" Which party commits fraud at a higher rate than the other, and how much higher? Which do you mean?"

Stop pretending I haven't asked this question 10 times already

Do you believe ...
A) only Democrats commit vote fraud
B) only Republicans commit vote fraud
C) the two sides do it equally, or
D) one side does it more than the other.

If your answer is (D), how much more does one side do it than the other? 10%? 25%? 50%? Imagine 10,000 instances.

Simple questions. Simple answers. Quantify please. I'm not asking for links, just what you actually believe.

" No legal votes should be deleted."

You're delusional.

Some ABSOLUTELY WILL be deleted. Even with a 99.99% accuracy rate, that's still 440 voters ... meaning it would take 4,400 years to experience the level of fraudulent votes that would be suppressed in ONE ELECTION CYCLE.

Even YOU don't believe you can get 99.99% accuracy.

Your "cure" is to deny legitimate votes, all to thwart something you can't find in the first place.

"This is my argument to Lumpers against mail-in ballots."

Can you find problems states like Oregon and Utah have had? Plenty of time to use: cumulatively decades.

Where are the problems?

Isn't this from the same government claiming current inflation is 3.4%?!?

If it's coming out of Trump's mouth, assume a lie.

"Dan has repeatedly demanded that I quantify my opinions with numbers"

And you've consistently run away from quantifying ANYTHING.

1. Which party commits fraud at a higher rate than the other, and how much higher?

2. How many legal votes are you willing to suppress to thwart TWO fraudulent votes?

Quantify those.

As for my numbers, I've explained and reviewed the equation multiple times, and granted unrealistic assumptions, like a 99.99% accuracy rate. Even then, it would take over 4000 years to thwart the same number of votes as you'd suppress in ONE election cycle.

Let me know what part of the equation you don't understand, and I'll explain.

"what do you want to happen to the wages of those employees?"

Revenue is a product of the workers. Expenses are a product of the owners and investors.

If revenue increases, pay should increase.

The probability more-expensive assets are currently being amortized doesn't necessarily mean the business equation itself is losing money.

" Sure...it already happens, but that doesn't mean it's sufficient."

Your home state averages one fraudulent vote per decade, unless you want to count the easily caught 8 felons who voted over the last 20 years. In that case, VA has one fraudulent vote EVERY OTHER YEAR.

How much more "sufficient" are you seeking???

One fraudulent vote every other year IS NOT AN ASSAULT ON ELECTION SAFETY. And it's certainly NOT worth disenfranchising 1000x the legal voters.

All of your methods suppress more legal votes than thwart illegal ones.

NOT ACCEPTABLE, unless your goal is to suppress legal votes.

Is your goal to suppress legal votes???

"Where is your proof to backup your numbers?"

I'm pretending your PURGE would be 99.99% accurate.

At that rate, and at the rate your home state of Virginia experiences voter fraud, it would take 4,400 years to thwart as many ILLEGAL votes as LEGAL votes you'd suppress in ONE election cycle.

Of course, since your purge won't be close to that accuracy number, you should probably add another thousand years.

"My focus is on establishing procedures that insure only authorized citizens cast ballots."

And yet the REALITY is a) This already happens, and b) You'd gladly suppress a thousand legal votes for every illegal vote you'd thwart.

NOT ACCEPTABLE.

"You are all over the place..."

Congratulate yourself. You're a raging hypocrite on ALL KINDS of issues: graft, weaponization, and censorship, to name three.

"...and should be ashamed of yourself."

I'm not the guy empowering those three; that would be YOU. But I'll agree: shameful.

"You fully support censorship"

You're lying; I fully support disallowing MALINFORMATION. Meanwhile, you don't have the humanity to go on the record AGAINST malinformation.'

"Be honest"

Coming from YOU?!? I was wondering why my irony meter just exploded.

Fact: "We just surpassed the $40 trillion debt mark."

Sub-literates: "Let's borrow another trillion and a half ... and make borrowing EASIER!!!"

"About 1 in 10 adult citizens, or 21.3 million eligible voters, say they either do not have or could not quickly find in order to show the next day their U.S. birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate or certificate of citizenship"

My late MIL was one of that 10%. She was born in 1927 in a poor rural KS hospital. I handled all her papers her final 10 years, and never saw ANY documentation She'd even let her DL expire a decade before I met her, due to macular degeneration.

She paid income taxes until the day she died. And certain posters here would've been HAPPY to disenfranchise her. They're still trying, to this day.

" Then explain something. Why would tighter voter eligibility and authentication reduce Democratic votes?"

It reduces BOTH votes, dumfuq.

And it's because an additional barrier to voting will be an additional barrier to voting.

And every method you're proposing would suppress more legitimate votes than it would thwart illegitimate votes.

Explain why that's OK, and tell us how many votes you would be willing to suppress, to save (for example) two illegal votes?

" You support all of it "

You're either projecting or confessing, since you're CLEARLY lying through your teeth.

What a sad sack of schitttt.

" I've provided proof"

Of editors editing. For proof, you'd need an example where the Editorial Board was forced to choose against their will. You've NEVER produced actual proof.

" ... on countless occasions"

Another lie. ZERO is countable.

And Zuck SAYING he was pressured, without saying ABOUT WHAT, proves he was taking about MALINFORMATION.

This is just ANOTHER example of your embarrassment being outed as a partisan hack: screeching over Hunter Biden possibly making a $million, while dead silent while Team Trump grifts BILLIONS. Screeching about weaponizing the DOJ under Biden (again, sans evidence) while staying dead silent while Trump LITERALLY TELLS his flunkies to weaponize the DOJ.

And how long will it take for you to condemn the concept of bribing voters by adding another ~5% to our deficit? Or will you just wait to clutch your debt-pearls until AFTER you enable the pedophile-protectors???

I reference Tide Pods because when Zuck complained about "pressure" being put on him, he failed to say ABOUT WHAT.

Anyone with a room temp IQ or higher knows if it was something controversial (or even neutral), Zuckerberg would've spilled the beans.

The fact he didn't proves it was something he would've been embarrassed promoting.

...like eating Tide Pods.

"Who makes the determination of what is " provably harmful misinformation""

The maker of Tide Pods, for one.

A responsible government watching kids die from consuming Tide Pods, for another.

Meanwhile, Zuckerberg was pissed he couldn't continue the malinformation about Tide Pods.

"You support censorship,"

You're a liar, who's embarrassed he never found censorship under Biden, and has to pretend Trump doesn't do it PUBLICLY and OFTEN.

What a farkin' hack.

"short lived Disinformation board and other acts of censorship"

Huh? You've never found ANYTHING to this point other than an Editorial Board doing their job.

Do you finally have proof??? Or is this just another BS claim, to smokescreen for OBVIOUS censorship?

"What does a senate race in Michigan have to do with this thread topic?"

At least one of the posters who signs in under your name resides in Michigan.

"...either stupidity or gaslighting."

Or both.

" Please explain how it was anything other than an unmitigated disaster."

Oh, it was.

Please explain how Trump releasing 5,000 Taliban was anything other than a major contributor to that unmitigated disaster.

" The idea that Gavin "French Laundry" Newsom isn't apart of it is quite hilarious on your part."

Always fascinating when a Slurper accidentally tells the truth.

" It means being deliberately insincere or misleading about what you actually believe or intend."

Pretending you want to protect the vote instead of suppressing it is DISINGENUOUS.

And refusing to realize you're disingenuous is either stupidity or gaslighting.

I'll be a gentleman, so I'll let you decide which one.