They just throw it out there because it sounds "scary." I would argue the majority couldn't give a solid definition of socialism or Marxism. It's just a right-wing dog whistle.

Aside, mail-in voting facts:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/19/politics/mail-in-vs-absentee-voting-2020-election/index.html

It's like perfect clockwork every time...

stuartmcarthur5 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packemup said:

---

I'm also libertarian, but I have to vote against socialism. period.

---

I hear 'socialist' thrown around all the time by the right (and even GP's parakeet "Marxism! refrain on these boards) but can anyone point to honest-to-God wannabe capitalism over-throwers?

I'm not talking about out-of-context soundbites, I'm talking about progressive politicians that actually want to implement true socialism.

---

Bernie, AOC, Talib, Warren, Omar are just some examples of wanting to turn our government into they control everything aka socialism

---

So I take it your answer is no, you don't know of any.

The right's soundbite- and Twitter-driven hate for Bernie is ironic considering he talks all the time about the corrupt elite class that must be defeated outright.

That sounds a lot more like GuerrillaPack than it does Lenin.

99%+ of pubs don't have a clue what a social democracy or democratic socialism is, or how it's different from true socialism/communism. They just know that's what their team is supposed to call Bernie and AOC.

If Washington was full of Bernies and AOC's (on the left and right) that actually had ideas and gumption we'd be way better off than we are now, with a bunch of Mitch McConnell's and Chuck Schumer's.

Lol. Only Democrats know what socialism is. Hahahahaha. This thread derailment is classic know it all libs.

packgrad said:

---

---

And if you can mail in your ballot for absentee you can mail it in from mail in

Civilized said:

---

stuartmcarthur5 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packemup said:

---

I'm also libertarian, but I have to vote against socialism. period.

---

I hear 'socialist' thrown around all the time by the right (and even GP's parakeet "Marxism! refrain on these boards) but can anyone point to honest-to-God wannabe capitalism over-throwers?

I'm not talking about out-of-context soundbites, I'm talking about progressive politicians that actually want to implement true socialism.

---

Bernie, AOC, Talib, Warren, Omar are just some examples of wanting to turn our government into they control everything aka socialism

---

So I take it your answer is no, you don't know of any.

The right's soundbite- and Twitter-driven hate for Bernie is ironic considering he talks all the time about the corrupt elite class that must be defeated outright.

That sounds a lot more like GuerrillaPack than it does Lenin.

99%+ of pubs don't have a clue what a social democracy or democratic socialism is, or how it's different from true socialism/communism. They just know that's what their team is supposed to call Bernie and AOC.

If Washington was full of Bernies and AOC's (on the left and right) that actually had ideas and gumption we'd be way better off than we are now, with a bunch of Mitch McConnell's and Chuck Schumer's.

---

Can you define the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? It's a nebulous term with various groups around the world calling themselves "Democratic socialists." They do however still believe in collective or government ownership of the economy, sooooo it's not that far off from plain socialism.

From the Democratic Socialists of America's own definition:
"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives."

Bernie is a populist and more similar to Trump than either would like to admit.

IseWolf22 said:

---

Can you define the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? It's a nebulous term with various groups around the world calling themselves "Democratic socialists." They do however still believe in collective or government ownership of the economy, sooooo it's not that far off from plain socialism.

From the Democratic Socialists of America's own definition:
"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives."

Bernie is a populist and more similar to Trump than either would like to admit.

---

I equate discussion about democratic socialism with hard core fiscal conservatives talking about supporting "free market capitalism."

Neither is practically applied in America as a literal interpretation but both have takeaways that could be beneficial for Americans (as they have been elsewhere in the world).

Single payer health care and a living wage are two DS hot-button issues that aren't bat-**** crazy.

Democratic socialism isn't McCarthyism.

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Can you define the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? It's a nebulous term with various groups around the world calling themselves "Democratic socialists." They do however still believe in collective or government ownership of the economy, sooooo it's not that far off from plain socialism.

From the Democratic Socialists of America's own definition:
"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives."

