U.S. Supreme Court set to weigh Republican-backed voting restrictions

[Credo]

9 hours ago, Thomas J said:

It is not nonsense.  It proves how inept the government is.  If they can't determine if you are alive or dead do you really believe they would accurately tell if voters are legitimate or not.

In terms of voting restrictions.  No I am not for taking away peoples right to vote.  However, if it is deemed so mandatory that a person SHOW UP IN PERSON AND PRESENT ID in order to buy alcohol, cigarettes, or open a cell phone account.  It is ludicrous to just say that the same is not required to vote. A much more critical function. 

None of your listed reasons are a right, they are a privilege.  You don't have the right to buy alcohol, cigarettes or open a cell phone account.   

 

[impulse]

So, they don't want to allow organizations to collect ballots from the good voters, omit or weed out the ones from the not-so-good voters and they call that a "voting restriction"?

 

Looks like they're already trying to fortify the next few election cycles...

 

BTW, anyone who believes those organizations are collecting ballots fairly and equitable, in the interest of increasing voter rights, please contact me.  I have a bridge I can sell you for a great price...

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by impulse

[Thomas J]

16 hours ago, Credo said:

None of your listed reasons are a right, they are a privilege.  You don't have the right to buy alcohol, cigarettes or open a cell phone account.

So that seems to be a difference without a distinction.  Does that mean that exercising your right is somehow less critical.  Also the second amendment gives the right of people to bear arms.  That does not mean the government can not and does not require reasonable steps to allow people to purchase a gun.  The first amendment gives people the right to free speech.  However to start a radio or television station you need to secure permits. To conduct a demonstration or parade you will in most instances have to apply for and receive a permit.  

Lets be honest.  Not requiring someone to show identification to vote is a Red Herring argument.  In today's world it is virtually impossible for a person to function without identification.  They would not be able to rent a hotel room, drive a car, open a bank account, apply for government benefits, fly on an airplane, buy alcohol or cigarettes, pick up prescription medicine.  

Even if I bought the premise that obtaining an ID would be difficult.  Certainly in today's world with facial and/or biological recognition of retinas or fingerprints it is totally possible and it does not strip someone of their right to vote.  Rather it protects that it is only them who can exercise it in their name. 

 

[placeholder]

17 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Thank you for the civil response.  In terms of making ID and registering easy, I agree with you and certainly the government can and should provide State ID cards with pictures at no cost for those who don't have a drivers license.  However, I disagree with you regarding mail in votes.  Those "were intended" for people who legitimately were out of their voting districts at the time of the election or were incapacitated in some fashion.  

The voters of Oregon and Utah, among others would disagree with you.

[onthedarkside]

Posts making false claims about the U.S. elections process, including how mail-in ballots have been used in the past, have been removed, along with a post repeating false and unsubstantiated claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, along with replies.

 

[Jeffr2]

On 2/25/2021 at 7:01 PM, Thingamabob said:

Probably nothing wrong, but the video looked really bad.

What video?

[MikeyIdea]

It seems that the voting system the the US is about as modern as in a banana republic. Perhaps it is time for a country like America to do something about that. After all, many countries in the world have mail-in voting, Sweden has had mail-in voting since 1942!!! that's Seventy-Eight-Years ago, never any election fraud. 

 

Yeah, 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by MikeyIdea

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, MikeyIdea said:

It seems that the voting system the the US is about as modern as in a banana republic. Perhaps it is time for a country like America to do something about that. After all, many countries in the world have mail-in voting, Sweden has had mail-in voting since 1942!!! that's Seventy-Eight-Years ago, never any election fraud. 

 

Yeah, 

 

Mail in voting isn't new in the U S  either. The rules depend on each state. It was justifiably expanded because of the pandemic. Expats and military abroad have always voted by mail. Yankee soldiers in the Civil War voted by mail.

