Part of one was and I posted it in another tread.
Who is gonna fact check the fact checkers?
Then who is going to fact check, the fact checkers, fact checker?
Do you see how silly this is?
You’re right. Democrats never need to be fact checked.
You can keep your health insurance.
George Bush got special treatment.
William Barr stopped mid sentence when talking about his decision.
No, it is not.
“No evidence” does not equal “there have never been any cases ever”.
We discussed this…this was 193 ballots…out of over 8 million cast.
The same thing has happened in wider-ranging studies and investigations…every time…cases of potential fraud have added up to a fraction of a percent of all votes cast…over several years’ worth of voting.
When presented with this, the canned response from those that believe there is widespread fraud is something along the lines of “this is just the tip of the iceberg”.
But no evidence is ever provided that there is a hidden iceberg’s worth of voter fraud that is somehow never being detected.
If you want to make it harder for people to vote in order to solve some supposed problem…the tradeoff between voter rights and integrity of elections…you first have to prove said problem actually exists.
In my own state…Pennsylvania:
-
To register for mail-in voting, I needed to provide a lot of identifying information, including driver license number and other info where they could research me.
-
Once I was approved, a message was immediately sent to my precinct informing them that since I had been approved for mail in voting, the only way I could vote in person was via provisional ballot
-
Once I voted and mailed in my ballot (which I had to sign an date so they could match my signature that is on file), I received confirmation my ballot had been received, and my precinct was informed I now I couldn’t even vote via provisional ballot- I had already voted and they were to turn me away.
Foolproof? No.
But pretty good.
Dem politicians? Maybe they do… but it is possible that ON TWITTER, DEM POLS do not need to be fact checked… YET.
Good one.
I can guarantee they never will be.
Only the ones who don’t tweet.
There’s no evidence fraud is a prevalent enough issue to further clamp down on people’s right to vote.
If they tweet a Verifiable falsehood and they do not get the same treatment as Trump did, I will be standing right there with you.
Or spread falsehoods. When it happens and they do not get the same treatment, then I will be standing right there with you cons.
Now that’s a different statement.
I think I support mail voting. I would like to see what the plan is to ensure integrity.
Remember it will be a change, so yesterday’s lack of fraud may no longer apply.
Ok, I’ll looking for you. I’m a liberal.
BTW, the GOP is going all out to gain what advantages in mail in voting in those states that offer it.
The recent special election in California was won by the GOP because Garcia won the mail in vote by close to 40%!
The President voted by mail-in to Florida…he even did it in a technically illegal way…he should have done absentee, not mail-in. That someone brought his ballot from Florida where it was mailed to his Mar a Lago residence to the White House is technically ballot harvesting which isn’t legal in Florida.
So the President is knocking on the head a system he is going all out to use.
Which is not surprising…
The GOP has a habit and a history of ignoring the inevitable to its own detriment. They cling to systems already over taken by events instead of embracing and owning what is already basically happened.
Single payer healthcare of some form is another example.
If I was them, I would leap ahead to internet voting.
1 Like
Watch Tucker Carlson on the topic. The committee headed by Jimmy Carter said mail in ballots are susceptible to fraud. People have been convicted for such fraud. The facts don’t support Twitter’s lying fact-checkers.
Trivial Pursuits is probably a better forum for discussion of toasters and pizza.
Let’s all attempt to stay on topic please.
Everything is “susceptible to fraud”.
The point becomes whether the safeguards against fraud are sufficient to allow mail-in voting to be an option.
Decades of data say “Yes- the safeguards are fine”.
Saying there is no evidence when there was evidence means they got it wrong period or it was a bald face lie, you choose what you believe. All the other stuff you wrote had nothing to do with their deception.
