Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fake votes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fake votes

    Trump is still fighting the campaign:

    Days after being sworn in, President Trump insisted to congressional leaders invited to a reception at the White House that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for millions of illegal votes, according to people familiar with the meeting.
    Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud caused him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, even while he clinched the presidency with an electoral college victory.
    Two people*familiar with the meeting said Trump spent about 10 minutes at the start of the bipartisan gathering rehashing the campaign. He also told them that between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused him to lose the popular vote.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.322f6ce0d246

  • #2
    Well, time to do something about it. Mandatory voter registration, ID cards, and a voting system that only allows those with the above to vote. A system that will not allow one to vote early and often, that will not allow the dead to vote, and most importantly will not allow non-citizens, legal or not, to vote.
    ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

    BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

    BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
      Well, time to do something about it. Mandatory voter registration, ID cards, and a voting system that only allows those with the above to vote. A system that will not allow one to vote early and often, that will not allow the dead to vote, and most importantly will not allow non-citizens, legal or not, to vote.
      You are assuming that Trump's claims are true.

      The court system has a problem with your proposals:

      WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court rejected on Monday an appeal from Texas officials seeking to restore the state’s strict voter ID law.
      As is the court’s custom, its brief order in the case, Abbott v. Veasey, No. 16-393, gave no reasons for turning down the appeal. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued an unusual statement explaining that the Supreme Court remains free to consider the case after further proceedings in the lower courts.
      The Texas law, enacted in 2011, requires voters seeking to cast their ballots at the polls to present photo identification, like a Texas driver’s or gun license, a military ID or a passport. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the law is racially discriminatory.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
        Well, time to do something about it. Mandatory voter registration, ID cards, and a voting system that only allows those with the above to vote. A system that will not allow one to vote early and often, that will not allow the dead to vote, and most importantly will not allow non-citizens, legal or not, to vote.
        Agreed, make the ID's hell of hard to counterfeit as well. And stiff penalties to those who try to use fake ID's as well.

        It'll be expensive, but worth it.
        Credo quia absurdum.


        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • #5
          While there isn't specific evidence to prove that illegal voters cost Trump the popular vote, enough illegal votes were probably cast to account for the margin...
          Electoral Studies
          Volume 36, December 2014, Pages 149–157


          Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?

          Jesse T. Richmana, , , , Gulshan A. Chatthab, c, 1, , David C. Earnestb,

          http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.09.001

          Highlights
          • First use of representative sample to measure non-citizen voting in USA.
          • Some non-citizens cast votes in U.S. elections despite legal bans.
          • Non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates.
          • Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.
          • Voter photo-identification rules have limited effect on non-citizen participation.


          Abstract

          In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...61379414000973
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            While there isn't specific evidence to prove that illegal voters cost Trump the popular vote, enough illegal votes were probably cast to account for the margin...
            Everybody expects The Doctor's cut and paste.

            You have one study which gives a large range of possible results. Further research is needed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aber View Post
              Everybody expects The Doctor's cut and paste.

              You have one study which gives a large range of possible results. Further research is needed.
              The point is that there is statistical evidence that millions of illegal votes have been cast in recent US elections. This doesn't prove that Trump is right. It just moves his claim from the realm of pure fiction to the realm of statistical possibility.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                More or less likely than his claim on inauguration numbers?

                we have something that's amazing because we had -- it looked -- honestly, it looked like a million and a half people.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Aber View Post
                  More or less likely than his claim on inauguration numbers?
                  What does "a million and a half people" look like to a person standing on a stage?
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Aber View Post
                    You are assuming that Trump's claims are true.
                    It doesn't matter if Trump's claims are true or not. The system is broken, and needs to be fixed.

                    The court system has a problem with your proposals:
                    The court is just a part of the problem. How is a voter ID racially discriminatory?

                    The real question is why would anyone have a problem with what I have suggested?

                    I already know the answer, I just want to hear from those on the left. Those that benefit the most from voter fraud.
                    ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                    BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                    BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Aber View Post
                      More or less likely than his claim on inauguration numbers?
                      Trump's numbers are at least as good as the media's...
                      January 23, 2017

                      Mall attendance at the Trump inauguration

                      By Greg Richards

                      Sean Spicer, Trump’s new press secretary, remonstrated the media yesterday for underreporting the attendance at the inauguration. The press was affronted, because it is pretty clear that Spicer’s claim of record attendance is absurd. This can be seen in the following picture comparisons of the Mall for the morning of the Trump inauguration at 11:04 a.m. and for the Obama 2009 inauguration at 11:30 a.m. The thinness of the crowd for Trump is pretty stark, made even more so by the white tarps put over the grass on the Mall for the first time

                      [...]

                      Except…

                      CNN has released a billion-pixel interactive photograph that the user can both move around and zoom into. It shows a very different picture from the photograph above. If you zoom into it, you can see that the crowd in the Mall goes all the way back to the Washington Monument.

                      The first picture above is at 11:04am. The interactive picture is taken during the inaugural speech, about an hour later.

                      Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.” I guess we can modify that to “lies, damn lies and pictures.” To a skeptical Deplorable, the timing of the pictures on the Mall – i.e., one hour before Trump’s inauguration – and the lack of follow-up on those pictures on the web appear to be fabrication of fake news

                      [...]

                      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz4WgBCDC3i
                      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        The point is that there is statistical evidence that millions of illegal votes have been cast in recent US elections. This doesn't prove that Trump is right. It just moves his claim from the realm of pure fiction to the realm of statistical possibility.
                        Not according to the author of the paper that you linked to.

                        Donald Trump recently suggested that his deficit in the popular vote to Clinton might be due entirely to illegal votes cast, for instance by non-citizens. *Is this claim plausible? *The claim Trump is making is not supported by our data.
                        https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/...ss-to-clinton/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          Trump's numbers are at least as good as the media's...


                          Thanks for the entertainment. You can do better than that. Just bring in photos from multiple sources, Metro ridership numbers, etc etc and try to create a sensible argument.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Aber View Post


                            Thanks for the entertainment. You can do better than that. Just bring in photos from multiple sources, Metro ridership numbers, etc etc and try to create a sensible argument.
                            Trump's numbers are probably way too high; whereas the media were clearly manipulating the data to make them appear lower than they were.

                            Do I care? No. I'm interested in what Trump will be able to accomplish, not his bombastic over-the-top rhetoric.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              Trump's numbers are probably way too high; whereas the media were clearly manipulating the data to make them appear lower than they were.
                              Real evidence of this? given Sean Spicer got caught with multiple untruths on Saturday.

                              Do I care? No. I'm interested in what Trump will be able to accomplish, not his bombastic over-the-top rhetoric.
                              And another Trump supporter backs away from his public policy positions.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X