[Sujo]

On 3/2/2021 at 2:52 PM, Thomas J said:

So that seems to be a difference without a distinction.  Does that mean that exercising your right is somehow less critical.  Also the second amendment gives the right of people to bear arms.  That does not mean the government can not and does not require reasonable steps to allow people to purchase a gun.  The first amendment gives people the right to free speech.  However to start a radio or television station you need to secure permits. To conduct a demonstration or parade you will in most instances have to apply for and receive a permit.  

Lets be honest.  Not requiring someone to show identification to vote is a Red Herring argument.  In today's world it is virtually impossible for a person to function without identification.  They would not be able to rent a hotel room, drive a car, open a bank account, apply for government benefits, fly on an airplane, buy alcohol or cigarettes, pick up prescription medicine.  

Even if I bought the premise that obtaining an ID would be difficult.  Certainly in today's world with facial and/or biological recognition of retinas or fingerprints it is totally possible and it does not strip someone of their right to vote.  Rather it protects that it is only them who can exercise it in their name. 

 

Can you point to the voter fraud for us?

 

Big difference between could be, and is.

 

Why change what is working.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Sujo

[Thomas J]

1 hour ago, MikeyIdea said:

weden has had mail-in voting since 1942!!! that's Seventy-Eight-Years ago, never any election fraud. 

I know the refrain has been there is no election fraud.  Honestly, I don't know how you in a mail in voting system you would ever know or without extensive follow up one on one audits that you could ever uncover it. 

Consider in the USA you register to vote.  However you do not have to update your address if you move.  I am still registered to vote in Michigan despite not having lived there since 2018.  If a person resides in more than one state there is no process to cross check if the person who has a residence lets say in Florida and is registered to vote, also does not have an address in New York and is registered to vote. 

Now a huge number of states have just mailed out absentee ballots to all registered voters.  Now consider the records of those registered voters are very imperfect with numerous people no longer living at an old address, registered at another address, or perhaps deceased.  There is no mechanism to cross check. 

Now consider, with unemployment benefits whose records are also kept by the government.  It is estimated that between 35% and 40% of the claims are fraud.  So how can it be that a huge percentage of applications to get money are fraud but that a miniscule to nonexistent number of votes are fraudulent. 

Now the ballot is received, there is no way to guarantee that the ballot was actually received by the registered voter, and no way to determine if the return ballot was actually filled out by the registered voter. Some states have computer signature verification but like all OCR systems it is fraught with errors. 

 Finally, at polling stations places to vote are to be politics free.  That is those who wish to either support or oppose specific candidates are not permitted to engage with those that vote.  With mail in ballots there is no way to determine if a persons vote was tainted by others through inducement to vote.  

In order to open a bank account you have to show up in person and present ID.  In order to purchase alcohol you have to show up in person and if close to the legal age, show ID. To purchase a firearm you have to show up in person and show an ID.  You can not "pre-board" online to avoid showing an ID to fly on a commercial airline.   Many transactions some as insignificant as verifying a Facebook account require picture ID.  However somehow there is this mantra being preached that voting is not that important, requiring ID is somehow discriminatory, and is voter suppression.   

It is estimated that Medicare fraud totals $415 billion a year, unemployment fraud just with the pandemic relief program is estimated to be $36 billion.  This is old data but a 2013 report by the IRS showed 5  million returns filed with stolen identities.  In 2019 the IRS who should have far better data than they individual states with voter registration mailed out 1 million Covid Relief checks to dead people.  To look at the rampant fraud with other government online systems and not think that fraud exists in voting is ludicrous.  With a fake tax return you might walk away with a few thousand.  With a swung election with trillions of tax dollars as the ultimate prize there is a far greater incentive on the part of some. 

Assuming it could be done, which I think technologically it can, there would be nothing wrong with using fingerprints, retinal scans, or facial recognition systems in lieu of picture ID to verify voters.  While I still would favor in person voting, at least those sorts of systems done online would verify the person placing the vote, was in fact the registered voter, and they could be centralized so a person unlike now can not vote in multiple states. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/05/scammers-have-taken-36-billion-in-fraudulent-unemployment-payments-.html
 

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Can you point to the voter fraud for us?

 

Big difference between could be, and is.

