"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.

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

Yep.

And you're lying to yourself, as well as the rest of us.

You can't deal with the fact you have no evidence, just pretense without proof.

You can't even PRETEND to have proof.

" Do you know what disingenuous means?"

Someone who pretends without a scintilla of proof, and maintains the artifice despite zero evidence.

Then add the cowardice required to refuse admitting your system suppresses more legal votes than thwarts illegal votes.

It proves you're not interested in stopping illegal voting, you're trying to suppress LEGAL voting.

" I've been nothing but clear that I suspect certain states are permitting ineligible people to vote and that it needs investigated."

Let me guess: only states that vote blue. And your sum total of proof is ZERO.

Your suspicion means NOTHING without evidence.

Theories without evidence is called pretending.

" I agree."

No, you believe they currently aren't.

I believe ballots already ARE easier to handle, for the reasons I listed.

You have no reasons, only cockamamie claims and bogus theories.

And ... need I say it for the thousandth time? ZERO PROOF.

" Having you as a witness is exactly a positive thing."

Always fascinating when a poster inadvertently tells the truth.

Bill has nothing but lies.

Ballots should be EASIER to process, not harder.

Easily identifiable, even from across the room.
Possible destinations VERY LIMITED.
Time factor obvious.
Already scaled.
2024 ... almost 100 million ballots handled.

Bill has nothing but lies.

I agree with barring soda, candy, and energy drinks, just like liquor, cigarettes, etc.

But while eliminating fast food places is ideal, it's certain to add A LOT of meal-making time for the parent(s), and extra time is something they may not have a lot of these days.

Or food prep skills, either.

"The systems currently in use were not designed to operate efficiently under substantially greater volume and stress."

That's a lie.

"I'm done."

Another lie, unfortunately.

" Scalability has to be designed into the system."

It's already there, dumfuq. Why are you pretending it's not?

" That is my opinion."

You're giving your opinion because you have no proof, and can't deal with the facts.

Heck, you can't even admit how many legal votes you'd be willing to suppress to enact your system.