> This is implying that default mail-in voting was a way to get Democrats elected in the first place.
> No it isn't. Don't be obtuse.
Do you have more to say than "don't be obtuse"? Because it was well known that Democrats were more likely to use mail-in voting from the beginning as various polls showed and how the vote turned out Democrats as more and more mail-in votes were counted.
> Filing dozens of frivolous lawsuits and aggressively pressuring state government officials to help overturn election results isn't normal.
"Frivolous" is your opinion, not the one of the courts. And by the way multiple cases have been thrown out during Bush v. Gore, were they "frivolous" too?
> Democrats got unlucky on the retirement / death draw
> https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/20...
Can you actually verbalize the point you're trying to make without simply linking an opinion piece from NPR?
> [1/6 was] not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (no weapons)
> https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters...
"Many of the weapons allegedly used in the riot are considered "less lethal" but are dangerous and can even be fatal, according to experts."
Again, nothing lethal enough to start an "insurrection" against armed guards.
> I get it that you are not familiar with Bush v. Gore
> Yup, this is the first I've heard of George Bush and Al Gore. Thanks for letting me know about them.
So you you know that challenging elections results and irregularities in the courts are part of the electoral process then.
> It's easy to pick a random clown in a camp and then zoom 1000x to paint a bad picture
> Sure. I agree with that. I'm not claiming that this is the official platform of the GOP, simply that it's a radical and dangerous element of society that Trump and his wing of the party are actively cultivating by continuing to promote lies.
Trump never said things that are outside of what are heard at political rallies. Things like "fighting" for a cause and "walking on X building" are fairly common.
> No one is opposed to requiring an ID to vote.
This is not true. Democrats and various pressure group have opposed it for decades now:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/873878423/voting-and-election...
> The For the People Act included a voter ID provision, with alternative documents such as utility bills allowable as a fallback.
Bills are not id, they're proof of address. In Canada for example (and in most other liberal democracies), we have to show an id with a picture and a proof of address (the election card or a hydro bill if it's missing).
> No one is opposed to requiring an ID to vote. The For the People Act included a voter ID provision, with alternative documents such as utility bills allowable as a fallback.
> If you want to require IDs without that fallback, how about we make federal voting IDs available to everyone in the country at no cost and with minimal hassle or time investment? If the intent isn't voter suppression, this should be perfectly agreeable.
I'm sure this would get bi-partisan support, especially amongst the moderates. Social security numbers were never meant to be IDs in the first place and they are clearly out of date now.