 

Why change what is working.

I guess using your logic, the bank should not put money in a vault, because it has not been robbed, locks should not be put on your doors since your home has not been broken into.  A policeman should not carry a gun, because he/she has not been shot at.  Fire stations and hydrants are not needed since this area has no history of fires.  

Right now, there is no way of ascertaining if fraud has or has not occurred. 

[Susco]

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I know the refrain has been there is no election fraud.  Honestly, I don't know how you in a mail in voting system you would ever know or without extensive follow up one on one audits that you could ever uncover it. 

Consider in the USA you register to vote.  However you do not have to update your address if you move.  I am still registered to vote in Michigan despite not having lived there since 2018.  If a person resides in more than one state there is no process to cross check if the person who has a residence lets say in Florida and is registered to vote, also does not have an address in New York and is registered to vote. 

Now a huge number of states have just mailed out absentee ballots to all registered voters.  Now consider the records of those registered voters are very imperfect with numerous people no longer living at an old address, registered at another address, or perhaps deceased.  There is no mechanism to cross check. 

Now consider, with unemployment benefits whose records are also kept by the government.  It is estimated that between 35% and 40% of the claims are fraud.  So how can it be that a huge percentage of applications to get money are fraud but that a miniscule to nonexistent number of votes are fraudulent. 

Now the ballot is received, there is no way to guarantee that the ballot was actually received by the registered voter, and no way to determine if the return ballot was actually filled out by the registered voter. Some states have computer signature verification but like all OCR systems it is fraught with errors. 

 Finally, at polling stations places to vote are to be politics free.  That is those who wish to either support or oppose specific candidates are not permitted to engage with those that vote.  With mail in ballots there is no way to determine if a persons vote was tainted by others through inducement to vote.  

In order to open a bank account you have to show up in person and present ID.  In order to purchase alcohol you have to show up in person and if close to the legal age, show ID. To purchase a firearm you have to show up in person and show an ID.  You can not "pre-board" online to avoid showing an ID to fly on a commercial airline.   Many transactions some as insignificant as verifying a Facebook account require picture ID.  However somehow there is this mantra being preached that voting is not that important, requiring ID is somehow discriminatory, and is voter suppression.   

It is estimated that Medicare fraud totals $415 billion a year, unemployment fraud just with the pandemic relief program is estimated to be $36 billion.  This is old data but a 2013 report by the IRS showed 5  million returns filed with stolen identities.  In 2019 the IRS who should have far better data than they individual states with voter registration mailed out 1 million Covid Relief checks to dead people.  To look at the rampant fraud with other government online systems and not think that fraud exists in voting is ludicrous.  With a fake tax return you might walk away with a few thousand.  With a swung election with trillions of tax dollars as the ultimate prize there is a far greater incentive on the part of some. 

Assuming it could be done, which I think technologically it can, there would be nothing wrong with using fingerprints, retinal scans, or facial recognition systems in lieu of picture ID to verify voters.  While I still would favor in person voting, at least those sorts of systems done online would verify the person placing the vote, was in fact the registered voter, and they could be centralized so a person unlike now can not vote in multiple states. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/05/scammers-have-taken-36-billion-in-fraudulent-unemployment-payments-.html
 

 

Just something to consider for you Thomas.

 

In the US there are 2 main parties, so voter fraud, if there is some, will happen on both sides.

 

Since the majority of historical and recent proven election fraud cases concerned Republicans, and even Republican politicians, I wouldn't shout too loud on my soap box if I was you.

[Eric Loh]

Republican legislators have some believed that various efforts for voter restrictions were all about protecting the integrity of the election. Well it turns out that they were all about protecting themselves. They admitted that they are at a competitive disadvantage relative to the Dems and every extra vote hurt they Rep Party said attorney Micheal Calvin representing the Arizona Rep Party. Without shame he continued “politics is a zero sum game”. Rep Party now is about political expediency and power grab. 
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/03/02/arizona-gop-lawyer-admits-real-reason-wants-election-reform/6895380002/

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The voter ID measures being promoted now by Republicans, as well as those promoted in the past, have a pretty well documented history of being aimed at disenfranchising poor and minority voters.  And when pressed to show the claimed voter fraud they're barking about, the proponents typically can produce next to nothing of substance (as the cited report below well documents).

