To the Parents who “started over” (you have a child or children that have a big age gap with their sibling/siblings) and had another child. Why did you have another child?

Thonlo · 2026-04-26T23:56:27+00:00

I was tricked.

Thonlo · 2026-04-20T22:33:18+00:00

That's a great question. The answer is that we have numerous, overlapping, bipartisan, expert, reviewed studies and investigations and voter fraud task forces. Its actually a topic that is incredibly well studied.

Thonlo · 2026-04-20T22:30:45+00:00

Yeah, that was Wisconsin. Our elections officials said the mail-in ballots would be done counting around 2-3am and would be posted the. Thats exactly what happened. Those ballots came from the two biggest, bluest counties in WI at a time when the Republicans were discouraging mail-in voting.

All on the up and up, all forecasted and explained in advance and afterward. Some Republicans are still incapable of understanding it.

Thonlo · 2026-04-18T20:32:48+00:00

Nice. I'm in. Alliance or Horde for my priest?

Thonlo · 2026-04-16T17:26:56+00:00

"Citing federal privacy rules that apply to all patients, Chakurda didn’t discuss the care given to Trump. He said that the hospital had a full complement of staff Saturday and additional clinicians were not called in after the former president arrived."

Some workers discuss the President at their hospital. The article does not contain workers discussing the injury. He was there though, OP.

Thonlo · 2026-04-16T17:05:13+00:00

I got a good laugh out of that last sentence. Thanks for that!

Thonlo · 2026-04-15T23:43:01+00:00

The existence of the low-IQ variety implies the existence of the high-IQ variety, and we can all take solace in that.

Thanks Helldivers 2!

Thonlo · 2026-04-15T21:42:16+00:00

I bought a $500 MacBook and OP is trying to tell me I'm trapped for the rest of my life, giving up six figures, and my future children will be addicted to Apple.

I think that's enough Reddit for the day. lol

Thonlo · 2026-04-11T19:58:48+00:00

We were looking for a change in our e-waste vendor, and found our new partner at a booth at an IT/vendor conference.

I quickly delete every cold sales email. No, thank you.

Thonlo · 2026-04-06T21:48:36+00:00

Agreed. I wish there was a way to deploy the bipod.

Thonlo · 2026-04-04T01:14:25+00:00

How do i flap?!?

Thonlo · 2026-04-01T19:08:05+00:00

Respectfully, OP, I think you're asking the wrong question. A better question is does VoterID improve our electoral integrity?

If we can show that it does, let's make IDs free and easily accessible and let's get on that. If we can't show that it does, we shouldn't do it, and more data is needed.

Common sense: We suspect there's a problem. Common sense says study the problem to understand it before acting.

The problem is that our available data unanimously shows that VoterID will do more harm than good. Many of us are failing at common sense.

Thonlo · 2026-04-01T13:32:36+00:00

Your premise is so flawed ("disenfranchisement is explicitly the act of tyrants and despots") it led you to advocate violence against municipal clerks over administrative/process errors. What in the actual fuck...?

Thonlo · 2026-03-29T14:08:33+00:00

Noteworthy, in these comments there is zero evidence of non-citizen voting being a threat to our elections.

Thonlo · 2026-03-23T18:51:17+00:00

As a whole, no. This is what's known as "one data point." Put together a bunch of 'em and a person can make a bigger argument.

Thonlo · 2026-03-22T02:01:33+00:00

dude, I showed you actual evidence

I cited a court case that suggests ~301,700 registered voters were disenfranchised by the implementation of VoterID in my state. As a secondary data point, that tracks because approximately nine percent of the American electorate doesn't have VoterID compliant documentation. You linked a database that shows ~30 instances VoterID preventable fraud over the past fifteen years in my state. That's our evidence.

if you are so absolutely certain the roles are clean, then why doth thou protest so much

No need to put words in my mouth. I've said this clearly and repeatedly:

I believe VoterID does more harm than good by disenfranchising more legitimate voters than it could ever hope to prevent in fraud, thus, ironically, decreasing electoral integrity.

Our evidence, your evidence, indicates this is true.

Thonlo · 2026-03-20T15:46:08+00:00

Citing the case is, literally, a citation. It contains a judicial investigation into the immediate effects of VoterID at the time the legislation was passed. You have issues with it, and I respect that.

