>>>Yeah but look at some point it becomes ridiculous though. It's like standing in the middle of a tropical rain storm soaking wet and having some jackass want to agrue the fact that it's raining.
>>>My suggestion would be to simply google "voter suppression in usa" ....no need for me to do that for someone anymore than debate if it's raining in the middle of a rain storm.
>
>To continue your analogy: you insist there's a tropical rain storm, yet when I look out the window the pavement is dry and there's no raindrops. When questioned, you repeat the assertion IN CAPS before calling me jackass or scoffing that only a clueless person thinks there's no such thing as rain.
>
>The basis of science is to challenge. Ideally to challenge your own certainty but otherwise to accept that questioning by others is not a fascist or hateful act, but assistance to strengthen your hypothesis.
>
>Looking specifically at Ohio: in 2016, Husted identified 82 non-citizens who voted illegally. Since you insist that voter suppression is a bigger issue, mathematically you must know of more than 82 citizens who were "suppressed".
>
>So who are they? My expectation is that you can search high and low and you'll be lucky to find a single one, only a tsunami of angry rhetoric insisting they must exist because everybody knows there's a widespread voter suppression problem.
>
>In fact, I know of one allegation of suppression: Larry Harmon, the Ohio resident whose plight made it all the way to the Supreme Court after the evil state suppressed his vote... except that the SC struck that idea out. As I said earlier, the victim narrative requires Larry to be a total simpleton, unable to meet even the most basic civic performance- since if Larry ever does decide to vote, he need only produce government or state ID or a check, bill or official correspondence confirming his address, either at the booth or in the following week, and his vote will be counted.
>
>Seems to me there's a bigger issue as laid down by Alto, one of the SC judges:
>
>“The dissents have a policy disagreement, not just with Ohio, but with Congress. But this case presents a question of statutory interpretation, not a question of policy. We have no authority to second-guess Congress or to decide whether Ohio’s Supplemental Process is the ideal method for keeping its voting rolls up to date. The only question before us is whether it violates federal law. It does not....
>
> “Ohio’s process cannot be unreasonable because it uses the change-of-residence evidence that Congress said it could: the failure to send back a notice coupled with the failure to vote for the requisite period. Ohio’s process is accordingly lawful'"
>
>In other words, Congress specifically allows Ohio to use its change-of-residence evidence. And yet lower court activist judges subverted this all the way to the SC.
>
>If you're concerned at danger to the Republic, start right there. Your danger is that judicial activism becomes a tactic to subvert Congress and enact policy that is so unpopular among the citizenry that it never could be passed by elected Congress.
>
>When you see that the SC judges voted on partisan lines, the Republic is in deep trouble if the SC ever can be stacked with a majority of activist judges. That's not how it's meant to work and it's refreshing to see the SC reminding Congress, activists and dissenting judges of the lawful conduct of the Republic.
>
>That still leaves Ohio as an 82:0 score, contrary to your insistence that 0 is far greater than 82.
>
>Seems to me that if people don't like what Ohio did, instead of clamoring and kicking off judicial activism they should be lobbying Congress to remove the change-of-residence evidence that Ohio applied. Of course that won't happen because too many Americans agree that only citizens should vote, only once, and only in their district of residence.

I We have a voter suppression problem, not a voter fraud problem. If you don't see it then you're not looking.