• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU files FOIA demanding evidence of Trump’s voter fraud claims

jimbo said:
'Scuse me, isn't that what investigations are all about? Finding evidence? It seems like the ACLU is jumping the gun a wee bit.

Makes one wonder what they are afraid will turn up.
Click to expand...

NOW the right wants an investigation...
 
Angelus said:
No - the job of the ACLU is to go to court and fight for your rights. They fight for everyone across the political spectrum - including conservatives who have recently not been allowed to speak at colleges. The FOIA is one way the govt shares information. Trump says that he knows there is a problem, and is trying to stop it - the FOIA is the Act that would be used to get the information he has. This has import in that changes are being made on a Federal level that will affect peoples' right to vote. If they are illegally voting then that's a good thing, but we need to see the problem before we know how to fix it.

This has nothing to do with Russia, Comey,, investigators.
Click to expand...

 
Deuce said:
Yes, and we also know there were not 4 million illegal votes for a Democrat.
Click to expand...

We don't know that. We believe that to be true. After the completion of the investigation we may have a better idea of the situation.
 
ludin said:
The ACLU only selects what rights they want to defend.

In this case they have no suit because no investigation has been done and there is no evidence yet if any.
Click to expand...

So now we are not supposed to believe trump when he says stuff?
 
poweRob said:
NOW the right wants an investigation...
Click to expand...

Somebody asked for an investigation. That is true. And now the ACLU wants to do an investigation of the investigation before there is an investigation.
 
exoplanet said:
I guess this is tangential to the thread, but I couldn't resist.
Totalitarianism, in particular, hadn't been invented at the time that the constitution had been written (FWIW, the fascists had armed militias that they were quite fond of. So militias can also be a source of totalitarianism as much as liberty).

If anything, the Whiskey Rebellion and the War of 1812 showed that expectations for the militia were rather overblown. The government adapted and moved on all without having to repeal the second amendment. I would argue that people that try to put that same trust in a militia today, could learn from history.

That Patriots were a well regulated militia, capable of resisting oppression on the governmental level. I don't see any such thing today. The militia, as intended by the framers, does not exist anymore. If you want an originalists interpretation, then it seems like gun ownership should be limited to white males between the ages of 18-45ish (as defined a few years later in 1792). I think that's probably how they saw the militia. I doubt they wanted to arm the slaves (or apparently even the free black men who fought in the revolution), the old, the handicapped or white women for that matter.

One the one hand, I think that the writers of the constitution got a lot of things right, but I reject any attempt to canonize them as somehow unusually prescient about the issues of our day. They acknowledged and abetted slavery with the three fifths compromise. They thought our state legislatures should elect our senators for us. Made no effort to protect the right to vote: allowing states to discriminate based on race, sex, ect...

Once again, I sympathize, but at this point, it looks more like solution looking for a problem. Think of it this way, how many citizens will lose the ability to vote versus how many acts of fraud were prevented? Not everyone lacking a photo id is a non-citizen. In fact, of the people actually trying to vote, I would argue that the vast majority of them are not non-citizens.
Click to expand...

The bottom line (bolded above) is that with close elections decided by a small percentage in a few key (swing?) states - that small minority can (and does?) matter.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The bottom line (bolded above) is that with close elections decided by a small percentage in a few key (swing?) states - that small minority can (and does?) matter.
Click to expand...
And the citizens who were not allowed to vote don't matter? Now matter how small the percentages, if you are disallowing more valid votes than preventing fraudulent ones, then I would argue that you are making things worse.
 
jimbo said:
We don't know that. We believe that to be true. After the completion of the investigation we may have a better idea of the situation.
Click to expand...

Some believe that to be true - not all.

The president has made statements insisting there is voter fraud, and that we need a commission - therefore he must have evidence to support that statement. The job of the commission is be geared toward a specific belief that fraud exists before the investigation starts. Hence the reason to find out both the basis on which the commission is formed, and the results of the commission.
 
exoplanet said:
And the citizens who were not allowed to vote don't matter? Now matter how small the percentages, if you are disallowing more valid votes than preventing fraudulent ones, then I would argue that you are making things worse.
Click to expand...

