" Exactly how many LEGAL votes are you willing to suppress, to keep those FOUR illegal votes in Texas from happening?"

EVERY Suppressionist avoids this question like the plague.

"...sees anything about trans, assigns a position to the left"

That begs the question:

What would your response have been if the teen killed his mother because she disapproved of his girlfriend?

" I stand by my original post of only 2 options for how the left will react to this"

And it only took two posts for a third option to emerge.

Republican Math is a dangerous thing, kids!!!

" Will the left ignore this story"

They shouldn't.

It's a great lesson on legally requiring guns and ammo to be locked up.

" Dems ... oppose any effort to keep the voting rolls clean and oppose any and all security measures"

Why lie?

Dems are fine with efforts to keep the voting roles clean ... Just come up with a method that doesn't suppress more votes than it thwarts. And don't do it WEEKS before the election.

Exactly how many LEGAL votes are you willing to suppress, to keep those FOUR illegal votes in Texas from happening?

" Lefties want as many noncitizens voting as possible"

Well, in that case they're doing a schitttty job.

Texas has had FOUR convictions for illegals voting in the last decade. Virginia had TWO instances in nearly 20 years.

Is Texas lying to us, and they're not really concerned about illegals voting? Or are they trying really hard to find the zillions of illegal votes, they're just woefully inept?

Or ... and go with me on this one ... does it just not happen at all at scale, and the powers that be want to lie about it, so they can try to suppress LEGAL votes?

"Reuters named 11 states, INCLUDING California and Texas."

I need to correct my claim about Texas. They've had FOUR convictions for illegal immigrants voting over the last decade, not three.

One of those four illegal immigrants was also a felon, and he stole the ID of his father, a legal voter, to vote. I originally had him in the FELON column only.

"may have added more than 30,000 self-declared noncitizens since 2000."

25 years, 50 states...so states average TWO PER MONTH.

And that's if the claim itself is correct.

So far, upon further review, states like VA have one incident per decade, and Texas had three illegals vote in the last decade.

Where's the problem so large, legal voters must be suppressed?

"Statement from the organizations cracked me up."

It clearly came from the CYA division. They know THEY are the ultimate target...if Trump is TRULY serious.

"Here's one."

And they should do what they usually do in these circumstances: prosecute her, jail her, then deport her.

But I'll echo Lamplighter: That's ONE. Where are the other 15,000?

There's a world of difference between someone being on the voting rolls because of nefarious intent, versus someone who's data entry person made a glitch on their application.

There's an even bigger difference between being on a voting roll and not acting on it, versus knowing you're improperly on a voting roll and casting a ballot anyway.

" Where is BillJohnson? Hiding from the facts as usual?"

Bill has had problems admitting his own home state has TWO voter fraud convictions in the last 20 years. He couldn't answer how many legal voters he was willing to suppress in order to thwart those two votes.

He's NEVER going to answer how many he'd be willing to suppress, to thwart ZERO non-citizens voting.

"Federal officials eventually provided Nevada with 185 people DHS claimed its manual review had confirmed were noncitizens"

Did you get that? The federal government CONFIRMED.

And that would've suppressed 185 legitimate, legal votes. In ONE election cycle.

More than all the voter fraud instances BillJohnson has ever found.

"How US states mistakenly added 30,000 non-citizens to voter rolls"

Spoiler Alert: It was GOVERNMENTAL ERROR, not CRIMINAL INTENT.

Suppressionists: We've identified over ten thousand illegals voting.

Truth: Voting?

Suppressionists: Well, on the rolls.

Truth: How many voted?

Suppressionists: 185.

Truth: Name them.

Suppressionists: Here they are.

Truth: We checked. All 185 are citizens, and legitimate voters.

Suppressionists: THAT PROVES THE SYSTEM HAS FAILED!!!

" ... the top 50% of income earners is paying for 96.24% of the burden."

Only if you get to choose which taxes count, and which taxes don't.

Meanwhile, you're pretending a 2% bond with an average maturity of 25 years is equivalent to an upfront tax cut, which has 8%-9% annual assumed constructive growth.

Why are you pretending the type of federal taxes workers pay most of over their lifetimes doesn't count??? And why are you ignoring the difference between a 2% annual return, and an 8 1/2% annual return?

Oh right ... It's because your talking point falls apart if ALL federal taxes are counted.