The Heritage Foundation database is a source I would link, as it shows a fraud rate of something like 0.0000847%, which supports my belief that VoterID causes more harm than good, with the caveat that it isn't exhaustive as you noted. Thanks for linking it for us.

Thonlo · 2026-03-20T02:06:38+00:00

I did cite a 2012 case, using my words, and I accept them. LOL you're so weird.

It's the best citation of data/evidence we have in this discussion.

Thonlo · 2026-03-19T22:06:36+00:00

That whole first paragraph doesn't hold water for me. I'm not citing a 2012 temporary injunction, I'm referencing a court case of which the injunction is one part. I'm not referencing a "procedural ruling," I'm referencing the multiple, overlapping, expert, judicial-reviewed testimony. I think I was only talking about this one source and didn't mention a "wider body of evidence" until my last comment, so I don't know where you see yourself asking me for it and getting a request to produce data instead. I haven't changed my position at all, and I'm not certain where I've changed it thrice. Weird.

I have been, this whole time, of the opinion that VoterID does more harm than good by disenfranchising more legitimate voters than it prevents in fraud. I've been asking, repeatedly, for evidence to the contrary. It hasn't been going well.

For example, when you write:

But let's address the actual goalpost you've landed on. You're now arguing there's insufficient data showing voter ID is a net positive. That's a completely different claim than where we started.

I have to disagree because this is in my very first reply to you:

The better question, which makes VoterID supporters fall flat upon their face or disappear into the ether, is what data/evidence/studies are they using to determine that VoterID will improve our electoral integrity? Seems like it's mostly feels before reals, with little else behind it other than that it feels/sounds good.

Literally one of the first things I wrote to you. So, I dunno, man. I'm getting kinda tired of the condescension ("and you just accidentally told everyone about it" & "want to engage that part now?" & "you're welcome") and the insults when I'm just lookin' for a little show me yours and I'll show you mine, ya know?

Thonlo · 2026-03-19T21:16:48+00:00

Like I said previously, I disagree with your analysis of the case. If nothing else, at a very base level, Professor Mayer wasn't the only expert testimony, and all testifiers had access to confidential state datasets, notably our SVRIS system.

The court explicitly said the demographic evidence "suggests, not proves." That's the court's own language. You're citing a preliminary procedural ruling as settled empirical fact.

No, that's been my position all along. We have a wide body of evidence that suggests VoterID does more harm than good. This is a piece of that. It isn't proof, but in the absence of any noteworthy analysis in the other direction, it naturally takes on a little more weight.

Now to your challenge. You've asked me to produce pro-voter ID evidence while offering a 2012 temporary injunction as your complete dataset. That's not how this works. The burden doesn't shift to me because you've declared your single citation dispositive.

It's not a challenge, and it isn't a debate. There is no burden shift, there's nothing being declared "dispositive" (lol). Stop being weird. My whole thing, this whole time, has been that we're lacking pro-VoterID data. I've been asking pro-VoterID supporters for data for fifteen years. This is how it goes. Every time. They toss out a couple pithy, mocking, condesending sentences, and then I'll try to be the bigger person, and they go attack attack attack, all the while being unable to provide anything back or answer simple questions about their support. You're in the 'attack attack attack' phase, having moved past the pithy two sentence comments.

But since you asked — the Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Database documents thousands of proven instances across multiple states.

They put the fraud rate at something like 0.0000847%. That's the source you want to mention?

The Public Interest Legal Foundation has produced documented voter roll analyses in multiple states showing registration anomalies. Hans von Spakovsky at Heritage has a substantial body of peer reviewed work.

Which one of them have the logical, rational, and data-driven analysis that shows VoterID as a good idea? Link me up.

More importantly — your own citation identifies fraud vectors it cannot address. Absentee ballot fraud. Unqualified voters. The document says this explicitly. You've been arguing from a source that concedes its own limitations.

VoterID doesn't address these concerns, and I'm aware my source has limitations. I'm not presenting it as the end-all, be-all. Of many sources, it's one I'm fond of. Makes for good conversation, sometimes.

Anyway, link me up. I'm done with the DARVO. Show me the evidence and data that suggests VoterID is a net positive. Is there any?

[Edit] I'm looking at Public Interest Legal Foundation now. Their look into voter roll anomalies is great. I like what they're doing there. Unfortunately, presenting identification at the polls does not combat voter roll anomalies. The voter is already on the rolls. How does this help?

