A different Supreme Court.

[Into the Night]

I didn't lie about anything,

Lie.

which is why you weren't able to identify any actual lie.

Already have. RQAA.

I made no claim to the contrary. Strawman attack. Again. Man, you're REALLY bad at this.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

I have been telling this site and a few others that our greatest threat was republicans cheating in elections


Decades of American courts cases prove the fact that the republicans cheat however they can to win



Cold hard court documented fact



And now finally people are realizing that fact

Inversion fallacy.
Learn what 'fact;means. It does not mean 'proof'.

 

[Into the Night]

And that is not a threat in our elections

Election fraud is a thread to elections, dumbass.

FACTS PROVE THAT YOU LYING SACK OF RAT PUSS

Learn what 'fact' means. A fact is not a proof.

BUSH did a five year study in his day
Couldn’t find shit
Every study done by you assholes CANT FIND ANY
yet you keep fucking lying about it
Just like those Ninja idiots in Az
None was found
Stop fucking telling the same old pile of weasel turd lies diarrhea brain

You can't make the evidence of election fraud by Democrats disappear by insulting people, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

But ballot-harvesting doesn't mean it was filled out by someone else. It's the idea of going around and making votes as convenient as possible, by collecting and delivering ballots for people.

I'd be in favor of moving to something more secure and convenient. There's no reason we can't vote on smart phones, for instance. The government could put together an app that uses the same security as banks use to protect thousands of dollars in people's accounts. You could vote in just seconds, from anywhere. And it would be possible to create an electronic "paper-trail," where after you vote a copy goes to a separate server that immediately emails you back with confirmation of your votes. That way, if someone tries to tamper with it at the time of voting, you'd immediately know of that and authorities could be alerted, and if someone tries to tamper after the fact, it would show up by way of discrepancies between the two servers (you could also use blockchain to make it virtually impossible for anyone to fabricate votes).

The problem with that approach, though, is it runs afoul of one of the core strategies of the GOP: to make voting as inconvenient as possible, especially for young people and urban residents. Their strategy is built around creating headaches that disproportionately depress the vote among demographics that don't like them. Create a system that lets young people vote in a few seconds, then no matter how secure that is, Republicans would oppose it, because their security concerns aren't in good faith-- they're just fig leaves for efforts to make voting inconvenient.

Strawman fallacy. You can't make the evidence of election fraud by Democrats disappear by special pleading or by whataboutism.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes. I understand it hurts your feelings when someone points out that they're more popular nationally,

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

but that's what we can see from the fairly consistent pattern of them getting more votes in presidential elections.

Discard of the Constitution of the United States. The President it not elected by popular vote.

There's nothing of political value in that, since our system doesn't reward popularity. But I suppose there's some value in triggering these crying jags in people like you. I value that, anyway.

Admitted trolling.

 

[Into the Night]

Yet the crying jag continues. It's delicious.

Buzzword fallacy. Trolling.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

But ballot-harvesting doesn't mean it was filled out by someone else. It's the idea of going around and making votes as convenient as possible, by collecting and delivering ballots for people.

I'd be in favor of moving to something more secure and convenient. There's no reason we can't vote on smart phones, for instance. The government could put together an app that uses the same security as banks use to protect thousands of dollars in people's accounts. You could vote in just seconds, from anywhere. And it would be possible to create an electronic "paper-trail," where after you vote a copy goes to a separate server that immediately emails you back with confirmation of your votes. That way, if someone tries to tamper with it at the time of voting, you'd immediately know of that and authorities could be alerted, and if someone tries to tamper after the fact, it would show up by way of discrepancies between the two servers (you could also use blockchain to make it virtually impossible for anyone to fabricate votes).

The problem with that approach, though, is it runs afoul of one of the core strategies of the GOP: to make voting as inconvenient as possible, especially for young people and urban residents. Their strategy is built around creating headaches that disproportionately depress the vote among demographics that don't like them. Create a system that lets young people vote in a few seconds, then no matter how secure that is, Republicans would oppose it, because their security concerns aren't in good faith-- they're just fig leaves for efforts to make voting inconvenient.

Rather than completely responding, let me ask you this:

Which would you prefer, an election that was very convenient where anyone could vote, or an election that is free of voter fraud? That is, which is more important to you, that everyone can vote, or that the election is free of fraud that could possibly change the outcome? You can only choose one of those two as most important. Which do you choose?

 

[Mina]

Trolling.

Yes, that word sums up your entire contribution, doesn't it?

 

[Mina]

Which would you prefer, an election that was very convenient where anyone could vote, or an election that is free of voter fraud?

The former. Voter fraud, at least of the in-person variety, is so incredibly rare that the chances of it ever swaying an outcome is vanishingly small. By comparison, voter inconveniences have MASSIVE impacts on turnout, and therefore wind up skewing a significant proportion of elections.

But, that said, the idea I proposed would address both issues at once: making elections more convenient and more secure. The reason it doesn't happen is that the Republicans only pretend to care about security as a way to make elections less convenient, so solving the problem that way would defeat the whole purpose for them.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, that word sums up your entire contribution, doesn't it?

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The former. Voter fraud, at least of the in-person variety, is so incredibly rare that the chances of it ever swaying an outcome is vanishingly small. By comparison, voter inconveniences have MASSIVE impacts on turnout, and therefore wind up skewing a significant proportion of elections.

But, that said, the idea I proposed would address both issues at once: making elections more convenient and more secure. The reason it doesn't happen is that the Republicans only pretend to care about security as a way to make elections less convenient, so solving the problem that way would defeat the whole purpose for them.

You can't wish the evidence away of the election fraud by Democrats by blaming somebody else, dumbass.