While a funny joke, the point isn't really applicable here.
Parent poster, as I understood their comment, wasn't asserting that electronic voter machines are impossible to defraud. They were pointing out that you cannot reasonably make a comparison between elections 70 years apart because way too much has changed (one large change being electronic voting machines) for them to be comparable anymore.
The passage of time isn't an argument. If the only things cited are voting machines, then voting machines are immediately conceded as untrustworthy, no argument has been made.
Yes, it wasn't a full-fledged argument, more of a sketch. But assuming that how elections happen doesn't change over the years doesn't seem like a great default either?
Parent poster, as I understood their comment, wasn't asserting that electronic voter machines are impossible to defraud. They were pointing out that you cannot reasonably make a comparison between elections 70 years apart because way too much has changed (one large change being electronic voting machines) for them to be comparable anymore.