Are they active or passive measures

@Corndog yeah that’s what I said. You didn’t give any of the differences in this election that cause the need to question its authenticity.

How many people know what the 50 cent army is

?

The margins were closer in trumps win @Corndog

If drugs can be a $100 billion industry when we have a militarized leo department dedicated to it's eradication, ballot and election fraud with mail in ballots is a cake walk

Supreme Court just ruled on this. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-is-protecting-the-rights-of-the-faithful?utm_source=smartnews&utm_medium=feed

Personally based on my understanding of decentralized systems and based on what we know I think it is equally intellectually dishonest at this point to hold either view. Now there are some key dates coming up that will allow us to lean one way or the other but I find the conjecture on the left just as appealing and that from the right. I disagree that we can know the likelihood of something or even if that likelihood holds any weight in determining an election. What we do know is very little. There is not much to compare to due the extenuating circumstances of this year. The reality is that there are reasonable arguments on both sides so currently withholding votes in those states is the most reasonable and prudent solution until those are resolved, if they ever are.

They rely on a number of factors, as I understand it. The USPS NCOA, death records, etc.

Should mail-in ballots be delivered to every residence, or should they be requested first? Just pitching as an idea of extra security.

So they take active measures in order to update the data set?

I'm of the opinion they should be requested first. It's an extra layer of security.

I just gave you 3. Margins were different, covid limited numbers of observers and the method, and caused mail in voting to increase.

That's actually a good point

@Adam135 in states in which they did it for decades if you are registered you get a ballot.

Speculative but interesting

@Corndog I addressed mail in in my first post and then you said that wasn’t what you were talking about.

And the other 3

I'm talking about absentee, under which in certain states you must present a plausible claim for why you cannot arrive to the polls in person, outside the pandemic of course.

That they are difference between in the elections yes. Not that they are evidence supporting my claim. 🙂

Basically do claim that the 2000 election is comparable enough the 2020 election to rule off of precedent alone despite these things? I think we must exercise prudence and caution giving the benefit of both sides to compare claims.

@Corndog you would still start at the neutral position not the prove there wasn’t fraud position. There is no both sides. There is just the nurtural position and the side claiming mass fraud

What is mass fraud?

One disenfranchised voter is too much?

I disagree, but if we want to move on you will need answer that question. I am open to hearing your evidence.

The burden isn’t on me @Corndog

One thing I never understood, was that why the case was named Bush V Gore, but wasn't Al Gore the plaintiff?

@Adam135, you just advanced to level 17!

470 votes in the county of millions? Is that Mass?

You are welcome to answer the question at any time. We can establish who has what burden but I am interested in the truth either way.

Maybe its just alphabetical lol

I can only speak from what is presented as evidence and if it holds up to scrutiny otherwise default to the neutral position @Corndog

Which is we don’t know.

My response was based on your assertion that taking into consideration the likelihood of one thing versus another is not relevant. We make those types of determinations every day. We use countless factors to determine the best course of action or to ascertain what may have happened in a given circumstance. I am singularly focused on finding the truth and after 33 days of watching both sides of the divide, if Trump attempts to subvert the election to stay in power without actual, factual proof of fraud and not the conspiracy theories and discredited circumstantial evidence - as adjudicated in many cases by judges that he himself appointed. - all hell will break loose. And I am afraid that if he doesn't without acknowledging to his supporters that proof does not exist and accepting the outcome, all hell will break loose. That's why I think these types of discussions are important.

As long as you acknowledge the validity of the contrary at this point I have no quarrel with what you said there! Well said. Ultimately whatever happens must be within the constitutional mechanisms of resolving these grievances I will support whoever comes out on top within that. Otherwise you are right, all hell will break loose.

@Corndog, you just advanced to level 6!

In terms of polarizing the country and widening the fracture, I believe it's unavoidable regardless of who will be sworn in on the 20th.

Ooph Mellissa Carone got arrested in 2019 she seems nice 🤣

Most people nowadays refer to political opposition as enemies, not opponents.

@Corndog in that case of not knowing ,which would be true for all elections you default to the neutral position. As I said this dichotomy existed in all elections. We don’t know if trump won legitimately. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t get elected

if Trump attempts to subvert the election to stay in power without actual, factual proof... **What does this mean? **