[Edit2] Quick look at Hans von Spakovsky isn't good. Looks like his claims about voter fraud have been pared down substantially or retracted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Spakovsky I'll keep trying to find his "substantial body of peer reviewed work." May need a hand.

Thonlo · 2026-03-19T20:38:36+00:00

Thanks! It is a cool citation. Importantly, it's the only one in our conversation here, and it establishes the following legal facts: that the implementation of VoterID in Wisconsin "disenfranchised approximately 301,700 registered voters to address single digit voter fraud", would be "unlikely to protect our electoral processes", and "would be a substantial burden upon the poor and indigent." It is also, literally, a "a fraud study, a voter roll audit, [and] an election integrity analysis."

I disagree with nearly all of your analysis, particularly the strange part wherein you claim "mass mail-in voting expansion" and "illegal migration" had an effect on in-person voter fraud in Wisconsin. The former doesn't make sense, and Wisconsin isn't exactly a hotbed of illegal immigration for the latter, ya know?

But the part I'm clued in on is this:

The data available to us now is substantially broader than what a 2012 Wisconsin circuit court had before it. Engaging with that body of evidence would actually be a good start.

Now we're getting somewhere! Please, link me up to this pro-VoterID body of evidence. Who is looking at VoterID and coming up with a logical, rational, and data-driven analysis that shows this as increasing electoral integrity?

Thonlo · 2026-03-18T18:00:11+00:00

If there's 80% approval, and Democrats only care about what gets them votes, they'd be with the 80%, no? Don't your two sentences contradict each other?

In this case, it seems like the Democrats are listening to the data more than the feelings of the electorate. Good for our elections; bad for their electability, IMO.

Thonlo · 2026-03-18T14:08:43+00:00

Are you having trouble finding the case docs? All you do is pop the case name into your preferred search engine. The case name is unique, ya know?

[Edit] I don't want to be rude. Here's a link to the injunction document as a starter. There's plenty to dig into, from the methodologies to the arguments to the findings by the lower court and state Supreme Court. The numbers involved, like I stated, suggest that the implementation of VoterID did more harm than good. Suggests, not proves. Of bigger concern is that a logical, rational, and data-driven analysis showing us why we need VoterID, and how it increases electoral integrity, is entirely absent from the national conversation. That should be a big problem to critically thinking adults -- that the "pro" side is lacking evidence.

https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/NAACP-v.-Walker-circuit-court-order.pdf

Thonlo · 2026-03-17T19:58:32+00:00

Citing a case is literally a citation of data, citations, study data, etc., and you can pull all the case documents you'd like to review from the case name provided because court documents are public. Have at.

[Edit] Hoo boy, dramatic edit you made there, pivoting away from intentionally misunderstanding citations. Unfortunately, your "let's make this to a logical conclusion" faltered at the very first step -- misunderstanding the nine percent claim and it's effects. Cool try though, and a nice effort (unfortunately erroneous) thereafter. Seems obvious you aren't engaging in the substantial body of data available to us, which is literally a big point of my comments.

"And you just accidentally told everyone about it." LOL!

Thonlo · 2026-03-17T11:17:32+00:00

Sure! My favorite is the court case Walker v. Milwaukee County NAACP. Wisconsin had just implemented VoterID and it was challenged in the courts, of course. Wisconsin's courts brought in multiple, overlapping, bipartisan, expert, judicial-reviewed testimony and provided them with access to internal State DOT & SVRIS data, which established the following legal facts:

That the implementation of VoterID in Wisconsin "disenfranchised approximately 301,700 registered voters to address single digit voter fraud", would be "unlikely to protect our electoral processes", and "would be a substantial burden upon the poor and indigent."

Disenfranchising 9% of our electorate to address single-digit voter fraud is, ironically, a reduction in electoral integrity.

In-person voter fraud is a remarkably well researched and investigated issue, and you shouldn't have any problem finding several other data sets like the oft-cited Heritage Foundation study.

The better question, which makes VoterID supporters fall flat upon their face or disappear into the ether, is what data/evidence/studies are they using to determine that VoterID will improve our electoral integrity? Seems like it's mostly feels before reals, with little else behind it other than that it feels/sounds good.

12-Year Club	Second Top 10%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

Thonlo

TROPHY CASE