Bernie is a populist and more similar to Trump than either would like to admit.

---

I equate discussion about democratic socialism with hard core fiscal conservatives talking about supporting "free market capitalism."

Neither is practically applied in America as a literal interpretation but both have takeaways that could be beneficial for Americans (as they have been elsewhere in the world).

Single payer health care and a living wage are two DS hot-button issues that aren't bat-**** crazy.

Democratic socialism isn't McCarthyism.

---

Well yes. We have a hybrid system, not pure capitalism, and honestly we are pretty far away it. Subsides and tariffs are not free market. The government intervenes in the economy many places and Republicans ignore it when it benefits them.

But minimum wage laws also are not socialism, It has nothing to do with collective ownership or government command of the economy. Single payer is much closer, but only truly Socialism when combined with government takeover of administering and providing healthcare (which most DSA adherants want).

The biggest problem with Medicare for all is not that it's socialism. It's just a fantasy land impossibility as it's currently sold. No country in the world gives the expansive benefits Bernie wants, costs are insane. On the revenue side there, other countries that do this fund it with substantially higher taxes on everyone, not just the rich.

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Can you define the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? It's a nebulous term with various groups around the world calling themselves "Democratic socialists." They do however still believe in collective or government ownership of the economy, sooooo it's not that far off from plain socialism.

From the Democratic Socialists of America's own definition:
"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives."

Bernie is a populist and more similar to Trump than either would like to admit.

---

I equate discussion about democratic socialism with hard core fiscal conservatives talking about supporting "free market capitalism."

Neither is practically applied in America as a literal interpretation but both have takeaways that could be beneficial for Americans (as they have been elsewhere in the world).

Single payer health care and a living wage are two DS hot-button issues that aren't bat-**** crazy.

Democratic socialism isn't McCarthyism.

---

Well yes. We have a hybrid system, not pure capitalism, and honestly we are pretty far away it. Subsides and tariffs are not free market. The government intervenes in the economy many places and Republicans ignore it when it benefits them.

But minimum wage laws also are not socialism, It has nothing to do with collective ownership or government command of the economy. Single payer is much closer, but only truly Socialism when combined with government takeover of administering and providing healthcare (which most DSA adherants want).

The biggest problem with Medicare for all is not that it's socialism. It's just a fantasy land impossibility as it's currently sold. No country in the world gives the expansive benefits Bernie wants, costs are insane. On the revenue side there, other countries that do this fund it with substantially higher taxes on everyone, not just the rich.

---

Both free-market capitalism and true socialism would be abject disasters for America.

Bernie didn't sniff the nomination precisely because he's too extreme.

AOC will fill the same role in the party as Bernie (an "idea" gal that's an inspiring curiosity for many but who lacks broad appeal/electability) unless she moderates her policies to become more implementable and affordable, and refines the marketability of her approach and messaging.

Nobody's getting elected on a platform of collective ownership of the economy. The Green New Deal does have some really good goals especially regarding using clean energy goals to drive job growth, but there's no way they're achieved as written (100% of Americans..., ALL Americans..., etc.)

The private healthcare market needs to be reformed massively or get blown up. I think it's past the point of reform though. There's no going back or reversing the increasing costs; the healthcare and insurance lobbies are too powerful and influential now. It not working isn't new, and isn't a function of Obamacare.

Costs are too high and have been trending up uniformly since the 1970's. There was no dramatic uptick in cost of either insurance premiums or healthcare costs in 2010 or 2014 after the marketplace was implemented; those year-over-year increases in costs have been going on for decades. Pricing increases in the 3 years prior to ACA adoption were 10% a year. ACA did change who felt the increases though. It decreased premiums for ~45% and increased them for ~40% of Americans. Many of those 40% that experienced increases were middle-class in small business that bought individual plans (including me).

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Can you define the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? It's a nebulous term with various groups around the world calling themselves "Democratic socialists." They do however still believe in collective or government ownership of the economy, sooooo it's not that far off from plain socialism.

