Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[tabzer]

I'd be a little less cynical if Republicans were also making a big push to guard against election fraud, but I haven't heard a peep from them in that regard.

Someone has been plugging their ears for the past decade.

 

[Xzi]

Someone has been plugging their ears for the past decade.

Again you're thinking about voter fraud, they've been pretending that's a much bigger problem than it actually is for as long as I can remember. Meanwhile, election fraud was committed as recently as 2016 in Georgia, and the people responsible received little more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[tabzer]

Ok, I see the point of your separating them as two different issues. Do you think overall election integrity needs to be improved from a standpoint of fraud, or that the situation, as it is, is negligible? Curious.

 

[Xzi]

Ok, I see the point of your separating them as two different issues. Do you think overall election integrity needs to be improved from a standpoint of fraud, or that the situation, as it is, is negligible? Curious.

The system could be better protected against election fraud, as those in power know its ins and outs best, and therefore they best know its vulnerabilities and how to exploit them. From a voters' perspective it's mostly fine, though if we aren't going to set universal mail-in voting as the standard, we need to at least make election day a federal holiday. The fact that it isn't already continues to be a huge detriment to working class voters.

 

[Valwinz]

buhahahha
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/TheSent62943446/status/1370179714837450755

 

[tabzer]

buhahahha
https://twitter.com/TheSent62943446/status/1370179714837450755

Those are just bots. Besides 9,000 isn't that impressive for a president anyway.

 

[Xzi]

Those are just bots. Besides 9,000 isn't that impressive for a president anyway.

What you meant to say is, "besides, Youtube views don't matter in the least for a president anyway." Though I suppose it wouldn't surprise me if Trump supporters were to nominate PewDiePie in the future.

 

[tabzer]

What you meant to say is, "besides, Youtube views don't matter in the least for a president anyway." Though I suppose it wouldn't surprise me if Trump supporters were to nominate PewDiePie in the future.

No. I'm saying that he isn't popular and the views that he does get on youtube are due to bots--and "winning" a faked election.

 

[Xzi]

No. I'm saying that he isn't popular and the views that he does get on youtube are due to bots and "winning" a fake election.

Yeah that's just idiocy. Registered Democrats have outnumbered registered Republicans for quite some time, it's only a matter of getting them all to turn out. Trump's handling of the pandemic was an easy path to high voter turnout.

Not to mention he killed off enough GOP voters in Georgia to turn the state blue.

 

[tabzer]

Yeah that's just idiocy. Registered Democrats have outnumbered registered Republicans for quite some time, it's only a matter of getting them all to turn out. Trump's handling of the pandemic was an easy path to high voter turnout.

Not to mention he killed off enough GOP voters in Georgia to turn the state blue.

What turned out, supposedly, were a stack of papers

 

[Xzi]

What turned out, supposedly, were a stack of papers

Again, idiocy. Lines were massive on election day, even despite a record number of people voting by mail.

 

[KingVamp]

Again, idiocy. Lines were massive on election day, even despite a record number of people voting by mail.

In here I thought "stack of papers" meant money.

 

[tabzer]

Lines were massive on election day

Lines were massive on election on day--which were offset by massive stacks of paper--your so-called "turn out".

In here I thought "stack of papers" meant money.

Double entendre.

 

[Xzi]

Lines were massive on election on day--which were offset by massive stacks of paper--your so-called "turn out".

Idiocy thrice if you think in-person turnout was 100% Republican or mail-in ballots were 100% Democrat. Losing one election is no excuse to start advocating for voter suppression. And if elections were rigged, Trump never would've won the first time around.

 

[tabzer]

Idiocy thrice if you think in-person turnout was 100% Republican or mail-in ballots were 100% Democrat. Losing one election is no excuse to start advocating for voter suppression. And if elections were rigged, Trump never would've won the first time around.

Yes, you've inferred that I'm an idiot three times now. The first was because you disagree with my belief. The second and the third were simply because you do not like the fact that the "turn out" of stacks of paper invalidated actual turnout. You are inserting percentages and attacking that. That's commonly known as a strawman in simplistic form. I'm a messenger.

As far as "Trump never would've won the first time around," there are two points of fault. First, the most popular, is that those implementing the methods of cheating underestimated the outcome of a Trump vote, and couldn't quite get away without giving themselves away. (Hence mail in ballots for next time). Second, my personal favorite, that Trump is apart of the show (I'm cynical).

 

[Xzi]

Yes, you've inferred that I'm an idiot three times now. The first was because you disagree with my belief. The second and the third were simply because you do not like the fact that the "turn out" of stacks of paper invalidated actual turnout.

All three times were because you made demonstrably false statements, and because I expect you knew better but chose to play the fool anyway. Whining about the election won't change its permanently-documented results. Mail-in ballots aren't anything new, and they aren't going away any time soon either. God forbid Republicans actually participate in our democracy by encouraging higher voter turnout, it's much easier to undermine democracy with underhanded voter suppression tactics, am I right?

 

[tabzer]

All three times were because you made demonstrably false statements, and because I expect you knew better but chose to play the fool anyway.

Nope. You may believe that but you have certainly not demonstrated it. It seems like you want me to trust something that is outside of my reach. Like a deity. That's only about the first point. The second two points are all about your disagreement with the fact that stacks of paper determined the outcome of the election--a claim which is demonstrably true. It sucks for the narrative of a free and fair democracy, I get that.

 

[Xzi]

The second two points are all about your disagreement with the fact that stacks of paper determined the outcome of the election--a claim which is demonstrably true. It sucks for the narrative of a free and fair democracy, I get that.

How so? If anything, universal mail-in voting ensures a more free and fair democracy. There is no data showing voter fraud occurs at a higher rate through mail. You simply don't like the fact that it makes voting more accessible because that doesn't benefit your party of choice.

 

[tabzer]

How so? If anything, universal mail-in voting ensures a more free and fair democracy. There is no data showing voter fraud occurs at a higher rate through mail. You simply don't like the fact that it makes voting more accessible because that doesn't benefit your party of choice.

Ideally it would, but it's a vulnerability in practice. Care to respond to the pertinent points that are the core of the conversation? I could pretend it never happened, if that's what you prefer.

No data? What's your source of "no data"?

 

[Xzi]

Ideally it would, but it's a vulnerability in practice. Care to respond to the pertinent points that are the core of the conversation? I could pretend it never happened, if that's what you prefer.

I don't know what points you're talking about. That mail-in ballots may have tipped the 2020 election to Biden? Sure, I'll concede that. Higher voter turnout benefits Democrats regardless of what form it takes, and the reason is that the Republican platform is stuck in the 18th century. Hard to deal with a pandemic when you're living in a largely pre-scientific era, I suppose.

No data? What's your source of "no data"?

I said "no data showing that voter fraud occurs at a higher rate through mail." Or put another way, "the data shows roughly the same frequency of voter fraud through mail as in-person voter fraud."

I'm not sure why I even continue to discuss this with you. It's hard to take Republicans complaining about voter fraud seriously when Trump literally told his supporters to vote twice in 2020. Just another example of "rules for thee, not for me."