 

It's not that alleged voter fraud hasn't been investigated and studied and examined. It has been in many places, by many entities and through many elections. And in short, the substantial voter fraud claim is simply a big scam / sham.

 

Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth

...

"The verdict is in from every corner that voter fraud is sufficiently rare that it simply could not and does not happen at the rate even approaching that which would be required to “rig”an election. Electoral integrity is key to our democracy, and politicians who genuinely care about protecting our elections should focus not on phantom fraud concerns, but on those abuses that actually threaten election security.

 

As historians and election experts have catalogued, there is a long history in this country of racially suppressive voting measures—including poll taxes and all-white primaries—put in place under the guise of stopping voter fraud that wasn’t actually occurring in the first place.The surest way toward voting that is truly free, fair, and accessible is to know the facts in the face of such rhetoric."

 

The Brennan Center for Justice is an independent, nonpartisan law and policy organization that works to reform, revitalize, and when necessary, defend our country’s systems of democracy and justice.

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

 

Included in the above cited report is a long list of past studies, reports, court cases etc. where the voter fraud issues in the U.S. have been examined and found to be exceedingly minimal.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Thomas J]

24 minutes ago, Susco said:

Since the majority of historical and recent proven election fraud cases concerned Republicans, and even Republican politicians, I wouldn't shout too loud on my soap box if I was you.

Even if that is true.  Why the objection to the elimination of any fraud irrespective of party.  Would you favor elimination of checking ID at airports since there have only been 5 instances of hijacking in the past twenty years.  No.  If the vote is honest, then there should be no objection to a "reasonable" procedure to ensure the vote is honest if for no other reason than to eradicate the notion that elections can be fixed. 

[Eric Loh]

36 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Right now, there is no way of ascertaining if fraud has or has not occurred. 

Let the courts decide and it was a resounding dismissal of voters fraud and there were 38 conservative judges. 

[Sujo]

43 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I guess using your logic, the bank should not put money in a vault, because it has not been robbed, locks should not be put on your doors since your home has not been broken into.  A policeman should not carry a gun, because he/she has not been shot at.  Fire stations and hydrants are not needed since this area has no history of fires.  

Right now, there is no way of ascertaining if fraud has or has not occurred. 

By facts. Its not an issue.

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Let the courts decide and it was a resounding dismissal of voters fraud and there were 38 conservative judges. 

Again, if there is no fraud, then why the push back on voter id to guarantee it.  If a hotel room clerk asks you for your passport do you argue and say, well there have been no documented cases of people creating damage in your hotel.  If the airline asks for your ID before boarding do you say, well there are no instances where your airline has ever had a hijacking or terrorist.  The right to vote is just that a right.  That deserves to be protected.  Right now there is a rightr to purchases a firearm however it is considered "reasonable" that the person be a minimum age, show up in person, present identification, and undergrow a police background check before purchasing.  What could possibly be the objection to requiring proof that the person voting, is really the correct person. 

 

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

By facts. Its not an issue.

Again, if you can't check there is no way of determining if it is true or not.  If I filled out another persons ballot and submitted it, votes are anonymous.  I can tell "if" someone voted but I can't verify if it was the actual person, or if the vote had been altered.  Again, give me one good reason why it is "not reasonable" for a person to have to show evidence that they really are the person they are representing to be. 

[Jeffr2]

16 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Even if that is true.  Why the objection to the elimination of any fraud irrespective of party.  Would you favor elimination of checking ID at airports since there have only been 5 instances of hijacking in the past twenty years.  No.  If the vote is honest, then there should be no objection to a "reasonable" procedure to ensure the vote is honest if for no other reason than to eradicate the notion that elections can be fixed. 

Good gosh. Give it up. They do their best to ensure free and fair elections. Which they did this time.

