Zone1 If Voter Fraud Is So Easy, Why is it So Rare?

[postman]

I’m 100% sure he won fair and square.

Wow, sounds like you think the deck was really stacked against you. Or it could just be right wing paranoia. Again, there were like 8,000 losers on election night. Why is the blob the only one saying it was fraud?

Remember, you had 230,000 fewer voters by election day, than you had at the start of the year.

Voters aged 65 and over have chosen the Republican candidate at every United States presidential election since Al Gore, and they were the hardest hit with COVID.

 

[postman]

Then you turn to a blatant desperate lie: I say all campaigns talk to leaders overseas then you say I “denied” Trump’s did that.
Baloney.
I know that both campaigns did that. Because that’s what campaigns always do. I’ll remember you. You’re not too bright.

Campaigns talk to the world leaders on our side. They rarely talk to the "bad guys", because not only is the optics bad, but what can they discuss that isn't interfering with American policy.

 

[candycorn]

At least you post my favorite type of leftist hypocrisy- blatant.

No sign of dementia. Show me a diagnose!
Trump is the one showing dementia.

Not hypocrisy at all.

Just illustrating that you have as much proof of this diagnosed medical conditon on Biden as I have on your blob.

Then you turn to a blatant desperate lie: I say all campaigns talk to leaders overseas then you say I “denied” Trump’s did that.

Well, the US Senate confirmed that your blob’s 2016 campaign had several meetings. Your conjecture isn’t the same thing.

Baloney.
I know that both campaigns did that. Because that’s what campaigns always do. I’ll remember you. You’re not too bright.

Well, I’m smart enough to point out the difference between your fever dreams and documented evidence. I doubt you’ll remember much seeing as how your next bong rip is probably seconds away.

 

[candycorn]

Campaigns talk to the world leaders on our side. They rarely talk to the "bad guys", because not only is the optics bad, but what can they discuss that isn't interfering with American policy.

Also rarely do they go to bat for hackers and WikiLeaks....but the 2016 Trump campaingn did that.

 

[CletusSnow]

Campaigns talk to the world leaders on our side. They rarely talk to the "bad guys", because not only is the optics bad, but what can they discuss that isn't interfering with American policy.

Oh they talk to them. It’s usually not reported to make it “look bad”. All campaigns do it. This was a sham media report to make it look like conspiring with the enemy. Pure hokum.

 

[postman]

Oh they talk to them. It’s usually not reported to make it “look bad”. All campaigns do it. This was a sham media report to make it look like conspiring with the enemy. Pure hokum.

Why do you say all campaigns do it, when they're not allowed to discuss policy.
And where our allies would answer the phone just to "chit chat" and get to know the person. The bad guys would only take the call, if there was something in it for them.
And such discussions would be illegal.

 

[Couchpotato]

There is no proof of any election being stolen. Your argument is as undocumented as it is silly.

Trump got more votes in California than any other state. 6 million votes.

Few (if any) republicans in California reported their ballots being stolen, votes being cast in their name, or any other fraud--few if any reports from the voters, few if any reports from the candidates who lost.

Drilling down deeper into California... 4 of the GOP seats in Congress are held by California republicans who got less than 55% of the vote in 2024. One got 50.3%.

Care to explain how a party that has "stolen the hell" out of elections didn't rig 3-4% more in their favor and let those seats flip/stay red?

If there's no fraud then showing an ID will not affect elections a single bit. We have the ability to ensure elections through the use of photo identification. Can you explain why on earth we wouldnt?

 

[postman]

If there's no fraud then showing an ID will not affect elections a single bit. We have the ability to ensure elections through the use of photo identification. Can you explain why on earth we wouldnt?

You realize, every restriction placed on voting decreases the number of people who are willing or able to meet the higher hurdle to vote.
The new voting law would place twice the documentation burden on women to vote, as it places on men.

 

[CletusSnow]

You realize, every restriction placed on voting decreases the number of people who are willing or able to meet the higher hurdle to vote.
The new voting law would place twice the documentation burden on women to vote, as it places on men.

That is provably untruthful.
The place like North Carolina tha instituted showing ID to vote have shown higher turnouts rather than the predicted fall-off.

They’re not “restrictions” at all. They are assurances the election laws are being followed. No one should complain about that. And they have only increased confidence and turnout.