From the Democratic Socialists of America's own definition:
"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives."

Bernie is a populist and more similar to Trump than either would like to admit.

---

I equate discussion about democratic socialism with hard core fiscal conservatives talking about supporting "free market capitalism."

Neither is practically applied in America as a literal interpretation but both have takeaways that could be beneficial for Americans (as they have been elsewhere in the world).

Single payer health care and a living wage are two DS hot-button issues that aren't bat-**** crazy.

Democratic socialism isn't McCarthyism.

---

Well yes. We have a hybrid system, not pure capitalism, and honestly we are pretty far away it. Subsides and tariffs are not free market. The government intervenes in the economy many places and Republicans ignore it when it benefits them.

But minimum wage laws also are not socialism, It has nothing to do with collective ownership or government command of the economy. Single payer is much closer, but only truly Socialism when combined with government takeover of administering and providing healthcare (which most DSA adherants want).

The biggest problem with Medicare for all is not that it's socialism. It's just a fantasy land impossibility as it's currently sold. No country in the world gives the expansive benefits Bernie wants, costs are insane. On the revenue side there, other countries that do this fund it with substantially higher taxes on everyone, not just the rich.

---

Both free-market capitalism and true socialism would be abject disasters for America.

Bernie didn't sniff the nomination precisely because he's too extreme.

AOC will fill the same role in the party as Bernie (an "idea" gal that's an inspiring curiosity for many but who lacks broad appeal/electability) unless she moderates her policies to become more implementable and affordable, and refines the marketability of her approach and messaging.

Nobody's getting elected on a platform of collective ownership of the economy. The Green New Deal does have some really good goals especially regarding using clean energy goals to drive job growth, but there's no way they're achieved as written (100% of Americans..., ALL Americans..., etc.)

The private healthcare market needs to be reformed massively or get blown up. I think it's past the point of reform though. There's no going back or reversing the increasing costs; the healthcare and insurance lobbies are too powerful and influential now. It not working isn't new, and isn't a function of Obamacare.

Costs are too high and have been trending up uniformly since the 1970's. There was no dramatic uptick in cost of either insurance premiums or healthcare costs in 2010 or 2014 after the marketplace was implemented; those year-over-year increases in costs have been going on for decades. Pricing increases in the 3 years prior to ACA adoption were 10% a year. ACA did change who felt the increases though. It decreased premiums for ~45% and increased them for ~40% of Americans. Many of those 40% that experienced increases were middle-class in small business that bought individual plans (including me).

---

Either extreme makes me ITCH!...and both have ideas I'll listen to. Listening and adapting "at times" is a good thing. Lots of people want to yap....open your ears. Ain't we supposed to be on the same team? Give and take and stay off the edges.

Completely agree that voting is imperfect.

Really interesting that Colorado increased turnout consequentially by going mail only. It makes sense, you're making it easier to vote which should be the goal. Wonder if the other mail-only states experienced the same thing.

We as a country are always better off with more people exercising their right to vote, no matter their political stripes. Make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Don't thrown up barriers, and don't invent problems.

Nobody wants to hear about voter fraud. It's not been a problem in this country. It's a red herring and just doesn't happen in a statistically significant way.

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Well yes. We have a hybrid system, not pure capitalism, and honestly we are pretty far away it. Subsides and tariffs are not free market. The government intervenes in the economy many places and Republicans ignore it when it benefits them.

But minimum wage laws also are not socialism, It has nothing to do with collective ownership or government command of the economy. Single payer is much closer, but only truly Socialism when combined with government takeover of administering and providing healthcare (which most DSA adherants want).

The biggest problem with Medicare for all is not that it's socialism. It's just a fantasy land impossibility as it's currently sold. No country in the world gives the expansive benefits Bernie wants, costs are insane. On the revenue side there, other countries that do this fund it with substantially higher taxes on everyone, not just the rich.

---

Both free-market capitalism and true socialism would be abject disasters for America.

Bernie didn't sniff the nomination precisely because he's too extreme.

