Misinformation has ALWAYS been a problem in public debate. The "problem" here is that there is a class of people who are used to being able to limit the spread of misinformation which goes against their preferred outcome while making sure that most people consumed the misinformation which supported their preferred outcome. The way to combat misinformation is for people in positions of "authority" to stop trying to mislead people in order to get their way.

If this is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, it indicates that there are some heavy hitters who have been waiting for an opportunity to take down some of these shorters but were not willing to take the risk. Starting this sort of short squeeze is very risky, but heavy hitters can follow up on this with minimal risk (they may lose money, but they can be sure to cost the shorters more, a lot more).

Well, Hillary Clinton did the same thing (willfully destroyed evidence) after having previously "lost" other evidence which mysteriously termed up after the statute of limitations expired (Rose Law records).

Elsewhere it says that everyone must vote at the designated polling station. That section provides the only exceptions to that.

Article VII, section 14 explicitly states who may vote by mail. There are exactly four reasons given which qualify someone to vote by mail:
A)the voter will be absent from the state, or their county of residence, on election day because of their duties, occupation ,or business
B)Cannot attend the polling place because of illness or disability
C)Will not attend because of observance of a religious holiday
D)Cannot vote because of election day duties (such as a county employee) https://ballotpedia.org/Articl... Just because you are too lazy to look things up does not mean that other people are obligated to do it for you.

Types of evidence...prosecution of people for ballot stuffing, videos of poll watchers being denied entry to where the ballot counting is occurring, sealed ballot boxes being discovered in polling locations months after the election (there are systems in place to compare the number of ballots counted to the number of ballots cast, which means sealed ballot boxes months after counting is complete either represent ballots which were replaced by fraudulent ballots, or fraudulent ballots which were intended to replace real ballots...either case is evidence of fraud).

So, how did you access the voting machine to download the code?
How do you know that that was the code loaded on the machine when I voted?
What about that voting machine over there? And that one next to it? And those voting machines at another polling station?

I am not going to go back through 40 years of elections and find the evidence of voter fraud. Nor am I going to spend the time to find the evidence of voter fraud in this election. If you have only been getting your news from sources which say that there isn't any, it isn't worth my time because you do not care enough to stay informed (hint, if you want to be informed you need to read articles from sources who disagree with you politically).

The problem is that the "much cheaper dock" turns out to not be all that much cheaper. And from the manufacturer's perspective, the amount of money to be made is not enough to justify the work to produce such a device.

When people are in a hurry to deny there is ANY voter fraud, especially when they are politically connected with those who benefited from the voter fraud I am aware of, it makes me wonder what they know that they don't want me to know. The thing is, there has been significant voter fraud in every election to which I have paid attention (not necessarily enough to change the outcome, but enough to represent a significant portion of the margin of victory). Yet, in all that time, very little has been done to address the issues which allowed the voter fraud of which I have been aware.

Further, every time someone has suggested something to reduce voter fraud, the same people insist there is no voter fraud...and then when examples are pointed out, they change their tune to, well it is not enough to make a difference. So, basically, we have a group of people, some of who's political allies have benefited from voter fraud, even if only by increasing their margin of victory, claiming there is no voter fraud. This makes me believe that there is a lot more voter fraud than I have seen evidence for because those who are supposed to be reporting it deny it's happening.

Ask your 18 year old to explain how they know that the secure system they described is the one that has been implemented.

According to an organization on which sit those who sell the voting machines which have been alleged to have been tampered with.

They were responding to someone who asked someone to name ONE instance of it happening and you are complaining because the instance they named doesn't make the case for it being widespread.

I'm sorry the thing which most convinces me that there is widespread voter fraud is the fact that the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) keep telling us that there is NO voter fraud (and then, just like you just did, only when someone gives examples of voter fraud, they say, "well, that is just one case, not evidence of widespread voter fraud." But they hadn't said that voter fraud was not widespread, they said it did not happen.)

No, at most it tells us that it did not happen in the place where they were an election official...but it might just tell us that they never looked for it, so they never say it, even if it was happening right under their nose.

Well, Pennsylvania election law explicitly states that all mail in ballots must be received by 8 PM on election day, BUT Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled that ,because of extraordinary circumstances, they had the authority to override that law and allow for ballots received up to 3 days later to be counted. They failed to point to where in the law they were given this authority.