Here's what the Heritage Foundation Website demonstrates.

The plurality of vote fraud doesn't come from the voter: it comes from either Canvassers, Cullers, or Campaigns.

When it IS a voter casting a fraudulent vote, it's almost always ONE illegal vote.

The usual fraudulent vote is the garden-variety type: dead housemate with an absentee ballot; addled elderly moved and forgot; moved and purposely forgot; and if in-person...usually once by mail, once in-person. The rarest is in-person multiple votes at the same precinct.

The ROI for the fraud is ludicrously bad: up to $10,000 and a year in jail PER VOTE. And if you're in America illegally, deportation.

States average about 1 conviction per state per year.

Fraud at scale is self-defeating: the larger the conspiracy, the more impossible to keep secret.

Regarding Presidential elections, it's a foregone conclusion in roughly 80% of the states. A stolen vote in MA or WY would be like a fart in a very large windstorm.

When a reason why is given, the most common answer is, I was convinced the other side was doing it.

"I've never said or implied the word "ONLY"."

I've asked you repeatedly who does it more, and at what percentage more. You've NEVER quantified.

I've even allowed you to choose whatever cockamamie percentage one side does it compared to the other: 120%? 135%? 150%???

Until you quantify, the default is ONLY.

"Then your next paragraph isn't exactly what I've said."

It's exactly your theory.

It's the ONLY way your loser President doesn't lose the Presidency: tens of thousands of stolen votes, and every single victim chooses to remain silent, even after a close, emotional election, and even after January 6th. Every. Single. One. What are the odds?

No really....WHAT ARE THE ODDS???

Every time you get cornered by the math, you pretend it's really something else.

At this point, you can't even come to grips with your own home state's vote fraud records. Nor can you admit every plan of yours prevents more legal votes than prevents illegal ones.

"I said I am less concerned with mailed ballots than I have been but they should be requested so eligibility can be determined before it is mailed."

And I asked if your feelings should supersede the voters in, say, Alaska and Utah?

Because eligibility is already determined before mailed ballots are mailed. WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN?

Which Commandment addresses bearing false witness in your sect? I know it's #8 for Catholics.

"You mean requiring people to be eligible to vote to get a ballot?"

Election boards already ensure that happens.

As we've seen repeatedly of late, when folks who shouldn't be on voting rolls are on voting rolls...

a) it's usually a programming or data entry error, and NOT voter criminality.
b) they're usually unaware of being on voter rolls.
c) they rarely vote: Why? They know they shouldn't (plus that deportation thingy...).

"Where did you get the idea I vote by mail?"

It's obviously easy for you to vote.

How long were you in line last time around? My guess is it was about the same amount of time it'd take to fill out an absentee ballot.

And nowhere near, say, 4-6 hours.

"They can still vote from their sofa, but they'll have to at least put in the effort to request a ballot. The information on their request would be checked against their voter registration record, and their eligibility would be verified before the ballot is mailed. If they can't fulfil these basic requirements, they don't get to vote. Is that too much to ask?"

Depends. What if the majority of the voters in that state CHOOSE to have universal mailed ballots? Should you, as a resident of Virginia, be able to override citizens of other states on how to run their elections?

" ever since 2020, the argument seems to be that unless people automatically receive a mailed ballot, their vote is being suppressed."

That's a lie.

Since 2020, you've been pretending mailed ballots are usually purloined, tens of thousands of times at least, but ONLY by Democrats, and ONLY against Republicans, and all those Republican victims NEVER EVER came forward because...they were too patriotic.

If that seems idiotic, you're right.

Your answer, Bill, always, is to suppress more legal votes than you would thwart. Why do you NEVER ADDRESS THAT CENTRAL FLAW in your proposal(s)?

FFS, you can't even use your own home state as an example.

" if someone can't vote from their sofa, we're told they're being disenfranchised"

What excuse did you give last time, so you could vote by mail?

"Yet somehow, if someone can't vote from their sofa, we're told they're being disenfranchised."

If you don't understand ANY further parameters suppress LEGAL votes, you don't understand the concept of macro dials. Also, you're refusing to address the rarity of vote fraud, and the pretense the cases which exist would've been thwarted by stricter Voter ID controls.

You failed all three elementary tests. Sorry, but it's off to the little kids' table for you.