-old.
The report said he had earlier suffered a stroke and was on life support before his death.
Metropolitan homicide officials will investigate the death of Sicknick, who joined the U.S. Capitol Police in 2008, along with the Capitol force and its federal partners, police said.

Thanks for admitting you only care about the lives of cops.

Is that what you got out of my post? How very odd.
If you are alluding to the woman who was shot....I do make a difference between a person in the midst of commiting a felony..and a officer doing his duty...But both deaths were a tragedy..and both of them were preventable....oh yeah..and ultimate blame for both of them belongs to Trump.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

Neither is voting by mail. By the way extending the election timeline is something

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

By all means, extent the timeline, make election day a Saturday. I'm for all of that. None of it is on the table though. The reason being that the GOP doesn't want any of that. Just like they don't want to get rid of the electoral college. So fair voting in the US will continue to mean that the Democrats have to get 3 to 5 percent more votes for the presidency. None of that is on the table tough. And what is, you object to. Again to you it is worth it and I can't help to think that it's just cynical self-serving.

Stop discussing F*CKING politics. I am speaking as a logical person. And you agreed. So voting in person is more secure. Why not work on measures that help people vote in person rather than avoiding it?

Do you think one disqualifies the other? Your position is that you don't like mail in voting. Fine. We both know that without this voting turnout would be severely depressed. As a reason you give that fraud is easier. You don't know how much more easy, yet you feel justified in what is a de facto disenfranchisement of millions of people because of it. When confronted with that fact you come up with another way to get more people to vote currently NOT even considered by the GOP. When you bring up measures that the GOP wont consider why shouldn't I just say that?

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote. I'm consistent in that. You on the other are not.

I just said --- increase the window for in person voting. Allow people to do so at the Post Office or other Gov't locations. Town Hall, etc. Or they may REQUEST mail in ballots. Why is that so onerous?

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that you, by protesting against mail voting are for disenfranchising millions of people and the best defense you have is that you're for other ways to increase turnout. Ways that are not being considered. That, in my view, is not consistent.

I am not "protesting". I am giving an opinion on a message board. I am not writing my Congressperson about it.

Then your opinion is not consistent within the framework of the fairest election process.

I disagree. And you agreed with me that in person voting has the least chance of fraud.

Disagree all you want. You are advocating for millions of people not to cast their vote on the assumption that a certain percentage that you don't know, and have no evidence for, so you can't know, will cheat. That is not fair. In fact, it's an argument that has been rejected several times during this election cycle.

Why can't those people cast their vote? Explain that to me? What is preventing them?

Fear of Covid, not being totally committed, a cold, what does it matter? If you can make the argument that it's evident that mail-in voting increases voting fraud without any actual evidence, I can make the argument that mail-in voting increases turnout as being evidenced by the highest turnout in history.

You admitted that in person has less of a chance to be Fraud. COVID is temporary and a cold? Lol. You’re grasping. Highest and 40% believes it was dishonest and we have major civil unrest.

You keep on citing my admission that it probably increases fraud as it helps you. Can you quantify the increase? Do you have evidence of an increase? Does it justify the lower turnout? The answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

I think you missed the point. I DO NOT care what the reason is people vote more when they have the option to vote by mail. I simply care that it does.

And please stop this vote by mail crap as the reason people distrust the election. They distrust the result because Trump said they should. The reason I know that is because in 2016 Trump also claimed a rigged election. Voting by mail wasn't an issue then and yet he still said it was rigged AFTER he won. And he was followed by his supporters in that assertion.

I know this because before Trump there was no talk about widespread voter fraud and voting by mail was encouraged by the GOP and already decades old.

Why not eliminate in person voting? Why have it at all? Why do I need to quantify it when we agree that the optics are bad?

You need to quantify it because you are using it as a justification for depressing voter turnout by millions. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

I'll see if I can put it in an analogy. Let's say that a certain percentage of people are killed by seatbelts because they can't escape a burning vehicle. And you propose as a result that seatbelts should therefore be outlawed. Wouldn't the reasonable thing for me to ask you is for you to show me the numbers for people who have died by seatbelts vs those that have been saved?

OMG you long winded buffoon. If Trump won and the landslide mail in voting favored him I would say the same exact thing. It looks bad. I swear On my kids. Common sense is also reasonable and we would surmise that seatbelts save lives.

Two paragraphs is long-winded?

Common sense also dictates that because of mail-in voting millions more people voted while you have ZERO idea how many people committed fraud. That is the point.

