Evidence of Incitement

[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.

Excellent post

Just not factual. But why bother with facts?

OH it is factual, no doubt. And the false part is? Let's hear the real facts from you.

 

[Bobob]

Cops, Kids, Reporters & Activists Were Murdered As Democrats Incited 2020 Riots... Now They've Accused Trump of Their Tactics. - The National Pulse

The same media and Hollywood collective that derided American police in 2020 is now flooding the airwaves with their crocodile tears about the police who were on the front lines against trouble-making demonstrators at the nation’s Capitol on Wednesday.News networks sickly dedicated just a few...

thenationalpulse.com

Those violent riots this summer were reprehensible and should be handled accordingly. The insurrection on Wednesday was an attack on our government and all decent people.
A huge mistake that was encouraged by Trump, your president, and a traitor.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Cops, Kids, Reporters & Activists Were Murdered As Democrats Incited 2020 Riots... Now They've Accused Trump of Their Tactics. - The National Pulse

The same media and Hollywood collective that derided American police in 2020 is now flooding the airwaves with their crocodile tears about the police who were on the front lines against trouble-making demonstrators at the nation’s Capitol on Wednesday.News networks sickly dedicated just a few...

thenationalpulse.com

Those violent riots this summer were reprehensible and should be handled accordingly. The insurrection on Wednesday was an attack on our government and all decent people.
A huge mistake that was encouraged by Trump, your president, and a traitor.

The insurrection that happened all year long, last year, was an attack on all decent people and our rule of law. A huge mistake that was encouraged by the left, traitors to this country. Two can volley this ball.

 

[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.

Adresses aren't some random thing. It's used for getting tax returns, it's used for receiving everything from junk mail to speeding tickets.

Just for arguments sake you get in a ballot for somebody who isn't residing at the adress. What do you do with it? Mail it yourself? What about the signature? You forge the signature? Congratulations you just committed a felony in the name of swinging one vote. And you better hope the person who was supposed to have gotten the ballot doesn't want to vote, because all it would take is this person to request a ballot from the address he now occupies and your voter fraud is discovered. How many people think one vote is worth going to jail? I'll venture a guess by saying. Not many.

These people are looking for any ridiculous reason to explain the loss, except the obvious reason which is right in front of them--Trump!

 

[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.

Adresses aren't some random thing. It's used for getting tax returns, it's used for receiving everything from junk mail to speeding tickets.

Just for arguments sake you get in a ballot for somebody who isn't residing at the adress. What do you do with it? Mail it yourself? What about the signature? You forge the signature? Congratulations you just committed a felony in the name of swinging one vote. And you better hope the person who was supposed to have gotten the ballot doesn't want to vote, because all it would take is this person to request a ballot from the address he now occupies and your voter fraud is discovered. How many people think one vote is worth going to jail? I'll venture a guess by saying. Not many.

These people are looking for any ridiculous reason to explain the loss, except the obvious reason which is right in front of them--Trump!

They simply have invested 4 years of defending him. For most of the people on the right to have to admit now that they've been duped is too big of a blow to their self-esteem. They will deflect, excuse, or simply run.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Adresses aren't some random thing. It's used for getting tax returns, it's used for receiving everything from junk mail to speeding tickets.

Just for arguments sake you get in a ballot for somebody who isn't residing at the adress. What do you do with it? Mail it yourself? What about the signature? You forge the signature? Congratulations you just committed a felony in the name of swinging one vote. And you better hope the person who was supposed to have gotten the ballot doesn't want to vote, because all it would take is this person to request a ballot from the address he now occupies and your voter fraud is discovered. How many people think one vote is worth going to jail? I'll venture a guess by saying. Not many.

These people are looking for any ridiculous reason to explain the loss, except the obvious reason which is right in front of them--Trump!

They simply have invested 4 years of defending him. For most of the people on the right to have to admit now that they've been duped is too big of a blow to their self-esteem. They will deflect, excuse, or simply run.

Nope.

My daughter needs a certain medicine to save her life within three days. I can get it in the mail tomorrow or pick it up today in person. What would you do in my shoes? Pick it up in person of course since that gives you the most surety. As does in person voting. For a race such as this that is what is most important. If people want to vote they will find a way to do so. If you cannot then you REQUEST an absentee ballot, follow the rules and then send it back and follow the same rules. Not as strong as in person voting but better than mass mailings.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

Most of them DID request applications for mail-in ballots.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.