Dan,

"You people are embarrassing."

Why?

The thing I should be embarrassed about is that I respond to your idiotic posts.

Dan,

Self audits conducted by a state are useful for the state's own purposes, but they don't provide truly independent verification.

If the purpose is to independently verify the integrity of federal elections, there should be an audit process overseen from outside the state.

Dan,

That's why audits exist.

Doesn't matter who believes what?

I don't think you fully understand what an audit consists of.

Auditing works.

Considering our country is dependent on the integrity of states to conduct fair elections, the federal government needs to make sure they're not being fed cooked information.

There's no taking sides here. Every state, whether Democrat or Republican, would face the same basic level of scrutiny.

One,

"CA makes what used to be described as cheating, legal."

That's what I believe too.

Dan,

Then we're done.

You're getting no more explanation from me since you just want to play games.

Dan,

You're who said it would need an Amendment.

So...you might be right....so tell me why?

Dan,

I can't answer your questions.

Why would it need an amendment?

What exactly did I write that would require an Amendment?

Dan,

What state are you in?

Dan,

"At this point, you're talking about a constitutional amendment"

Why?

Dan,

"Georgia and Arizona both had multiple audits"

Only 48 to go.

Dan,

An audit would answer your question with greater accuracy.

Dan,

"Yet The Heritage Foundation's website proves you're wrong. Are you afraid to explore the website?"

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative organization, but its Election Integrity Scorecard is not a comprehensive audit of how states administer elections.

Heritage analyzes state election laws and regulations and scores them against its own recommended standards. It does not examine each states underlying election records to verify that officials followed those laws.

What I'm suggesting is a congressionally required audit and not federal laws replacing the states underlying election rules.

States would continue operating under their own election laws and procedures. The audit would examine actual records to determine whether all state and federal laws and procedures were followed and identify mistakes, violations, or possible illegal discrepancies that might otherwise remain undetected.

Under my proposal, Congress would establish a common audit framework for elections involving federal offices. Because those elections affect the entire country, each state would undergo the same basic level of verification even though its election laws may differ.

A congressionally required audit would go far beyond Heritage's scorecard.

Federal law already requires election officials to preserve covered federal election records for 22 months. It also permits the Attorney General to demand those records for inspection when the written demand states its basis and purpose.

There is currently no national election audit standard. The broader, routine nationwide audit I'm proposing would have to be established by Congress.

Dan,

"I'm a gentleman, so...You choose. I want to know what you think. What's your opinion?"

I thought I had answered. I'll restate it here for you.

You asked for my opinion.

If states are "cooking the books," as they say, and significant systemic voter fraud is being overlooked by people responsible for running federal elections, my guess is that Democrat controlled states are where I would expect to find the most.

That's my opinion. I'm not presenting it fact.

I'm also not particularly concerned with small-time voter fraud. Even you've shown that's not where you're likely to find fraud on a scale large enough to matter.

I'm talking about organized voter fraud involving people responsible for election integrity, possibly in collusion with people in state government. Sort of like the classroom/school analogy I wrote earlier.

Think that can't happen?

Look at how many documented cases have involved collusion between two or more of government officials, financial institutions, corporate officers, management, auditors and accountants.

Sometimes it continues for years until some major financial failure finally exposes it.

I've personally seen embezzlement hidden through collusion between corporate officers and management.

I've also seen collusion between CPAs filing corporate tax returns and officers of a corporation.

That doesn't prove election fraud is happening.

It does prove that people in positions of trust are capable of working together to hide wrongdoing.

And you think something as important as control of an election wouldn't be tempting?

In these times we're living in, when too many people's ethical standards seem to have become "just don't get caught," I believe anything is possible.

Lamp,

I answer questions all the time about what I think or my opinion but not something that is researchable public information.

Dan,

You're off on this tangent by yourself.

Enjoy.

Dan,

"And you still haven't admitted who killed the immigration bill, so it could be a campaign issue."

Senate Republicans killed the bill.

Many believed it placed too much emphasis on additional funding for processing immigrants and too little emphasis on stopping the inflow of immigrants.

You can disagree.

But that's what you do. You decide what you want to believe and then repeat it as fact, whether it's true or not.

Morris,

"31 U.S.C. 5112(y)(1)(C), created by the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020, Public Law 116-330.

That is the separate legal authority being used for the 2026 semiquincentennial $1 coin. The living-president restriction in the 2005 Presidential $1 Coin Act applies to a different subsection, 5112(n)."

assuming he figured her out....

not so much if he thought it was another dude...

Truth,

"Bill, how come you aren't concerned about gay men and cameras and bathrooms?"

Who says I'm not? Secretly filming people in a bathroom is wrong, whoever does it.

But I don't see the same level of concern about trans men using men's bathrooms as there is about trans women using women's bathrooms.

I don't think men and women would react the same way.

If a woman dressed as a man went into a men's bathroom hoping to peek at men's junk, I wonder how many guys would eagerly oblige.

Truth,

"Bill how come you aren't concerned about gay men and cameras and bathrooms?"

I guess my mind doesn't automatically think of such things.

Alex,

"so bill is admitting that straight men are the problem."

I see liars and lunatics have surfaced to top.

So I'll take my leave and let them fume over the truths I posted.

Dan,

It says "sold".

So would be prepayment.

Clown,

"You predicted marriage equality would cause society""

Nope...I didn't.

Visit,

You're right. I looked on Ebay and they're already being sold many, many times what I paid.

There was a limit of 2. Two bags of 100 could make someone a LOT of money.

Laura,

"OMFG 25 DOLLAR coins for 61 DOLLARS"

If I am willing to buy it, how does where I spend my money impact you?

I mean...what have you spent $60 on and have nothing to show for it?

The $100 bag and $25 rolls sold out in hours. They had a limited product limit.