Refrain from calling me names, please. I haven't done so to you.

Again the optics look bad. It would look bad if Trump won for the same reason as well. You may as well call me names by dismissing my opinion. What is the difference? Show me proof that if people had more time to vote that they could not do the same as vote by mail. Thanks.

So you want me to prove a hypothetical? How do you suggest I go about doing that? I can prove that more people voted in this election cycle than ever before.

And no disagreeing with someone isn't the same as calling people names. One leads to a conversation the other leads to an argument.

No. You can prove more votes were counted. How those votes got there is the question mark. You don't disagree. You dismiss. Big difference.

It's not a question mark. It's been investigated, challenged, and dismissed by the courts. The final entity that can make that determination.

I don't believe our media. Sorry. I also don't believe the courts. Call me a skeptic. They said OJ was innocent too. Was he?

The media did NOT say OJ was innocent..and neither did the courts..the jury..in a textbook case of jury nullification found him not guilty--more as a slap in the face to white America than out of any conviction that he was innocent.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

Neither is voting by mail. By the way extending the election timeline is something

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

By all means, extent the timeline, make election day a Saturday. I'm for all of that. None of it is on the table though. The reason being that the GOP doesn't want any of that. Just like they don't want to get rid of the electoral college. So fair voting in the US will continue to mean that the Democrats have to get 3 to 5 percent more votes for the presidency. None of that is on the table tough. And what is, you object to. Again to you it is worth it and I can't help to think that it's just cynical self-serving.

Stop discussing F*CKING politics. I am speaking as a logical person. And you agreed. So voting in person is more secure. Why not work on measures that help people vote in person rather than avoiding it?

Do you think one disqualifies the other? Your position is that you don't like mail in voting. Fine. We both know that without this voting turnout would be severely depressed. As a reason you give that fraud is easier. You don't know how much more easy, yet you feel justified in what is a de facto disenfranchisement of millions of people because of it. When confronted with that fact you come up with another way to get more people to vote currently NOT even considered by the GOP. When you bring up measures that the GOP wont consider why shouldn't I just say that?

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote. I'm consistent in that. You on the other are not.

I just said --- increase the window for in person voting. Allow people to do so at the Post Office or other Gov't locations. Town Hall, etc. Or they may REQUEST mail in ballots. Why is that so onerous?

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that you, by protesting against mail voting are for disenfranchising millions of people and the best defense you have is that you're for other ways to increase turnout. Ways that are not being considered. That, in my view, is not consistent.

I am not "protesting". I am giving an opinion on a message board. I am not writing my Congressperson about it.

Then your opinion is not consistent within the framework of the fairest election process.

I disagree. And you agreed with me that in person voting has the least chance of fraud.

Disagree all you want. You are advocating for millions of people not to cast their vote on the assumption that a certain percentage that you don't know, and have no evidence for, so you can't know, will cheat. That is not fair. In fact, it's an argument that has been rejected several times during this election cycle.

Why can't those people cast their vote? Explain that to me? What is preventing them?

Fear of Covid, not being totally committed, a cold, what does it matter? If you can make the argument that it's evident that mail-in voting increases voting fraud without any actual evidence, I can make the argument that mail-in voting increases turnout as being evidenced by the highest turnout in history.

You admitted that in person has less of a chance to be Fraud. COVID is temporary and a cold? Lol. You’re grasping. Highest and 40% believes it was dishonest and we have major civil unrest.

You keep on citing my admission that it probably increases fraud as it helps you. Can you quantify the increase? Do you have evidence of an increase? Does it justify the lower turnout? The answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

I think you missed the point. I DO NOT care what the reason is people vote more when they have the option to vote by mail. I simply care that it does.

And please stop this vote by mail crap as the reason people distrust the election. They distrust the result because Trump said they should. The reason I know that is because in 2016 Trump also claimed a rigged election. Voting by mail wasn't an issue then and yet he still said it was rigged AFTER he won. And he was followed by his supporters in that assertion.

I know this because before Trump there was no talk about widespread voter fraud and voting by mail was encouraged by the GOP and already decades old.

Why not eliminate in person voting? Why have it at all? Why do I need to quantify it when we agree that the optics are bad?

You need to quantify it because you are using it as a justification for depressing voter turnout by millions. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

I'll see if I can put it in an analogy. Let's say that a certain percentage of people are killed by seatbelts because they can't escape a burning vehicle. And you propose as a result that seatbelts should therefore be outlawed. Wouldn't the reasonable thing for me to ask you is for you to show me the numbers for people who have died by seatbelts vs those that have been saved?

