Headline is a lie.

Progressives have never claimed voter fraud doesn't exist; it's just the Heritage Foundation's election fraud website makes it very clear: the plurality of fraud doesn't come from the voters themselves, it comes from canvassers, cullers, and campaigns. State's average ONE CONVICTION PER YEAR when it comes to the actual voter.

It's also important to note that in almost all of the cases, the illegal action involves ONE illegal vote. And when it IS the voter, it's usually the garden variety of voter fraud: addled elderly, folks who moved and forgot, folks who moved and thought the system forgot, and someone who returns an absentee ballot for a newly deceased household member.

THAT'S IT.

Regarding votes by illegals, does anyone believe Texas doesn't really care? OF COURSE NOT.

Well, Texas has had FOUR convictions for illegals voting, going back over a decade. So either they're not trying, they're woefully inept, or it doesn't happen at anywhere near the scale suppressionists pretend.

Which sounds most likely?

And here: ten defendants, over what time period? Five years?!?

This is also a good time to keep in mind: The government initially said over 15,000 illegals were voting in Nevada.

When proof was demanded, the government said it had proof 185 were illegals voting.

Nevada investigated, and found ALL 185 were legal citizens, eligible to vote.

Suppressionists would have suppressed more votes in ONE ELECTION CYCLE than all the vote fraud convictions in Nevada's history.

"Vote fraud is okay if it's just a little..."

Hey dumfuq, how do you explain the fact the MAJORITY OF VOTE FRAUD cases would be unaffected by stricter voter ID laws?

"You idiots say it all the time."

Nonsense. Voter fraud happens in every state, and probably in most elections.

What intelligent folks realize is the violations amount to a fart in a tornado, and every attempt to "protect the vote" is really an attempt to disenfranchise "certain" voters.

VA, for example, has had ONE voter fraud case PER DECADE. What TF are you trying to prevent? And how many LEGAL votes would you be willing to suppress to thwart THOSE TWO ILLEGAL VOTES?

"So how much of crime is ok?"

None.

But we don't demand an entire city be put on lock-down, because one Quick Trip gets robbed.

EVERY plan you have to "protect" the vote would suppress a MAGNITUDE more LEGAL voters.

I'd actually have more respect for you if you'd just admit the truth.

I just scoured through the Heritage Foundation's info on Boaz's home state of NC.

Going back to 1986, there are 123 instances; more than most states. Here's the rough breakdown:

51 incidences were by campaigns.
1 voter voted for a dead spouse.
7 were convicted of duplicate voting: in 6 cases it was ONE vote, in one case it was TWO votes (from a Tea Party official)
~5 were Judicial Findings
20 were incidences of FELONS voting (easy catch).
39 were illegals voting, including ~12 who were caught at registration.

So...AT MOST...you've got 27 illegals casting votes....over a 40 year period.
.

"Where is this suppression I keep hearing about?"

In every 4-6 hour voting line that exists.

In closing dozens of voting precincts, in "certain" areas.

Changing voting precincts within 90 days of the election.

And, of course, the Election Day shenanigans available, by scheduling road construction along the main route(s).

Do you need more? There are more.

But while we're on the subject, how long did it take YOU to vote in the last Presidential election?

Mine was 11 minutes, door-to-door.

Every legal voter should have the legal right to choose which legal way they cast their legal vote.

"predominately Black areas had bomb threats that were traced back to Russian meddlers."

Same-day, in-person voting is the easiest to suppress.

"Where is this suppression I keep hearing about?"

Admit your "news" sources think you can't handle the truth without using those specific words.

"when (progressives) lose, they insist it was fraud."

What percentage of the time?

Because with Trumpublicans, it's 100%.

"(Democrats) don't storm the Capitol in defiance of election results....but they sure complain about it."

So...both parties are the same!

"officials confirmed that the threats in Michigan caused no significant disruptions to the voting process"

Does "significant" have the same definition when it comes to illegals voting?

Also...as the statement implies, disruptions happened; even a pair of voters who got discouraged would beat the average of voter fraud convictions.

"Thats not actual suppression"

Demanding an ID which many have, but some would have to pay dearly for? You're joking, right?

"A national ID wouldn't be a POLL TAX"

As long as the government is providing all of them for free. Once there are requirements which are specifically tougher to get by the older and the poorer, it's suppression.

"Liberals like myself..."

Why lie? Nobody believes it anyway.

" a national id card as it would create "internal passport" framework, enabling the government to track citizen movements and monitor activities via checkpoint"

Like FLOCK does?

"I wanna know of instances of actual suppression."

Why don't you address my clear examples in #26?

There's also a direct question for you to answer.

"Poll. Tax."

Yep.

By definition.