Clown,

"Charlie Kirk was a useful idiot for MAGA until he wasn't."

Charlie Kirk was his own man and not a pawn for anyone.

He was 18 years old when he founded Turning Point USA in 2012.

He was leading, not following.

Anyone who says he is leaving an "empty legacy" is a useful useless idiot themselves.

Truth,

"If you don't think there is a non-zero chance Piggy would use a nuke you're well an idiot but that is a well known fact"

Trump has said he would not use a nuclear weapon against Iran and that nuclear weapons should never be used by anyone.

And one of his main arguments for keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is that he believes Iran would actually use one.

So what exactly are you basing your claim on that Trump might use one?

Truth,

"That could include tactical nukes."

Your previous post was pretty good until you decided to throw tactical nukes into it.

That's where you stopped making a reasonable argument and started just making ---- up and trying to scare everyone.

John,

"USA is geriatric, for the remainder of its life it will exist as a debt slave until all resources are exhausted."

That's a pretty absolute prediction for a future that is becoming increasingly difficult to predict. The US has debt and resource problems, but history has shown that nothing is permanent.

My opinion is that we shouldn't underestimate the next generation's ability to find solutions appropriate to the times. Every generation inherits problems that the previous generation didn't fix or actually caused.

Don't believe everything you think.

Right,

"All right all right all right... Stop the winning... I am sick of winning."

Is this a play on words, or just a spelling mistake?

It's actually clever.

Zed,

"Did you take the Trump/MAGA oath to cheat like hell in the next election?"

What exactly have I suggested that could be described as "cheating"?

As I see it, all I've suggested are ways to improve voter authentication, election accuracy, and voters confidence in the election results.

Truth,

"IF it were happening, this "systematic fraud at the state level" it should be proven"

I agree with you.

Congress should pass a law to audit state election records (only audit) to see if all laws are being followed.

Yes...system fraud at state level should be proven or verified none found.

Truth,

When I refer to "fraud," I'm not only talking about fraud committed by individual voters.

I'm also talking about the possibility of systemic fraud at the state level, including collusion among state officials or others involved in the election process.

Personally, I believe there is enough reason for concern that this may already be occurring.

I don't think the possibility should simply be dismissed because it doesn't fit the traditional idea of what voter fraud looks like.

Truth,

"A total ban on mail-in voting would heavily restrict participation for military members stationed overseas, citizens living abroad, the elderly, and voters with disabilities who depend on mail infrastructure to participate."

I don't believe a total ban on mail-in voting would ever stand a chance.

Traditional absentee voting is necessary for people who need it.

So why are you even bringing up a total ban to me when I have never proposed one?

(This is a message about mail-in ballots...comparing the moving of files over a network to moving paper ballots, in simplest form)

In the world of networking, data is transferred from one computer to another using different protocols (or rules) depending on what the application requires.

TCP/IP transfers data while keeping track of what was sent, what arrived, what didn't arrive, and retransmitting what is missing. TCP is called a Connection Oriented Protocol.

UDP/IP sends the data without establishing that same end-to-end confirmation. It does not, by itself, acknowledge each delivery or retransmit what is missing. It also does not have the same built-in controls as TCP for confirming that everything sent actually arrived. UDP is called a Connectionless Protocol.

That's the analogy I'm making.

Traditional requested absentee voting is more like TCP. A specific voter initiates the transaction by requesting a ballot, that request is verified, a specific ballot is issued to that voter, and there is a defined transaction to track from the beginning.

Universal mail-in voting is more like UDP. Ballots are broadly sent out first, without the voter initiating the transaction by requesting one. Not every ballot mailed out will necessarily be returned because the voter may decide not to use it and vote in person instead.

That's the distinction I'm trying to describe. One process begins with a specific voter requesting a ballot, which adds a verification step before the ballot is issued. The other begins by broadly distributing ballots before knowing which voters will actually use them.

I'm not saying the technologies and voting systems are literally identical. This is a rough comparison, but I just want people to generally see the difference between the two systems that use mailed ballots and why that difference matters.

Both mailed ballots may look alike when they come back, but one began with a verified voter request before the ballot was issued and the other did not. That extra front-end verification means the system itself is already doing part of the work before the ballot ever goes out.