OMG you long winded buffoon. If Trump won and the landslide mail in voting favored him I would say the same exact thing. It looks bad. I swear On my kids. Common sense is also reasonable and we would surmise that seatbelts save lives.

Two paragraphs is long-winded?

Common sense also dictates that because of mail-in voting millions more people voted while you have ZERO idea how many people committed fraud. That is the point.

Refrain from calling me names, please. I haven't done so to you.

Again the optics look bad. It would look bad if Trump won for the same reason as well. You may as well call me names by dismissing my opinion. What is the difference? Show me proof that if people had more time to vote that they could not do the same as vote by mail. Thanks.

So you want me to prove a hypothetical? How do you suggest I go about doing that? I can prove that more people voted in this election cycle than ever before.

And no disagreeing with someone isn't the same as calling people names. One leads to a conversation the other leads to an argument.

No. You can prove more votes were counted. How those votes got there is the question mark. You don't disagree. You dismiss. Big difference.

It's not a question mark. It's been investigated, challenged, and dismissed by the courts. The final entity that can make that determination.

I don't believe our media. Sorry. I also don't believe the courts. Call me a skeptic. They said OJ was innocent too. Was he?

The media did NOT say OJ was innocent..and neither did the courts..the jury..in a textbook case of jury nullification found him not guilty--more as a slap in the face to white America than out of any conviction that he was innocent.

Many in the media did and the jury is the court...LOL

 

[JoeB131]

China's worldwide covid pandemic, but you'd rather blame Trump than China,

Uh, yeah, dealing with those things was Trump's job.

NOT MY FAULT is not a profile in courage.

Only president to be impeached twice By partisan democrats for non-crimes, with no GOP votes

There will be GOP votes for impeachment the second time, buddy.

only one of five presidents to lose the popular vote Trump won the Electoral College, which elects presidents, popular vote is irrelevant

Just because we use an awful system, doesn't mean the guy who cheat it do well.

Okay - Does anyone consider the five guys who got the job after the people said "NO" to have been good presidents? Nope. They rank at the bottom of most lists.

 

[Indeependent]

But a cop did die..and someone is going to fry for that:

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-01-07/us-capitol-police-officer-dies-from-injuries-in-riot-by-trump-supporters

A U.S. Capitol Police officer, Brian Sicknick, has died of injuries suffered when supporters of President Donald Trump assaulted the legislative building, the force said, bringing to five the number dead from the riot.

Wednesday's breach of the U.S. Capitol building took place as lawmakers were in the building certifying the victory of President-elect Joe Biden.
"Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots...and was injured while physically engaging with protesters," police said in a statement.
He died on Thursday after being taken to hospital following his collapse afer he returned to his divisional office, it said. An affiliate of CBS News reported that Sicknick was a 15-year veteran of the force and 40-years-old.
The report said he had earlier suffered a stroke and was on life support before his death.
Metropolitan homicide officials will investigate the death of Sicknick, who joined the U.S. Capitol Police in 2008, along with the Capitol force and its federal partners, police said.

Thanks for admitting you only care about the lives of cops.

Is that what you got out of my post? How very odd.
If you are alluding to the woman who was shot....I do make a difference between a person in the midst of commiting a felony..and a officer doing his duty...But both deaths were a tragedy..and both of them were preventable....oh yeah..and ultimate blame for both of them belongs to Trump.

I learned long ago that the people we vote into office are not one more iota important than their voters.
I learned long ago that the property that is payed for by the taxpayer and is used by the people we vote into office is not one more iota important than the private or commercial property of their constituents.
Anyone who thinks otherwise may as well move to England and throw kisses to royalty.

 

[Bobob]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

Neither is voting by mail. By the way extending the election timeline is something

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

By all means, extent the timeline, make election day a Saturday. I'm for all of that. None of it is on the table though. The reason being that the GOP doesn't want any of that. Just like they don't want to get rid of the electoral college. So fair voting in the US will continue to mean that the Democrats have to get 3 to 5 percent more votes for the presidency. None of that is on the table tough. And what is, you object to. Again to you it is worth it and I can't help to think that it's just cynical self-serving.

Stop discussing F*CKING politics. I am speaking as a logical person. And you agreed. So voting in person is more secure. Why not work on measures that help people vote in person rather than avoiding it?