That simply means that we must seek to keep those things in balance. I wonder why these strict ID laws for buying guns are not challenged using the same "discriminatory burden" logic? Could it be those same (liberal?) folks just don't want those (minority?) voters having guns? I know that to be the case for the ACLU since they don't see individuals as having gun rights.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That simply means that we must seek to keep those things in balance. I wonder why these strict ID laws for buying guns are not challenged using the same "discriminatory burden" logic? Could it be those same (liberal?) folks just don't want those (minority?) voters having guns? I know that to be the case for the ACLU since they don't see individuals as having gun rights.
Click to expand...

Is there a federal commission in progress investigating fraud in gun buying - and a need for information regarding the basis of said commission and how the results are determined. If so then the ACLU would be suing under the FOIA to make sure the information is public.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That simply means that we must seek to keep those things in balance.
Click to expand...
Most of us can agree on that :) The rub is just what "balance" means ;)

ttwtt78640 said:
I wonder why these strict ID laws for buying guns are not challenged using the same "discriminatory burden" logic? Could it be those same (liberal?) folks just don't want those (minority?) voters having guns? I know that to be the case for the ACLU since they don't see individuals as having gun rights.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should be asking the NRA that question, since they are specifically dedicated to that.

For the most part minorities support gun control. I don't think they are nearly as worried about being able to buy a gun as what would happen to them if the police realize they have one (and its not the fear that the police are going to ask if the gun is properly registered). Basically, owning a gun is not always a functional right for them because of how police operate. Therefore, gun rights can be seen as just an extension of white privilege. The NRA is almost silent on this issue and seems very supportive of police tactics.

The NRA, the organization dedicated to fighting gun control is mostly white. Maybe if the NRA stood up against stop and frisk this would change. Maybe if they were more outspoken against police violence this would change. Maybe if they apologized for not supporting the Black Panthers this would change. The NRA seems to be very selective about their mistrust in government and for the most part, that mistrust ends where white privilege begins.

Their members seem quite ready to take up arms to defend their liberties, but other than gun ownership itself (or the right to use federal land), it's hard for me to say what they'd fight for. If they truly want to stand with communities of color against government oppression, I think they would find some converts.
 
reinoe said:
If you acknowledge that there were at least 40 people who were caught illegally attempting to vote then it's fair to investigate if any did successfully illegally vote.

However I'm of the opinion that it's not just illegal voting that should be looked at...the methods of how the votes get counted should also be monitered and investigated.
Click to expand...

Of course it's fair to investigate. There have been many investigations. And they always conclude that actual in-person voter impersonation is incredibly rare. Most of the even potential cases you hear about turn out to be just dumb stuff like similar or identical names, clerical errors, etc.

And of course it's rare. I mean jesus, what a dumb crime to attempt. You people keep pointing at California, which is probably the worst possible example. So, I'm some illegal immigrant in California (or just some dude who wants to cast extra votes for Hillary) So I commit a felony that could land me in prison for years so I can, what, cast one extra Democrat vote in the bluest goddamned state? Donald Trump winning California would require literally half of California's Democratic voters to be illegal. Everybody knew that state was going blue long before candidates even announced. Why on earth would anyone risk jail time for something so utterly useless?

And let's say we do this in a swing state. Another Florida Hanging Chad Fiasco comes up, the whole election comes down to a couple thousand votes. I can cast, what, twenty votes in a day if I really tried? (you have to keep driving to different precincts) So I need a lot of conspirators. Lots of chances to get caught. But I pull it off. It's not like I'm getting a cabinet position out of this.
 
hanger4 said:
The Constitution has an amendment process, get busy and stop whining like a 3 year old.
Click to expand...

Your ancestries must had been fun to be around after the SC fugitive slaves ruling.
 
BillRM said:
Your ancestries must had been fun to be around after the SC fugitive slaves ruling.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about ??

No answer is just as bad as the wrong answer !!
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
There had to be information that prompted The administration to issue that executive order.