AOC will fill the same role in the party as Bernie (an "idea" gal that's an inspiring curiosity for many but who lacks broad appeal/electability) unless she moderates her policies to become more implementable and affordable, and refines the marketability of her approach and messaging.

Nobody's getting elected on a platform of collective ownership of the economy. The Green New Deal does have some really good goals especially regarding using clean energy goals to drive job growth, but there's no way they're achieved as written (100% of Americans..., ALL Americans..., etc.)

The private healthcare market needs to be reformed massively or get blown up. I think it's past the point of reform though. There's no going back or reversing the increasing costs; the healthcare and insurance lobbies are too powerful and influential now. It not working isn't new, and isn't a function of Obamacare.

Costs are too high and have been trending up uniformly since the 1970's. There was no dramatic uptick in cost of either insurance premiums or healthcare costs in 2010 or 2014 after the marketplace was implemented; those year-over-year increases in costs have been going on for decades. Pricing increases in the 3 years prior to ACA adoption were 10% a year. ACA did change who felt the increases though. It decreased premiums for ~45% and increased them for ~40% of Americans. Many of those 40% that experienced increases were middle-class in small business that bought individual plans (including me).

---

Bernie did "sniff" the nomination. If it wasn't for the sudden and massive clean out of moderates, it's not crazy to say he might have won. The Democratic establishment learned from Trumps inside takeover in 2016.

I hope you are right about voters rejecting collective ownership. You are seeing avowed socialists winning seats in city council and the like in some major cities, but there is very little movement on the national level right now. But actual socialism IS getting increasingly popular in academia and among young people. Hopefully this is a short term trend.

Healthcare is probably the most complicated discussion that can be had in politics and it's a place where smart and reasonable people can vehemently disagree. Very few people are arguing that what we had pre-ACA was great and we should return to it.
Personally, I actually don't hate the individual mandate. It was first seriously proposed by the Heritage foundation years before Obama. If you start with the premise that no one in America is flat out denied medical treatment, you have a massive free rider problem. An individual mandate to carry coverage for basic, catastrophic coverage makes sense. IMO, the biggest problems with ACA were in details and cost controls. There is a lot of minutia here that is debatable and I probably shouldn't derail this thread more than I already am.

IseWolf22 said:

---

Bernie did "sniff" the nomination. If it wasn't for the sudden and massive clean out of moderates, it's not crazy to say he might have won. The Democratic establishment learned from Trumps inside takeover in 2016.

I hope you are right about voters rejecting collective ownership. You are seeing avowed socialists winning seats in city council and the like in some major cities, but there is very little movement on the national level right now. But actual socialism IS getting increasingly popular in academia and among young people. Hopefully this is a short term trend.

Healthcare is probably the most complicated discussion that can be had in politics and it's a place where smart and reasonable people can vehemently disagree. Very few people are arguing that what we had pre-ACA was great and we should return to it.
Personally, I actually don't hate the individual mandate. It was first seriously proposed by the Heritage foundation years before Obama. If you start with the premise that no one in America is flat out denied medical treatment, you have a massive free rider problem. An individual mandate to carry coverage for basic, catastrophic coverage makes sense. IMO, the biggest problems with ACA were in details and cost controls. There is a lot of minutia here that is debatable and I probably shouldn't derail this thread more than I already am.

---

Agree with all this, especially the bolded phrase, and would simply respond, "What cost controls?" There were none with teeth, and that's a big problem, although not one unique to ACA or Obama.

To try to come back to mail-in balloting, this study seems highly pertinent.

"We find that 1) universal vote-by-mail does not appear to affect either party's share of turnout, 2) universal vote-by-mail does not appear to increase either party's vote share, and 3) universal vote-by-mail modestly increases overall average turnout rates, in line with previous estimates. All three conclusions support the conventional wisdom of election administration experts and contradict many popular claims in the media."

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/25/14052

Personally we are getting absentee ballots and then taking them down to the wake county board of elections. You can do that starting September 4th. Figure we don't have to worry about the USPS and the crowds won't be as large.