Do you think one disqualifies the other? Your position is that you don't like mail in voting. Fine. We both know that without this voting turnout would be severely depressed. As a reason you give that fraud is easier. You don't know how much more easy, yet you feel justified in what is a de facto disenfranchisement of millions of people because of it. When confronted with that fact you come up with another way to get more people to vote currently NOT even considered by the GOP. When you bring up measures that the GOP wont consider why shouldn't I just say that?

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote. I'm consistent in that. You on the other are not.

I just said --- increase the window for in person voting. Allow people to do so at the Post Office or other Gov't locations. Town Hall, etc. Or they may REQUEST mail in ballots. Why is that so onerous?

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that you, by protesting against mail voting are for disenfranchising millions of people and the best defense you have is that you're for other ways to increase turnout. Ways that are not being considered. That, in my view, is not consistent.

I am not "protesting". I am giving an opinion on a message board. I am not writing my Congressperson about it.

Then your opinion is not consistent within the framework of the fairest election process.

I disagree. And you agreed with me that in person voting has the least chance of fraud.

Disagree all you want. You are advocating for millions of people not to cast their vote on the assumption that a certain percentage that you don't know, and have no evidence for, so you can't know, will cheat. That is not fair. In fact, it's an argument that has been rejected several times during this election cycle.

Why can't those people cast their vote? Explain that to me? What is preventing them?

Fear of Covid, not being totally committed, a cold, what does it matter? If you can make the argument that it's evident that mail-in voting increases voting fraud without any actual evidence, I can make the argument that mail-in voting increases turnout as being evidenced by the highest turnout in history.

You admitted that in person has less of a chance to be Fraud. COVID is temporary and a cold? Lol. You’re grasping. Highest and 40% believes it was dishonest and we have major civil unrest.

You keep on citing my admission that it probably increases fraud as it helps you. Can you quantify the increase? Do you have evidence of an increase? Does it justify the lower turnout? The answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

I think you missed the point. I DO NOT care what the reason is people vote more when they have the option to vote by mail. I simply care that it does.

And please stop this vote by mail crap as the reason people distrust the election. They distrust the result because Trump said they should. The reason I know that is because in 2016 Trump also claimed a rigged election. Voting by mail wasn't an issue then and yet he still said it was rigged AFTER he won. And he was followed by his supporters in that assertion.

I know this because before Trump there was no talk about widespread voter fraud and voting by mail was encouraged by the GOP and already decades old.

Why not eliminate in person voting? Why have it at all? Why do I need to quantify it when we agree that the optics are bad?

And you need in-person voting because as I said.

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote.

But everyone uses the mail. Why have in person at all? After all someone could have a cold. Lol

Sure, and people like you who don't trust the mail with their vote should have the opportunity to cast their vote in the manner you prefer because otherwise you might choose to forego voting. It works both ways you see.

Why would I forego it? That doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t work both ways because 40% of the country believes the election was stolen. If it was done same as prior elections then Trump or any of his supporters would not be able to bitch. Now they can and they have a case. Optics are bad.

Of course, they could bitch. They DID bitch in 2016 when there was maybe one state that had universal mail-in voting. He bitched even when he won.

Optics look bad. Not sure how many more times I must repeat myself.

Millions of people, not voting is worse. Don't know how many times I have to explain that.

In your opinion. I believe votes should be done fairly. If you want them to vote, extend the timeline and provide more places to do so.

Where to vote was not the issue this time. Fear of the virus and Trump's attack on the Postal Service caused the huge mail-in ballot scenario.

 

[Batcat]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited need to be removed.

There are different standards and rules of law for Democrats. The main reason for this is a politically biased FBI and DOJ that refuses to indict and prosecute high ranking Democrats PLUS a liberal media that no longer practices true journalism but instead is the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

Neither is voting by mail. By the way extending the election timeline is something

View attachment 439269

I agree that those who incited were acting out for an unacceptable reason.

Oh, you left out Trump's inciteful remarks, a picture of the mob in action, and a picture of the 4 dead people. I do agree with you, but just don't give sound bites.
Keep in mind that the ballots in those swing states were recounted ad nausea and no fraud was detected.

Some fraud was but not enough to overturn the results. The optics look bad. Mail in votes, which are more difficult to audit (not absentee ballots) lean heavily Democrat. Don't care about this election anymore. Its done. But future ones need to be more transparent.

Mail-in votes and absentee ballots is distinction without a difference. And the reason why they lean more Democratic because Trump ranted against them and in general Democrats are wearier about the pandemic.