In my view, that should improve the integrity of the election results while requiring less manual work later, because part of the verification and control is built right into the system processes from the very beginning.

Truth,

"Which is a bigger danger to the democratic process-voter fraud or voter suppression?"

You mean requiring people to show ID and vote in person?

Is that the suppression you are referring to?

The answer to your question is voter fraud.

Dan,

I already discounted your Heritiage Foundation information in one of my posts.

But since I saw today how narrow you think, you probably never realized it.

Dan,

"Not until you have proof of your theories"

And also not until you actually read my posts and stop applying your same narrow vision to that.

Dan,

"You lose on all three topics."

"Why'd you move the goalposts, dumfuq? You don't get to add universal' at will."

I did not move the goalposts.

There have always been two types of mailed ballots in this conversation as far as I'm concerned which are absentee ballots that are requested by the voter, and ballots that are automatically sent to voters.

I didn't change a thing. This is how I have understood and viewed the distinction from the beginning of this topic years ago and I assumed other people did too.

What I'm only now realizing is that you apparently were never including the very part of the process that makes absentee voting and universal mail voting distinctly different in the first place which is how the ballots are issued and sent out.

At this point, this conversation has become pointless.

You and I simply aren't going to agree on this until there are significant changes in the system nationwide.

Then we can talk about it again.

Dan,

"Stupid non-distinction."

The process of handling ballots starts before they are ever returned.

Absentee voting and universal mail-in voting are distinctly different systems in how ballots are issued, sent out, tracked, and handled through the process.

Some steps may overlap once the ballots are returned, but that does not make the two systems the same, nor does it eliminate the different types of risk involved with each.

I think you're focusing too narrowly on one part of the process and missing the bigger picture.

Mr blue,

"how is it any different than ordinary mail for the Postal Service? Why would it require extra training?"

That was the crux of the article at the beginning of this thread.

Danno,

"Mail in ballots ARE absentee ballots"

You're wrong.

Absentee ballots are mail-in ballots.

But not all mail-in ballots are absentee ballots.

From the article,

"Donald Trump has probably done more damage."

I notice when people use the word "probably".

They're not speaking with certainty.

They're making a sweeping claim while leaving themselves an out, in case it doesn't hold up.

Eb,

From the article,

"An inspector general's audit found a lack of training for post office staff"

This article is supporting and proving my point.

Human error has always been part of my objection to mail-in ballots. What Trump is proposing is more closer to absentee ballot handling which has more checks and balances.

Anything that involves moving uncounted ballots that are handled by humans increases the risk.

This article is saying people in the post office didn't receive adequate training. That can happen at any point in the ballet handling.

There's other things that can occur with people, too.

The people handling ballots can just get tired and more inclined to make mistakes at that point.

Or some who may just not take their job that serious.

Or not enough staff so ballots bottleneck.

I am considering not only the next election, but the next 10 elections or 20.

I've always said "Don't put in systems that just meet your needs today. Put in systems that will meet your needs in the future"

Dan,

"Your theory is thousands of people had their mail-in ballots purloined by housemates yet NO ONE came forward."

You either didn't comprehend, didn't actually read, or didn't bother to remember anything I've written.

I can understand if you disagreed with me but at least respond to what I wrote.

Dan,

"Even people who still don't have a single piece of evidence to back their theories."

What is my theory?

You don't even know.

Now you'll make up something and claim I said it that I likely didn't.

What was primary concern?

True,

"It seems odd that the topic of the Afghanistan withdrawal (from five years ago!) is being inserted in a thread about a recent death occurring while in ICE custody. The obvious obfuscation/deflection is pathetic."

You've been here long enough to see people are still talking about 2020.

Thats just how things work here.

And when the US completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden administration left behind the majority of Afghans who were eligible for Special Immigrant Visas.

Many of them were interpreters, translators, and others who had worked for the US and put themselves and their families at risk.

Despite the Taliban's promise of amnesty, there were credible reports of reprisals, targeted killings, disappearances, detention, torture, and searches for people associated with the former Afghan government.

The thanks they got.

Dan,

I found,

"Dealers had access to pre-order options provided by the U.S. Mint, allowing them to place orders before the coins were available to the public."

There it is.

No more mystery.

The world's problems have been solved.

Dan,

Some people just have more energy than me.