For clarity:
" any honest analysis will prove it's a ridiculous ROI..."

Up to $10,000 and a year in jail for EACH vote.

"...very difficult to execute"

I meant to be more specific: in person, since you'd need disguises, have to get back in line each time, and risk someone recognizing you, or you choosing someone who's already voted.

"...never at scale"

Not by the voter, ever. Only by Cullers and Counters.

"...and in 90+% of the elections, already moot."

Fraudulent votes for President in Wyoming, California, West Virginia, or NY?!? GTFOH.

"I was not aware non citizens can get social security numbers."

They have to have a willing employer first. They don't just get handed out.

"We know it is happening but we cant prove it, just believe us..."

"...because we're going to suppress every blue district we can. Accuse and suppress."

" It can affect the outcome of a very close election."

ONE fraudulent vote?

Because fraud at scale is self-defeating: the larger it is, the more impossible to keep secret. According to the HF, when it's a voter committing vote fraud, it's almost exclusively ONE vote.

And keep in mind: all fraudulent votes are assumed to split down the middle; one side would have to do it A LOT MORE than the other to make any difference. Even if one side does it at 150% the rate of the other, that still negates 80% of the fraudulent votes.

Interesting fact: the most common reason given by a convicted vote fraudster, when a reason was given, was I thought the other side was doing it.

"The false presumption is all fraud gets uncovered."

You're right; it can't be found 100% of the time.

But any honest analysis will prove it's a ridiculous ROI, very difficult to execute, never at scale, and in 90+% of the elections, already moot.

Meanwhile, Trump and the Republicans plan to suppress more votes this November than all the convictions on the 25+ yr Heritage Foundation website.

"EPA rules *that didn't have much affect"

Riiiiiiiight.

In 1967, I visited Los Angeles for the first time, a few months after the first smog regulations were passed. I noticed a very pronounced brown 'ring' around the horizon of the Valley.

Since then, smog regulations have been tightened and updated. And since I began traveling regularly (1-2 times/yr) to LA in the late 80s, I've seen the air quality increase every trip. The brown ring is long gone.

Anyone who tells you the regulations didn't have much "affect" is gaslighting, at best.

"This case shows a foreign national was able to obtain a driver's license, social security number, register to vote, and cast ballots without the system flagging it."

Foreign nationals are allowed to obtain drivers licenses, and social security numbers. So the first part of the complaint is bogus.

As for the second part: once again, it's a single fraudulent vote, and once again, the perp is caught right after voting in a Presidential election.

States still average about one vote fraud conviction per year.

"Hillary was NEVER going to take Kansas"

Kansas currently has a Democratic governor. They also decided NOT to gerrymander, after Congresswoman Sharice Davids (D-KS) said she'd run for Senator if written out.

"It imploded to infighting"

...over fantasy football. The self-importing jerks, sure they could run the world, couldn't even run A GAME.

"Fox News is the definition of propaganda."

While they were laughing at the gullibility of their viewers behind their backs.

From the AP:

On Nov. 13, the week after the 2020 election, Ingraham, Carlson and Hannity got into a text message exchange in which they lambasted the news division. It began with Ingraham pointing out a tweet by correspondent Bryan Llenas, saying he had seen no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Carlson replied that Llenas had contacted him to apologize, then added "when has he ever reported' on anything."

Ingraham then names another colleague who indicated there was no fraud, with Hannity responding: "Guys I've been telling them for 4 years. News depart that breaks no news ever." In a subsequent Twitter message seconds later, Hannity says, "They hate hate hate all three of us." Ingraham responds she doesn't "want to be liked by them" and Carlson chimes in, "They're pathetic." The conversation continues with Hannity bemoaning the damage that has been done to the brand: "In one week and one debate they destroyed a brand that took 25 years to build and the damage is incalculable."

Another text conversation by the trio three days later had Ingraham telling her colleagues that her anger at the news channel was "pronounced," followed by an "lol." In response, Carlson attacked two Fox anchors: "It should be. We devote our lives to building an audience and they let Chris Wallace and Leland (expletive) Vittert wreck it. Too much." Wallace and Vittert have since left the network.

"Eric Adams would have been a fantastic choice to keep sullying the Democratic Party"

If the DNC endorsed him, they're idiots. We cannot, in good conscience, endorse the Democrat is an option.

Mamdani was, by every measure, the best candidate.

"Did the DNC plot against Bernie?"

Wha?!? A private Democratic group, endorsing a Democrat over a Democratic Socialist? STOP THE PRESSES!

Also, keep in mind one thing: Bernie's approval had a lot to do with NO NEGATIVE ADS against him. That trend would NOT have continued had he snagged the nomination.

" BTW, they were structured that way when Cronkite, Brinkley, etc....were doing the news."

No, they were not.

Back then, newsrooms were not expected to be profit centers.

"Not one point places any blame on members of the MSM for their cratering reputation."

Like you've never put blame on the guy in your mirror?

Heck, you helped build the right wing of the current MSM structure. Take credit where credit is due.

"It's everybody else's fault. We are perfect at what we do."

Strawman Alert!

"What salient facts have been left out of this thread?"

Wait...so now you're going to pretend you don't do that?!?

" Not sure why nine people find their effort sabotaged."

Probably because you were using Republican Math.

The room got less smoky by AT LEAST 33 cigarettes, and 51 cigarettes if the cold turkey couple smoked the club average of 10 cigarettes per day.

How TF does something get MORE smoky with LESS cigarettes, dumfuq?!?

"It's been a trend going back decades."

And you've played a part in it. Every time you've posted something and purposely left out the salient facts.

" THe whole thing looks set to come crashing down yet nobody in DC cares."

Which is EXACTLY what you voted for.

I mean, let's be serious for a moment: you are a contributor to this.

You claim all the time this is "100% self inflicted", but the truth of the matter is, it takes people like you to either come into a chat room and lie purposely, or to amplify other people's lies with your posts, links, and water-carrying.

A sizable part of the mistrust was part of your goal. Take credit where credit is due. Be a Proud Boy!

"Will they EVER reach a point where they recognize and acknowledge the massive problem they have and engage in serious introspection as how to begin to repair the damage?"
~Bellringer

What a coincidence.

That's the same stuff people say about you.

"Bondi looks like a petulant child with her responses."

That's because they weren't responses.

They were DARVO, as taught by Roy Cohn.

"...Mr Kamala wins in a landslide"

Fair point!

" You don't know that."

Yes, he does. Bernie would've been crushed. The opposition would've (wrongly) accused him of being a communist/socialist, and (rightly) accused him of wanting your taxes to go up BY A LOT.

It would've been a McGovern-style blowout.