As to transparency. I'm interested to know what you mean by that. There are not one but several safeguards in place for both mail-in votes and in-person votes. Both parties have people at the ballot places to monitor the elections. In most places where they count you can literally go online and watch them do it. When there are disputes recounts can be asked for and there are thousands of lawyers on both sides. What do you want exactly to make it more transparent?

I'm also interested to know where you get the idea that they are more difficult to audit?

Lastly... optics???? Not for nothing, we just saw a mob stopping the business of governing in an attempt to perform a coup ( not hyperbole but the only right description of breaking into the Capitol to stop the verification of the election results), as a direct result of the current President of the United States claiming the future one is illegitimate and asking the mob to march on the Capitol. As far as optics go, I can't think of much worse.

You want elections that people truly believe are legitimate? It's easy to do. You vote one of two ways! Either in person with a valid ID...or you vote by an absentee ballot that you're requested be sent to your address.

Let's be honest here. The reason the "optics" are so bad is that the process was changed because of politics to the point where people no longer TRUST it! Let's get back to elections that we can have faith in! Stop all the bullshit about voter exclusion. Secure the elections so we aren't counting votes for weeks afterwards and disputing counts as fraudulent.

The only reason the elections are considered fraudulent is because Trump has claimed they were in both election cycles. And the protest to voting by mail is equally started by Trump. It was encourag ed by the GOP before that.

I find it interesting that you guys all pretend this narrative started in a vacuum. I fail to see a reason why sending out ballots to the address of all eligible voters is deemed a security risk but requesting them isn't.

It is simply self serving.

As to voter trust being easy to accomplish. That's bs. Voter trust can only be accomplished if both sides accept that there's a possibility they'll lose. And before you start claiming that the Dems didn't accept 2016. Clinton conceded within hours once it became clear she lost. It was Trump who contested the results... even after he won. So don't pretend people will accept the results if you simply conduct the elections a certain way.

You don't see the difference between mailing out ballots to the address of all eligible voters from the last election and sending out absentee ballots to those who request them? Really? One is mailing blindly to an address that may or may not have that person still residing there. The other is mailing a ballot to a person that has requested it.

And no I don't because for every elaborate hypothetical you can imagine for voter fraud featering universal mail in ballots I can come up with another one using mail ballots by request. I can even come up with hypotheticals featuring in person voting.

The way you judge these hypotheticals is if you can find evidence they occurred. I've not seen any, and more importantly neither has the Trump campaign since no suits like that have been filed.

LMaO. Have you convinced yourself yet? You are super long winded and illogical. So in your mind, voting my mail is just as fraud proof as voting in person? Is that your final answer? And yes, people
Commit voter fraud all the time. When I vote in person I see my vote processed in the machine. My mail in may be thrown away if they don’t like what I chose there. Funny how 90% of mail ins are for Democrats in swing states. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't need to convince myself. I just need to look at the available evidence, or lack of more precisely. It is you who has to convince himself that lack of evidence in no way says anything about reality.

Yeah let’s believe our politicians. So let’s say my daughter needed a chrome book for school. She did. I could Order one online and it would come in the day before she needed it. Or I could pick it up that day. Hmmmm what to do....trust the mail and make sure it comes in as promised and works or go to the store and get it immediately?

I got it immediately of course since that gave me more surety. Voting in person has considerably less fraud opportunities. So that’s how we should be voting.

I don't need to believe any politician. The only people I need to believe is the judges who are charged with ruling over election disputes. Whom do you believe?

How about some common sense? Do you or do you not agree that in person voting is more secure than mail in ballots? Why do you keep avoiding answering that question?

Brings me right back to what I said. You have an opinion and to sustain that opinion you feel warranted to ignore a complete lack of evidence.

As to your question. Probably yes. On the other hand if you feel that a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud warrants millions fewer people who vote why not just forget about voting in its entirety? That way absolutely no voter fraud is possible.

Unless and until you can make a case that this particular way of voting has a meaningful impact on not just voter fraud but elections in its entirety the argument simply falls flat.

So the answer is YES. Not probably yes. That is my only issue with it. In person voting is of course more secure and optics are just better. Mail in voting may be fine but the optics say otherwise. As I gave you the example with my oldest, when something is 100% necessary you make sure you go the safest route. In her case it was picking up the laptop in person. It likely would have arrived fine in the mail but why take such a risk. Same with voting. While it likely may be fine, why take such a risk on something that important. If there were very few mail in ballots then no one would spout conspiracy theories.

To have an election is to accept that a few people will cheat in the election. As I said the only remedy to this is no elections at all.