The ACLU wants to know what prompted the administration to issue the executive order.
Click to expand...

Trump issued it there you go. That is probably all the information they are going to get.
 
ludin said:
Trump issued it there you go. That is probably all the information they are going to get.
Click to expand...

There are communications regarding the drafting of the order.

and if history is any example, theres some dense mother****er of a republican who managed to admit in writing the intention of this is to fabricate justification to suppress the black vote.
 
Deuce said:
Of course it's fair to investigate. There have been many investigations. And they always conclude that actual in-person voter impersonation is incredibly rare. Most of the even potential cases you hear about turn out to be just dumb stuff like similar or identical names, clerical errors, etc.

And of course it's rare. I mean jesus, what a dumb crime to attempt. You people keep pointing at California, which is probably the worst possible example. So, I'm some illegal immigrant in California (or just some dude who wants to cast extra votes for Hillary) So I commit a felony that could land me in prison for years so I can, what, cast one extra Democrat vote in the bluest goddamned state? Donald Trump winning California would require literally half of California's Democratic voters to be illegal. Everybody knew that state was going blue long before candidates even announced. Why on earth would anyone risk jail time for something so utterly useless?

And let's say we do this in a swing state. Another Florida Hanging Chad Fiasco comes up, the whole election comes down to a couple thousand votes. I can cast, what, twenty votes in a day if I really tried? (you have to keep driving to different precincts) So I need a lot of conspirators. Lots of chances to get caught. But I pull it off. It's not like I'm getting a cabinet position out of this.
Click to expand...

I have the fun picture of millions of people getting on thousands of buses to driven across state lines to somehow caste millions of votes without leaving enough traces that a federal investigation is call for to dig up those traces.
 
BillRM said:
I have the fun picture of millions of people getting on thousands of buses to driven across state lines to somehow caste millions of votes without leaving enough traces that a federal investigation is call for to dig up those traces.
Click to expand...

Ninjas.


Bus loads of literal voting ninjas.
 
JamesBY said:
Thank you for showing you don't understand. You truly don't, ludin. To avoid releasing the documents requested, the Trumpbots would request their filing, search, and evidence documents be sealed. A federal judge can do that, but may very well not.
Click to expand...

Again I understand just fine. They haven't done the investigation so that is all the information they are going to get.
There are no documents to release other than the EO. that was issued. In fact they haven't even looked at anything.

So they can demand something that doesn't exist.
They can get that in return.

The documents they are requesting do. It exist so yes you obviously do not understand.
 
Deuce said:
There are communications regarding the drafting of the order.

and if history is any example, theres some dense mother****er of a republican who managed to admit in writing the intention of this is to fabricate justification to suppress the black vote.
Click to expand...

Your Goodwin of the race card is just that.
 
hanger4 said:
Here's an interesting companion piece to the OP;

"LIBERAL PROFESSORS TRADE SECRET EMAILS IN EFFORT TO UNDERMINE TRUMP COMMISSION"

"PROFESSOR CALLS FOR COMMISSION OF SCHOLARS AND VOTING RIGHTS ACTIVISTS TO PUSH BACK PUBLICLY AGAINST THE VOTER FRAUD COMMISSION"

Liberal Professors Trade Secret Emails in Effort to Undermine Trump Commission - Washington Free Beacon

If, as they claim, there's no there there then why push back ?? From the email sent out, "I'm calling on scholars of election administration to resist participation of any kind in such an effort,". This makes no sense, their participation would ensure, in their minds, the commission was on the up-n-up.
Click to expand...

Interesting how no one in this thread has responded to this. Wonder why..........

As for the FOIA. Funny thing about that. An FOIA request does not have to be granted. And even if it is granted it won't necessarily show anything because they don't have to give all of the info.
 
Deuce said:
Of course it's fair to investigate. There have been many investigations. And they always conclude that actual in-person voter impersonation is incredibly rare. Most of the even potential cases you hear about turn out to be just dumb stuff like similar or identical names, clerical errors, etc.