Early voting starts October 15 and ends October 31. Not sure why election "day" can't last more than just one day especially during a pandemic. Would be a good way to reduce the number of people at the polls

It is longer than one day. It's 18 days.

Well there you go. I'll shut up now.

1MANWOLFPAK said:

---

All I know is that I went from having really good insurance that cost me next to nothing, to having really ****ty insurance that costs me a small fortune every month. Graphs be damned.

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

First, we have to understand that there is no healthcare "crisis". There never was one. It was a made-up crisis to sell the government takeover of a substantial portion of our economy.

To make things worse Dems made what they dubbed a "healthcare crisis" into a health INSURANCE debacle.

On a more fundamental level, when a "solution" - in this case drastically more invasive, freedom limiting government - continues to fail (and actually make things worse), you don't keep assuming more of that thing is going to make things any better.

To do so would be to chase insanity.

---

Obama and Obamacare caused our health insurance and healthcare cost debacle?

Based on what?

If so, clearly there should be a huge uptick in health care costs or premium costs due to Obamacare, right?
Looking at these graphs, can you even tell me when Obamacare started?

---

Even your manipulated graphs show that 0bamacare didn't fix anything - but it did add thousands of government workers to the federal payroll, while infringing on our freedom, and punishing small businesses.

Anyway, here you go:. https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-obamacare-is-and-will-continue-to-be-a-failure-3303662

---

---

I had Blue Cross/ Blue Shield from 18 -50, paid for it every year or my work did and I never used it a single time. When I turned 50, the rate was around $10,000 per year so I dropped it. I got insurance from AARP and when Obamacare came in, I got a call that it was just supplemental insurance that I had from AARP. I now have UHC and pay around $5000 per year and have a $10,000 deductible.

VOTE BY MAIL

ciscopack said:

---

VOTE BY MAIL

---

Anyone read all of this? Vote by Mail is great for the Trump Administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...unless they forget to sign and date or turn it in.

Trump says people in NC should vote by mail

Vote by mail

Trump says people in Florida should vote by mail

Vote by mail

Voting by mail in Florida is great

Considering just in the past 2 weeks USPS has lost 2 packages of mine and 4 more arrived between 2 and 6 days late, I feel like I can do without mail in voting.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Considering just in the past 2 weeks USPS has lost 2 packages of mine and 4 more arrived between 2 and 6 days late, I feel like I can do without mail in voting.

---

That's the beauty of it - most States are doing no excuse absentee ballots so you only get one if you want it. Those that are doing broader voting by mail have better systems in place to track ballots being received.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Considering just in the past 2 weeks USPS has lost 2 packages of mine and 4 more arrived between 2 and 6 days late, I feel like I can do without mail in voting.

---

LOL. I mailed a certified letter from the USPS Office in Hampstead (located just north of Wilmington on US 17) with a tracking number on July 15 addressed to a residence in the Monkey Junction vicinity of Wilmington.

Went from Hampstead to Fayetteville to Charlotte and finally to the main distribution site in Wilmington. That took 3 days. From there they lost track of it. Tracking still shows it "out for delivery"... *Fortunately though I did speak to the recipient and she confirmed that it was delivered and she did in fact sign for it.

I'll go to one of the early voting days this year again. Have done it twice already now, easy-in, easy-out five minutes or less both previous times. I like having to actually give a **** about voting myself and making sure that it counts...

There is a reason why Democrats are clamoring for universal mail-in balloting:. It makes it laughably easy to commit voter fraud.

https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2020/05/01/why-democrats-love-voting-by-mail-its-easier-to-cheat

SupplyChainPack said:

---

There is a reason why Democrats are clamoring for universal mail-in balloting:. It makes it laughably easy to commit voter fraud.

https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2020/05/01/why-democrats-love-voting-by-mail-its-easier-to-cheat

---

If voter fraud was laughably easy to commit wouldn't there be evidence of previous widespread voter fraud by one or both parties?

Except there's not. There's the exact opposite. There's massive evidence that voter fraud just doesn't happen on any sort of consequential scale.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

It's not like dems corner the market on voter shenanigans. Pubs would have been equally likely to take advantage in the past, if there was opportunity. Neither party has participated in or benefitted from fraud in any consequential way.

SupplyChainPack said:

---

That's the beauty of cheating by mail - it's next to impossible to prove.

How do election officials know that Aunt Sally, who is suffering from dementia, didn't really fill out that ballot? How do they know that John Smith, who moved to Fl 5 years ago but is still on the voter roles in his old state, didn't actually fill out that ballot that was delivered to his old address, but the guy who lived there filled it out for him?

That's just scratching the surface. There are numerous ways that somebody who is Godless and dishonest could and would commit voter fraud in a large scale mail in scheme

And let's face it, liberal Democrats are Godless, dishonest people. They WILL cheat in an election in which the opportunity to cheat is as easy as picking wildflowers in July.

---

Voter fraud isn't mild mischief, it's a felony.

Aunt Sally's niece who's visiting is really willing to commit a felony and check the Biden box to increase Biden's chances of winning by some tiny increment?

The guy who now lives in John Smith's old house and who has an equal chance of being a Republican, is willing to commit a felony to add one more vote for Biden?

And this can happen over and over and over again, all these felonies, as part of a concerted effort to get Biden elected?

That makes sense to you?

And even if it does, why is that potential fraud more likely to result in favor for one candidate over another? Isn't it roughly equally likely that wayward ballots wind up in the hands of a Republican than of a Democrat?

And besides, what you've described isn't 'on a large scale'. That's house by house.

How does mail-in fraud get committed on a consequential scale? You've said there are 'numerous ways' but didn't name any and there have never been any evidence of them happening before.

On the USPS Conspiracy Theory....

<iframe width="328" height="184" src=" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Civilized said:

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

That's the beauty of cheating by mail - it's next to impossible to prove.

How do election officials know that Aunt Sally, who is suffering from dementia, didn't really fill out that ballot? How do they know that John Smith, who moved to Fl 5 years ago but is still on the voter roles in his old state, didn't actually fill out that ballot that was delivered to his old address, but the guy who lived there filled it out for him?

That's just scratching the surface. There are numerous ways that somebody who is Godless and dishonest could and would commit voter fraud in a large scale mail in scheme

And let's face it, liberal Democrats are Godless, dishonest people. They WILL cheat in an election in which the opportunity to cheat is as easy as picking wildflowers in July.

---

Voter fraud isn't mild mischief, it's a felony.

---

So is lying to Congress - but Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Clinton are still as free as little school girls on summer vacation.

Sometimes our system of justice falls short, and is even downright corrupt.

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

That's the beauty of cheating by mail - it's next to impossible to prove.

How do election officials know that Aunt Sally, who is suffering from dementia, didn't really fill out that ballot? How do they know that John Smith, who moved to Fl 5 years ago but is still on the voter roles in his old state, didn't actually fill out that ballot that was delivered to his old address, but the guy who lived there filled it out for him?

That's just scratching the surface. There are numerous ways that somebody who is Godless and dishonest could and would commit voter fraud in a large scale mail in scheme

And let's face it, liberal Democrats are Godless, dishonest people. They WILL cheat in an election in which the opportunity to cheat is as easy as picking wildflowers in July.

---

Voter fraud isn't mild mischief, it's a felony.

---

So is lying to Congress - but Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Clinton are still as free as little school girls on summer vacation.

Sometimes our system of justice falls short, and is even downright corrupt.

---

The list of politicians that are alleged to have lied to Congress is somewhat long and distinguished and normally conveniently broken down along party lines depending on who's doing the accusing.

But it has nothing to do with voter fraud on scale. For it to impact the election you're talking thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of felonies either committed by strangers (to one another) or by some as-of-yet-undescribed collusive parties to aid Democrats.

Neither you or anyone else have trotted out evidence widespread fraud has ever happened before, or that there's the likelihood it will happen in 2020.