 

People like you don't help. Stop reading the fake news right wing media outlets.

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again, if there is no fraud, then why the push back on voter id to guarantee it.  If a hotel room clerk asks you for your passport do you argue and say, well there have been no documented cases of people creating damage in your hotel.  If the airline asks for your ID before boarding do you say, well there are no instances where your airline has ever had a hijacking or terrorist.  The right to vote is just that a right.  That deserves to be protected.  Right now there is a rightr to purchases a firearm however it is considered "reasonable" that the person be a minimum age, show up in person, present identification, and undergrow a police background check before purchasing.  What could possibly be the objection to requiring proof that the person voting, is really the correct person. 

 

Those fraud lawsuits dismissed by the judges were due to lack of evidence to back up their assertions - purely speculation, rumors or hearsay. Sorry but what you presented falls in those categories. 

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again, if you can't check there is no way of determining if it is true or not.  If I filled out another persons ballot and submitted it, votes are anonymous.  I can tell "if" someone voted but I can't verify if it was the actual person, or if the vote had been altered.  Again, give me one good reason why it is "not reasonable" for a person to have to show evidence that they really are the person they are representing to be. 

By your logic there should be no voting, at all.

[Thomas J]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

15 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Expand  

Those fraud lawsuits dismissed by the judges were due to lack of evidence to back up their assertions - purely speculation, rumors or hearsay. Sorry but what you presented falls in those categories. 

Two points.  First what is the objection to showing ID.? 

Second, how exactly if you were in charge would you prove voter fraud?  Ballots came in, were counted.  How would you be able to 1. show the ballot went to the correct person 2. That the correct person actually filled out the ballot 3. That the ballot was not altered.  If you can not do the latter, it is a system where though voter fraud could be alleged, the system does not allow you to prove. 

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again, if you can't check there is no way of determining if it is true or not.  If I filled out another persons ballot and submitted it, votes are anonymous.  I can tell "if" someone voted but I can't verify if it was the actual person, or if the vote had been altered.  Again, give me one good reason why it is "not reasonable" for a person to have to show evidence that they really are the person they are representing to be. 

Go to the courts. Where is the evidence that a vote is fraudulant. Surely with trump and fox news and newsmax and 70 million or so voting for biden there must be someone that didnt vote and decided to check.

 

Even trump told them to try it, so there must be some.

 

Show us.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Two points.  First what is the objection to showing ID.? 

Second, how exactly if you were in charge would you prove voter fraud?  Ballots came in, were counted.  How would you be able to 1. show the ballot went to the correct person 2. That the correct person actually filled out the ballot 3. That the ballot was not altered.  If you can not do the latter, it is a system where though voter fraud could be alleged, the system does not allow you to prove. 

Firstly show us there is an issue. Its not that hard.

 

2. Familiarize yourself with hand recounts.

 

3. 40 courts and 0 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Sujo

[Thomas J]

Just now, Sujo said:

 

Show us.

It can't be done because there is no way of ascertaining if the person who turned in the ballot is "REALLY 'the person who is the registered voter.  So by default voter fraud can't be proved because the system as it currently stands does not guarantee the voter on the front end, and since the actual vote is anonymous, no way of determining if it had been altered.  

Consider, the following countries have "biometric" to their voting systems.  What is wrong with a system that guarantees voter integrity.  Fraud or No Fraud.  Just like airport security.  You don't do it because there is a problem.  You do it to prevent a problem.  If these nations many of them third world can employ a system to guarantee their voters integrity in their elections, certainly the US citizens deserve nothing less. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_voter_registration#:~:text=Countries which have used Biometric,%2C Iraq%2C Kenya%2C Lesotho%2C