 

[Couchpotato]

You realize, every restriction placed on voting decreases the number of people who are willing or able to meet the higher hurdle to vote.
The new voting law would place twice the documentation burden on women to vote, as it places on men.

So, they need their marriage cert and their birth cert? OMG how on earth will women figure it out? Oh wait they do that same thing when they get their driver's license changed post marriage. Or updating their bank account, or SS card. Exactly how stupid and or incompetent do you think women are? If providing your marriage cert is just too much for them to handle they could just not change their name when they get married.

 

[Couchpotato]

You realize, every restriction placed on voting decreases the number of people who are willing or able to meet the higher hurdle to vote.
The new voting law would place twice the documentation burden on women to vote, as it places on men.

BTW this is an 80/20 issue. In other words 80% of the electorate disagrees with you.

 

[Couchpotato]

You realize, every restriction placed on voting decreases the number of people who are willing or able to meet the higher hurdle to vote.
The new voting law would place twice the documentation burden on women to vote, as it places on men.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/03/cnns_enten_83_favor_voter_id_its_not_controversial.html

 

[postman]

That is provably untruthful.
The place like North Carolina tha instituted showing ID to vote have shown higher turnouts rather than the predicted fall-off.

They’re not “restrictions” at all. They are assurances the election laws are being followed. No one should complain about that. And they have only increased confidence and turnout.

Actually after restrictions were put in place, the democrats started huge get out the vote campaigns, that added more new voters, than the voting restrictions removed.

It's like when they arrest a bunch of people protesting, and the following day the number of protesters is even bigger than before.

 

[postman]

So, they need their marriage cert and their birth cert? OMG how on earth will women figure it out? Oh wait they do that same thing when they get their driver's license changed post marriage. Or updating their bank account, or SS card. Exactly how stupid and or incompetent do you think women are? If providing your marriage cert is just too much for them to handle they could just not change their name when they get married.

What you leave out is, they don't need their birth certificate to use their marriage license to "update" their name.

To update your name on a driver's license after marriage, first update your name with the Social Security Administration (required before DMV). Then, visit the DMV in person with a certified marriage certificate, your current license, and a completed MV-44 application. Costs are approximately $12.50 for a license, with updates arriving within 10 days

Notice that a birth certificate is not required.

 

[postman]

BTW this is an 80/20 issue. In other words 80% of the electorate disagrees with you.

One person pointed out, that JD Vance isn't the name on his birth certificate.

 

[postman]

BTW this is an 80/20 issue. In other words 80% of the electorate disagrees with you.

That's for a "photo ID"
Not for a "government issued photo ID"
Or a photo ID that matches your birth certificate

Those added restrictions drops it from 80/20 to less than 50/50

 

[Couchpotato]

What you leave out is, they don't need their birth certificate to use their marriage license to "update" their name.

To update your name on a driver's license after marriage, first update your name with the Social Security Administration (required before DMV). Then, visit the DMV in person with a certified marriage certificate, your current license, and a completed MV-44 application. Costs are approximately $12.50 for a license, with updates arriving within 10 days

Notice that a birth certificate is not required.

Because they provided their birth cert when they got their license the first time you twit. So you are correct they aren't required to show it again.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh? So all of these hundreds of thousands of instances of voter fraud are never reported?

Seems unlikely.

Reported as not in existence.

We've heard thousands of reports of actual voter fraud.....but the MSM refuses to admit it even exists.

 

[CletusSnow]

Actually after restrictions were put in place, the democrats started huge get out the vote campaigns, that added more new voters, than the voting restrictions removed.

It's like when they arrest a bunch of people protesting, and the following day the number of protesters is even bigger than before.

Yes, Dems use such bogus scare tactics to try to bring up turnout. No doubt.
And polls show people tend to vote more often when the rules are enforced and they think their votes are protected and more legitimate.

 

[Couchpotato]

That's for a "photo ID"
Not for a "government issued photo ID"
Or a photo ID that matches your birth certificate

Those added restrictions drops it from 80/20 to less than 50/50

You really want me to believe that the people taking this poll believed that when they asked the question do you favor showing photo ID when voting that 20% of the people who said yes thought that an ID they made at home or got from Dave and Busters would be sufficient? That everyone who was asked didnt know what everyone assumes when you say photo ID which is some form of Government issued ID? Really?