So why take the risk you ask? You take the risk so you have more people participating in the election. What you are saying is that you are comfortable with millions of people not voting because there's a risk some will cheat.

We can have more participate just extend the election timeline. Fewer crowds. If you want to vote then do so in person or REQUEST an absentee ballot. Doesn't seem overly difficult.

By all means, extent the timeline, make election day a Saturday. I'm for all of that. None of it is on the table though. The reason being that the GOP doesn't want any of that. Just like they don't want to get rid of the electoral college. So fair voting in the US will continue to mean that the Democrats have to get 3 to 5 percent more votes for the presidency. None of that is on the table tough. And what is, you object to. Again to you it is worth it and I can't help to think that it's just cynical self-serving.

Stop discussing F*CKING politics. I am speaking as a logical person. And you agreed. So voting in person is more secure. Why not work on measures that help people vote in person rather than avoiding it?

Do you think one disqualifies the other? Your position is that you don't like mail in voting. Fine. We both know that without this voting turnout would be severely depressed. As a reason you give that fraud is easier. You don't know how much more easy, yet you feel justified in what is a de facto disenfranchisement of millions of people because of it. When confronted with that fact you come up with another way to get more people to vote currently NOT even considered by the GOP. When you bring up measures that the GOP wont consider why shouldn't I just say that?

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote. I'm consistent in that. You on the other are not.

I just said --- increase the window for in person voting. Allow people to do so at the Post Office or other Gov't locations. Town Hall, etc. Or they may REQUEST mail in ballots. Why is that so onerous?

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that you, by protesting against mail voting are for disenfranchising millions of people and the best defense you have is that you're for other ways to increase turnout. Ways that are not being considered. That, in my view, is not consistent.

I am not "protesting". I am giving an opinion on a message board. I am not writing my Congressperson about it.

Then your opinion is not consistent within the framework of the fairest election process.

I disagree. And you agreed with me that in person voting has the least chance of fraud.

Disagree all you want. You are advocating for millions of people not to cast their vote on the assumption that a certain percentage that you don't know, and have no evidence for, so you can't know, will cheat. That is not fair. In fact, it's an argument that has been rejected several times during this election cycle.

Why can't those people cast their vote? Explain that to me? What is preventing them?

Fear of Covid, not being totally committed, a cold, what does it matter? If you can make the argument that it's evident that mail-in voting increases voting fraud without any actual evidence, I can make the argument that mail-in voting increases turnout as being evidenced by the highest turnout in history.

You admitted that in person has less of a chance to be Fraud. COVID is temporary and a cold? Lol. You’re grasping. Highest and 40% believes it was dishonest and we have major civil unrest.

You keep on citing my admission that it probably increases fraud as it helps you. Can you quantify the increase? Do you have evidence of an increase? Does it justify the lower turnout? The answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

I think you missed the point. I DO NOT care what the reason is people vote more when they have the option to vote by mail. I simply care that it does.

And please stop this vote by mail crap as the reason people distrust the election. They distrust the result because Trump said they should. The reason I know that is because in 2016 Trump also claimed a rigged election. Voting by mail wasn't an issue then and yet he still said it was rigged AFTER he won. And he was followed by his supporters in that assertion.

I know this because before Trump there was no talk about widespread voter fraud and voting by mail was encouraged by the GOP and already decades old.

Why not eliminate in person voting? Why have it at all? Why do I need to quantify it when we agree that the optics are bad?

And you need in-person voting because as I said.

Every and all measures should be considered to get every eligible voter to cast his or her vote.

But everyone uses the mail. Why have in person at all? After all someone could have a cold. Lol

Sure, and people like you who don't trust the mail with their vote should have the opportunity to cast their vote in the manner you prefer because otherwise you might choose to forego voting. It works both ways you see.

Why would I forego it? That doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t work both ways because 40% of the country believes the election was stolen. If it was done same as prior elections then Trump or any of his supporters would not be able to bitch. Now they can and they have a case. Optics are bad.

Of course, they could bitch. They DID bitch in 2016 when there was maybe one state that had universal mail-in voting. He bitched even when he won.

Optics look bad. Not sure how many more times I must repeat myself.

Millions of people, not voting is worse. Don't know how many times I have to explain that.

In your opinion. I believe votes should be done fairly. If you want them to vote, extend the timeline and provide more places to do so.

Where to vote was not the issue this time. Fear of the virus and Trump's attack on the Postal Service caused the huge mail-in ballot scenario.

“Fear” yeah...let’s play that card again.