Countries which have used Biometric voting registration include Armenia,^[10][11] Angola,^[12][13] Bangladesh,^[14][15] Bhutan,^[16] Bolivia,^[17][18] Brazil,^[19][20] Burkina Faso,^[21] Cambodia,^[22][23] Cameroon,^[24] Chad,^[25][26] Colombia,^[27][28] Comoros,^[29][30] Congo (Democratic Republic of),^[31][32] Costa Rica,^{[citation needed]} Cote d'Ivoire,^[33] Dominican Republic,^[34] Fiji, Gambia,^[35] Ghana,^[36] Guatemala, India,^[37][38] Iraq, Kenya,^[39][40] Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico,^[9][41] Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,^[42] Nepal,^[43] Nicaragua, Nigeria,^[44][45] Panama, Peru,^[9] The Philippines,^[46][47] Senegal, Sierra Leone,^[48][49] Solomon Islands, Somaliland,^[50] Swaziland, Tanzania,^[51] Uganda,^[52][53] Uruguay, Venezuela,^[9] Yemen,^[54] Zambia,^[55] and Zimbabwe.^[5

 

[Thomas J]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Familiarize yourself with hand recounts.

Hand recounts count the votes, it does not determine if 1. the voter actually received the ballot 2. The voter actually was the person who turned in the ballot, 3. The ballot was not altered. 

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Two points.  First what is the objection to showing ID.? 

Second, how exactly if you were in charge would you prove voter fraud?  Ballots came in, were counted.  How would you be able to 1. show the ballot went to the correct person 2. That the correct person actually filled out the ballot 3. That the ballot was not altered.  If you can not do the latter, it is a system where though voter fraud could be alleged, the system does not allow you to prove. 

You are giving an assumption which has no legal standing because it lack evidence. Homeland Security under Trump said the election was the most secured in history and DOJ also under Trump said there were no traces of evidence of election fraud. Best you keep your assumption between your like minded mates. 

[Thomas J]

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You are giving an assumption which has no legal standing because it lack evidence. Homeland Security under Trump said the election was the most secured in history and DOJ also under Trump said there were no traces of evidence of election fraud. Best you keep your assumption between your like minded mates. 

Again lets assume you are correct?  What is the objection to having and showing ID which is reasonably expected for unlimited number of less critical things. 

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

It can't be done because there is no way of ascertaining if the person who turned in the ballot is "REALLY 'the person who is the registered voter.  So by default voter fraud can't be proved because the system as it currently stands does not guarantee the voter on the front end, and since the actual vote is anonymous, no way of determining if it had been altered.  

Consider, the following countries have "biometric" to their voting systems.  What is wrong with a system that guarantees voter integrity.  Fraud or No Fraud.  Just like airport security.  You don't do it because there is a problem.  You do it to prevent a problem.  If these nations many of them third world can employ a system to guarantee their voters integrity in their elections, certainly the US citizens deserve nothing less. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_voter_registration#:~:text=Countries which have used Biometric,%2C Iraq%2C Kenya%2C Lesotho%2C

Countries which have used Biometric voting registration include Armenia,^[10][11] Angola,^[12][13] Bangladesh,^[14][15] Bhutan,^[16] Bolivia,^[17][18] Brazil,^[19][20] Burkina Faso,^[21] Cambodia,^[22][23] Cameroon,^[24] Chad,^[25][26] Colombia,^[27][28] Comoros,^[29][30] Congo (Democratic Republic of),^[31][32] Costa Rica,^{[citation needed]} Cote d'Ivoire,^[33] Dominican Republic,^[34] Fiji, Gambia,^[35] Ghana,^[36] Guatemala, India,^[37][38] Iraq, Kenya,^[39][40] Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico,^[9][41] Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,^[42] Nepal,^[43] Nicaragua, Nigeria,^[44][45] Panama, Peru,^[9] The Philippines,^[46][47] Senegal, Sierra Leone,^[48][49] Solomon Islands, Somaliland,^[50] Swaziland, Tanzania,^[51] Uganda,^[52][53] Uruguay, Venezuela,^[9] Yemen,^[54] Zambia,^[55] and Zimbabwe.^[5

 

then how did the US actually find voter fraud.

 

Yes they have. But found it not an issue. So if they found some how can you say it cant be found.

 

Voter fraud can be found, thats proven but its not an issue.

 

Trump even set up a taskforce, nothing. There is nothing to prevent.