And of course it's rare. I mean jesus, what a dumb crime to attempt. You people keep pointing at California, which is probably the worst possible example. So, I'm some illegal immigrant in California (or just some dude who wants to cast extra votes for Hillary) So I commit a felony that could land me in prison for years so I can, what, cast one extra Democrat vote in the bluest goddamned state? Donald Trump winning California would require literally half of California's Democratic voters to be illegal. Everybody knew that state was going blue long before candidates even announced. Why on earth would anyone risk jail time for something so utterly useless?

And let's say we do this in a swing state. Another Florida Hanging Chad Fiasco comes up, the whole election comes down to a couple thousand votes. I can cast, what, twenty votes in a day if I really tried? (you have to keep driving to different precincts) So I need a lot of conspirators. Lots of chances to get caught. But I pull it off. It's not like I'm getting a cabinet position out of this.
Click to expand...

They have to be caught first. And just how is an illegal alien going to be caught exactly when no one that is voting is checked to see if they're citizens or not?
 
Deuce said:
Of course it's fair to investigate. There have been many investigations. And they always conclude that actual in-person voter impersonation is incredibly rare. Most of the even potential cases you hear about turn out to be just dumb stuff like similar or identical names, clerical errors, etc.

And of course it's rare. I mean jesus, what a dumb crime to attempt. You people keep pointing at California, which is probably the worst possible example. So, I'm some illegal immigrant in California (or just some dude who wants to cast extra votes for Hillary) So I commit a felony that could land me in prison for years so I can, what, cast one extra Democrat vote in the bluest goddamned state? Donald Trump winning California would require literally half of California's Democratic voters to be illegal. Everybody knew that state was going blue long before candidates even announced. Why on earth would anyone risk jail time for something so utterly useless?

And let's say we do this in a swing state. Another Florida Hanging Chad Fiasco comes up, the whole election comes down to a couple thousand votes. I can cast, what, twenty votes in a day if I really tried? (you have to keep driving to different precincts) So I need a lot of conspirators. Lots of chances to get caught. But I pull it off. It's not like I'm getting a cabinet position out of this.
Click to expand...
Instead of going on your rant, you should read what I said...

the methods of how the votes get counted should also be monitered and investigated.
Click to expand...
In Michigan, people voted once. Then the vote counters who were DNC operatives ran those ballots through the scanning machine multiple times in order to give Hillary Clinton extra votes. However Michigan's voting apparatus is so dysfunctional that a recount in those areas couldn't not be legally done. Think about that for a minute: Michigan makes it illegal to recount votes even though there was proof that there was voter fraud.
 
exoplanet said:
Most of us can agree on that :) The rub is just what "balance" means ;)

Perhaps you should be asking the NRA that question, since they are specifically dedicated to that.

For the most part minorities support gun control. I don't think they are nearly as worried about being able to buy a gun as what would happen to them if the police realize they have one (and its not the fear that the police are going to ask if the gun is properly registered). Basically, owning a gun is not always a functional right for them because of how police operate. Therefore, gun rights can be seen as just an extension of white privilege. The NRA is almost silent on this issue and seems very supportive of police tactics.

The NRA, the organization dedicated to fighting gun control is mostly white. Maybe if the NRA stood up against stop and frisk this would change. Maybe if they were more outspoken against police violence this would change. Maybe if they apologized for not supporting the Black Panthers this would change. The NRA seems to be very selective about their mistrust in government and for the most part, that mistrust ends where white privilege begins.

Their members seem quite ready to take up arms to defend their liberties, but other than gun ownership itself (or the right to use federal land), it's hard for me to say what they'd fight for. If they truly want to stand with communities of color against government oppression, I think they would find some converts.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you choose to equate the NRA and the ACLU. I tend to agree with that as they are both groups that have a specific and selective political agenda. It is even more telling when you consider requiring a valid, state issued, photo ID to further white privilege yet have no objections to that alleged white privilege outside of voting rights. It seems that those opposing strict ID (only for voting?) simply want to keep minorities voting "correctly" for those that support white privilege for everything except voting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom