• 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!

Dem state officials refusing to cooperate with Trump voter fraud probe

poweRob said:
It's hard to argue with you since you bring so many sources... oh wait.
Click to expand...


I posted a number of sources but as usual you ignored them. It is a waste of time to try and change the mind of someone like you whose mind is closed as you are totally incapable of doing any research.
 
cabse5 said:
What does this have to do with the point MTAtech, I assume, was making that his father's name couldn't immediately be expunged from the county voter role because of death?
Click to expand...

I was making the broader point of where people make accusations of voter fraud by pointing at known issues that aren't fraud. Like he was pointing out with his dad's case.
 
poweRob said:
It's hard to argue with you since you bring so many sources... oh wait.
Click to expand...

No more or less sources than you have.

Most people's definition of collusion would include most radio, TV and newspaper outlets...Trying to influence any election in any country..It's done all the time. YAWN.
 
cabse5 said:
No more or less sources than you have.

Most people's definition of collusion would include most radio, TV and newspaper outlets...Trying to influence any election in any country..It's done all the time. YAWN.
Click to expand...

I'm not making bold accusations that need backing up. Unlike he is.
 
Dem state officials refusing to cooperate with Trump voter fraud probe

44 states are refusing to cooperate with Trump on this issue.

Are there really 44 "dem" states? I thought the title meant "Democratic" states, or perhaps states with Democratic governors. It must really mean "dem dere states."
 
poweRob said:
I was making the broader point of where people make accusations of voter fraud by pointing at known issues that aren't fraud. Like he was pointing out with his dad's case.
Click to expand...
So, you're definitively saying no one has attempted to vote using MTAtech father's voting ID on the voter role?

I would understand after 5 years the state would demand some sort of ID due to inactivity, but before that?

Side note: Not to mention the literally millions of California IDs issued to undocumented immigrants ineligible to vote in federal elections. Could some of them have voted in the 2016 federal election? If no, give some reasoning.
 
cabse5 said:
To be correct, EVERYONE is obsessed with the 2016 election.

BTW, a fair and accurate election of voters who are eligible to vote in an American election. Is that too much to ask for? You know, voting in an American election is a privilege not a right.
Click to expand...
There is no activity that is 100% accurate, not banking, not medicine, not law, etc.

Voting isn't 100% accurate either and it doesn't have to be. The handful of errors don't change the outcome in thousands and millions of votes cast. The polls are worked largely by senior citizens who on occasion have somebody sign on the wrong line. That's an error not fraud.

I've read reports that said, in Michigan, 248 districts had more votes cast than voters. But when one looks at the actual districts, 77 were off by I vote, 62 by 2 votes, 37 by 3 votes, 20 by 4 votes and 52 with 5 or more. Wow. Break out the handcuffs and lock up those senior citizens that typically work at the polling sites. Also, 236 districts were perfect (give them a gold star) and 144 had too few votes cast for the number of voters. The actual numbers were similarly very small. For example 81 were off by 1, 29 were off by 2. etc. Again, this has been true forever and it's not fraud and it doesn't impinge fair elections.
 
It's time to start requiring picture ID to vote, and make the Trumpeteers come up with a new issue to deflect from the real ones of Russian intervention and obstruction of justice.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's time to start requiring picture ID to vote, and make the Trumpeteers come up with a new issue to deflect from the real ones of Russian intervention and obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Seems you have about as much evidence to back up your Russian/Trump collusion/obstruction claim as some have demanding an audit of states' voter roles.

When you quote former FBI director in your signature 'Those were lies, pure and simple.", are you including Comey's lie that even though Hillary did many things wrong, no prosecutor would prosecute the server case? That Comey said he leaked memo information to the press to ensure an independent council?...Wait, that one's true.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Seems you have about as much evidence to back up your Russian/Trump collusion/obstruction claim as some have demanding an audit of states' voter roles.
Click to expand...

It's not about collusion. The collusion reference is a deflection made by the Trump camp. The issue is Russian meddling in our election. The real accusation against Trump is not collusion, but obstruction of justice for having fired Comey in the middle of the investigation. Whether that charge would stick or not is an open question, but no one has to prove collusion.

As for evidence, Comey, the chief investigator, was asked under oath if there was any doubt that Russia interfered in our election. His answer was succinct and to the point: "No doubt."
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's not about collusion. The collusion reference is a deflection made by the Trump camp. The issue is Russian meddling in our election. The real accusation against Trump is not collusion, but obstruction of justice for having fired Comey in the middle of the investigation. Whether that charge would stick or not is an open question, but no one has to prove collusion.

As for evidence, Comey, the chief investigator, was asked under oath if there was any doubt that Russia interfered in our election. His answer was succinct and to the point: "No doubt."
Click to expand...

The statement of Russian and Trump inteference in the 2016 election without including public schools, newspapers, TV stations and radio stations, for examples, makes the statement weak and non-inclusive at best.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Seems you have about as much evidence to back up your Russian/Trump collusion/obstruction claim as some have demanding an audit of states' voter roles.
Click to expand...
 
cabse5 said:
The statement of Russian and Trump inteference in the 2016 election without including public schools, newspapers, TV stations and radio stations, for examples, makes the statement weak and non-inclusive at best.
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Of course, Trump played a part in the election! He was a candidate, after all. That's not interference.
Of course the media played a part in the election. The media does sway opinion, and does have an agenda. That's participation, not interference.
A foreign government, one not all that friendly at that, interfered in the election. That's the issue that must be addressed and investigated. That's the threat to free elections.
Comey was fired as a result of said investigation. That makes one wonder whether Trump had something to gain by covering up foreign interference in the election, but doesn't really prove anything.
The charge of "collusion" was dreamed up by the Trump camp. The FBI didn't say that there was collusion. It's a giant straw man.
 
cabse5 said:
The statement of Russian and Trump inteference in the 2016 election without including public schools, newspapers, TV stations and radio stations, for examples, makes the statement weak and non-inclusive at best.
Click to expand...
Dittohead not! said:
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Of course, Trump played a part in the election! He was a candidate, after all. That's not interference.
Of course the media played a part in the election. The media does sway opinion, and does have an agenda. That's participation, not interference.
A foreign government, one not all that friendly at that, interfered in the election. That's the issue that must be addressed and investigated. That's the threat to free elections.
Comey was fired as a result of said investigation. That makes one wonder whether Trump had something to gain by covering up foreign interference in the election, but doesn't really prove anything.
The charge of "collusion" was dreamed up by the Trump camp. The FBI didn't say that there was collusion. It's a giant straw man.
Click to expand...


My post you quoted mentioned nothing of collusion. That leaves interference. Therefore, Russia, TV stations newspapers and public schools, for examples, interfered with the 2016 election. Your straw man is substituting interference with collusion.
 
Last edited:
You think swaying someone's opinion isn't interference? Russian involvement in the 2016 is interference even though no votes were actually changed. Russia swayed some voters opinions with their Internet shenanigans. Voter interference was also perpetrated by the media and public schools, for examples.

If you're gonna convict Russia, you must also convict the media and public schools.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
My post you quoted mentioned nothing of collusion. That leaves interference. Therefore, Russia, TV stations newspapers and public schools, for examples, interfered with the 2016 election. Your straw man is substituting interference with collusion.
Click to expand...

You're right of course that the collusion is a strawman.
I interpreted your "Russian and Trump interference" as a reference to collusion, as that's what it would be. ;
 
Re: Blue State Backlash

Hatuey said:
Ah, why didn't you just say that it was up to states to spend their money disproving/proving the president's accusations?

I'm glad you're finally admitting that Trump had no evidence when he said this and now expects taxpayers to fund his wild goose chases.
Click to expand...

I suppose you believe Russia 'hacked' the election too....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Blue State Backlash

JRSaindo said:
I suppose you believe Russia 'hacked' the election too....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I assure you that I don't even believe that they needed to.


This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom