• 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!

Trump repeats debunked voter fraud claim

trouble13 said:
The claim was never debunked and when trump put together a commission to verify it California excercise their right to refuse to cooperate with them. California did not verify anything. It is dishonest to call his claim debunked. You can say his claim is unproved. Call it an allegation. You can state it as an opinion that you think it's unlikely. You can't say it's debunked if nobody has actually verified the votes.
Click to expand...
Your standard for "debunked" is absurd. Apparently, I can't disprove that 3 million invisible pink unicorns didn't vote for Trump, unless I verify all of the ballots myself.
 
exoplanet said:
Your standard for "debunked" is absurd. Apparently, I can't disprove that 3 million invisible pink unicorns didn't vote for Trump, unless I verify all of the ballots myself.
Click to expand...
So your standard for calling something debunked is simply someone saying the claim is untrue, got it. I will remember that going forward and you can look forward to me DEBUNKING your posts on a regular basis without providing you the benefit of any evidence to support my claims.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
So your standard for calling something debunked is simply someone saying the claim is untrue, got it.
Click to expand...
False. Evidence was provided in the OP, you simply tried to ignore it by coming up with a ridiculous standard.

From the link mentioned in the original article:
The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

You do not have to verify that all of the votes are legitimate to realize that Trump has made a ridiculous claim.
 
Perotista said:
I don't think that many Trumpers will turn out to vote in November. They love the man, but not the party and they certainly have a distaste for many Republicans in congress. In other words, Trump can get them to vote for him in mass numbers. But they aren't that interested if it isn't Trump on the ballot. The avid Trumpers want those Republicans in congress who aren't Trumpers like themselves to lose. I think you seen this in all these special elections. Even in deep red districts at the beginning in which the Republican narrowly won, they won with the average GOP lifelong voter, not because of Trumpers.

Right now the Republican Party is split. You have the Trumpers who only care about the man, not the party and you have the lifelong more traditional Republicans. The traditional Republicans will show up and vote, but I doubt many Trumpers will.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you sir. The reality is, most "Trumpers" are straight ticket Republican voters. Most of them voted for Romney, McCain, and Bush in the past, and they'll vote for whoever is the next Republican candidate when Trump is no longer president. Republicans (barring a few exceptions) ALWAYS support the R candidate, where as the Dems don't. Look at 2016 for example. Both Clinton and Trump had the "Never Trump or Never Hillary" crowds in both parties, and yet Trump, when it was all said and done, did roughly equal with Romney in 2012 (taking into account how many people voted), where as Clinton did worse than Obama did in 2012. The fact of the matter is, Trump is president because Obama votes in three blue states didn't show up to vote for Hillary the way they did Obama in 2008 and 2012.

So, the Dems can't go into the midterms thinking that Trump voters won't show up and vote for the GOP, because they will. They did in 2016 (despite their complaints about the "establishment"), and they will in 2018. They know if the Dems gain control of congress, Trump's presidency is essentially finished. They don't want that to happen, which means they WILL come out and vote Republican. In order to win, the Dems NEED to come out in strong numbers and vote, as they outnumber the GOP base by a significant amount. They can't stay home and not vote, because doing so always results in a GOP victory.
 
trouble13 said:
Its an unproven claim but calling it debunked is dishonest unless of course CNN has verified all the votes were legitimate.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Its pretty much a myth, but in no case is it a known problem. No one has proven that it exist, hence the presumption that it does not exist prevails.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...on-integrity-found-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud
https://www.factcheck.org/issue/voter-fraud/
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/01...aud-in-maine-so-lets-stop-wasting-time-on-it/
Wash. secretary of state: No evidence of voter fraud here | KOMO
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nothing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.64babd8ad51a


No one has produced evidence of voter fraud such that it threatened to alter the outcome of an election. Most "voter fraud" is about voters voting when the were not properly registered. Most of it is error, not fraud. What Trump is trying to sell, that millions voted in California, is completely idiotic. No one is going to risk jail time to vote in an election where there is NO chance of changing the outcome.... let alone "millions" of people.

You can pretty much consider the idea of voter fraud to be debunked.
 
Last edited:
Puigb said:
I disagree with you sir. The reality is, most "Trumpers" are straight ticket Republican voters. Most of them voted for Romney, McCain, and Bush in the past, and they'll vote for whoever is the next Republican candidate when Trump is no longer president. Republicans (barring a few exceptions) ALWAYS support the R candidate, where as the Dems don't. Look at 2016 for example. Both Clinton and Trump had the "Never Trump or Never Hillary" crowds in both parties, and yet Trump, when it was all said and done, did roughly equal with Romney in 2012 (taking into account how many people voted), where as Clinton did worse than Obama did in 2012. The fact of the matter is, Trump is president because Obama votes in three blue states didn't show up to vote for Hillary the way they did Obama in 2008 and 2012.

So, the Dems can't go into the midterms thinking that Trump voters won't show up and vote for the GOP, because they will. They did in 2016 (despite their complaints about the "establishment"), and they will in 2018. They know if the Dems gain control of congress, Trump's presidency is essentially finished. They don't want that to happen, which means they WILL come out and vote Republican. In order to win, the Dems NEED to come out in strong numbers and vote, as they outnumber the GOP base by a significant amount. They can't stay home and not vote, because doing so always results in a GOP victory.
Click to expand...

Both NYT's and CNN exit polls showed Clinton received 89% of the Democratic base vote, 8% to Trump. Trump received 88% of the GOP base vote, Clinton 8%. Pretty even on the base vote. But in 2012 Romney received 93% of the GOP base vote to 6% Obama. Obama got 92% of the Democratic base vote to 7% for Romney. So Trump did worst than Romney, also Hillary did worst than Obama in 2012. One reason Obama won fairly easily was the Democratic base made up 38% of the electorate in 2012 to 32% Republican, 29% independents. A six point difference where it help Obama to a five point win. Romney did win the independent vote 50-47 over Obama.

In 2016 Republicans narrowed that six point advantage for the Democrats. 37% of the voting electorate were Democrats, 33% Republicans with 31% independents. Trump won the independent vote 46-42 over Clinton with 12% of independents voting third party. The overall result in the popular vote was a drop of Obama's five point win to where Clinton had a two point win.

The thing with Hillary is she did a lot worse in almost every voting block/group than Obama. She didn't have the Obama charisma to draw out the vote for her as Obama did. Here's some to compare.
Democratic base Obama 92% Hillary 89%
Independents Obama 47 Hillary 42
Blacks Obama Obama 93 Hillary 88
Hispanics Obama 71 Hillary 65
Asian Obama 73 Hillary 65
White Obama 39 Hillary 37
The young 18-29 year old's Obama 60 Hillary 55
women Obama 55 Hillary 54
Union Households Obama 58 Hillary 51
High School or less Obama 54 Hillary 46
College grad Obama 47 Hillary 49 Hillary did do better among college grads than Obama did. This is an exception.

But so it goes, group by group Hillary did for the most part around 3-5 point worst than Obama. She wasn't liked and she had the personality of a wet mop. She always seemed aloof to the less partisan, less ideologues, the non-affiliated in other words. She was the wrong candidate. Also look at the favorable numbers of the two candidates on election day.
2016 Clinton 38% Trump 36% these two candidates set the record for the lowest favorable rating of any presidential candidates since FDR or when Gallup and Pew Research started to keep track of favorable ratings of the two major party candidates. Neither was liked or wanted by america as a whole.
2012 Obama 57% Romney 51
2008 Obama 60% McCain 56
2004 Bush 53 Kerry 51
2000 Bush 58 Gore 53

FYI the previous record for the lowest favorable rating prior to Trump and Clinton was Goldwater at 43% 1964 and G.H.W. Bush at 46% in 1992.

Turnout is always the key. But perhaps the key here is the number of Republicans in congress Trump supporters want gone, defeated.
 
Puigb said:
I disagree with you sir. The reality is, most "Trumpers" are straight ticket Republican voters. Most of them voted for Romney, McCain, and Bush in the past, and they'll vote for whoever is the next Republican candidate when Trump is no longer president. Republicans (barring a few exceptions) ALWAYS support the R candidate, where as the Dems don't. Look at 2016 for example. Both Clinton and Trump had the "Never Trump or Never Hillary" crowds in both parties, and yet Trump, when it was all said and done, did roughly equal with Romney in 2012 (taking into account how many people voted), where as Clinton did worse than Obama did in 2012. The fact of the matter is, Trump is president because Obama votes in three blue states didn't show up to vote for Hillary the way they did Obama in 2008 and 2012.

So, the Dems can't go into the midterms thinking that Trump voters won't show up and vote for the GOP, because they will. They did in 2016 (despite their complaints about the "establishment"), and they will in 2018. They know if the Dems gain control of congress, Trump's presidency is essentially finished. They don't want that to happen, which means they WILL come out and vote Republican. In order to win, the Dems NEED to come out in strong numbers and vote, as they outnumber the GOP base by a significant amount. They can't stay home and not vote, because doing so always results in a GOP victory.
Click to expand...

Both NYT's and CNN exit polls showed Clinton received 89% of the Democratic base vote, 8% to Trump. Trump received 88% of the GOP base vote, Clinton 8%. Pretty even on the base vote. But in 2012 Romney received 93% of the GOP base vote to 6% Obama. Obama got 92% of the Democratic base vote to 7% for Romney. So Trump did worst than Romney, also Hillary did worst than Obama in 2012. One reason Obama won fairly easily was the Democratic base made up 38% of the electorate in 2012 to 32% Republican, 29% independents. A six point difference where it help Obama to a five point win. Romney did win the independent vote 50-47 over Obama.

In 2016 Republicans narrowed that six point advantage for the Democrats. 37% of the voting electorate were Democrats, 33% Republicans with 31% independents. Trump won the independent vote 46-42 over Clinton with 12% of independents voting third party. The overall result in the popular vote was a drop of Obama's five point win to where Clinton had a two point win.

The thing with Hillary is she did a lot worse in almost every voting block/group than Obama. She didn't have the Obama charisma to draw out the vote for her as Obama did. Here's some to compare.
Democratic base Obama 92% Hillary 89%
Independents Obama 47 Hillary 42
Blacks Obama Obama 93 Hillary 88
Hispanics Obama 71 Hillary 65
Asian Obama 73 Hillary 65
White Obama 39 Hillary 37
The young 18-29 year old's Obama 60 Hillary 55
women Obama 55 Hillary 54
Union Households Obama 58 Hillary 51
High School or less Obama 54 Hillary 46
College grad Obama 47 Hillary 49 Hillary did do better among college grads than Obama did. This is an exception.

But so it goes, group by group Hillary did for the most part around 3-5 point worst than Obama. She wasn't liked and she had the personality of a wet mop. She always seemed aloof to the less partisan, less ideologues, the non-affiliated in other words. She was the wrong candidate. Also look at the favorable numbers of the two candidates on election day.
2016 Clinton 38% Trump 36% these two candidates set the record for the lowest favorable rating of any presidential candidates since FDR or when Gallup and Pew Research started to keep track of favorable ratings of the two major party candidates. Neither was liked or wanted by america as a whole.
2012 Obama 57% Romney 51
2008 Obama 60% McCain 56
2004 Bush 53 Kerry 51
2000 Bush 58 Gore 53

FYI the previous record for the lowest favorable rating prior to Trump and Clinton was Goldwater at 43% 1964 and G.H.W. Bush at 46% in 1992.

Turnout is always the key. But perhaps the key here is the number of Republicans in congress Trump supporters want gone, defeated.
 
Perotista said:
Both NYT's and CNN exit polls showed Clinton received 89% of the Democratic base vote, 8% to Trump. Trump received 88% of the GOP base vote, Clinton 8%. Pretty even on the base vote. But in 2012 Romney received 93% of the GOP base vote to 6% Obama. Obama got 92% of the Democratic base vote to 7% for Romney. So Trump did worst than Romney, also Hillary did worst than Obama in 2012. One reason Obama won fairly easily was the Democratic base made up 38% of the electorate in 2012 to 32% Republican, 29% independents. A six point difference where it help Obama to a five point win. Romney did win the independent vote 50-47 over Obama.

In 2016 Republicans narrowed that six point advantage for the Democrats. 37% of the voting electorate were Democrats, 33% Republicans with 31% independents. Trump won the independent vote 46-42 over Clinton with 12% of independents voting third party. The overall result in the popular vote was a drop of Obama's five point win to where Clinton had a two point win.

The thing with Hillary is she did a lot worse in almost every voting block/group than Obama. She didn't have the Obama charisma to draw out the vote for her as Obama did. Here's some to compare.
Democratic base Obama 92% Hillary 89%
Independents Obama 47 Hillary 42
Blacks Obama Obama 93 Hillary 88
Hispanics Obama 71 Hillary 65
Asian Obama 73 Hillary 65
White Obama 39 Hillary 37
The young 18-29 year old's Obama 60 Hillary 55
women Obama 55 Hillary 54
Union Households Obama 58 Hillary 51
High School or less Obama 54 Hillary 46
College grad Obama 47 Hillary 49 Hillary did do better among college grads than Obama did. This is an exception.

But so it goes, group by group Hillary did for the most part around 3-5 point worst than Obama. She wasn't liked and she had the personality of a wet mop. She always seemed aloof to the less partisan, less ideologues, the non-affiliated in other words. She was the wrong candidate. Also look at the favorable numbers of the two candidates on election day.
2016 Clinton 38% Trump 36% these two candidates set the record for the lowest favorable rating of any presidential candidates since FDR or when Gallup and Pew Research started to keep track of favorable ratings of the two major party candidates. Neither was liked or wanted by america as a whole.
2012 Obama 57% Romney 51
2008 Obama 60% McCain 56
2004 Bush 53 Kerry 51
2000 Bush 58 Gore 53

FYI the previous record for the lowest favorable rating prior to Trump and Clinton was Goldwater at 43% 1964 and G.H.W. Bush at 46% in 1992.

Turnout is always the key. But perhaps the key here is the number of Republicans in congress Trump supporters want gone, defeated.
Click to expand...

Right, which proves my point. The Democrat base is larger than the GOP's base, and the only reason why Trump won is because of the Democrat base not coming out in the same numbers they did for Obama. Romney won the independent vote 50%-45% (according to CNN exit polls), and STILL lost the election...because of the Democrat base being larger. Republicans, as you pointed out, came out strong in 2012, and their candidate STILL lost by 5 million votes.

So, I believe in order for the Democrats to win in 2018, and 2020, they need to come out strong, because in my opinion the Republican voters, including the Trump fans, will also come out strong. But as 2012 clearly shows us...the Democrat base outnumbers the Republican base.
 
Puigb said:
Right, which proves my point. The Democrat base is larger than the GOP's base, and the only reason why Trump won is because of the Democrat base not coming out in the same numbers they did for Obama. Romney won the independent vote 50%-45% (according to CNN exit polls), and STILL lost the election...because of the Democrat base being larger. Republicans, as you pointed out, came out strong in 2012, and their candidate STILL lost by 5 million votes.

So, I believe in order for the Democrats to win in 2018, and 2020, they need to come out strong, because in my opinion the Republican voters, including the Trump fans, will also come out strong. But as 2012 clearly shows us...the Democrat base outnumbers the Republican base.
Click to expand...

I agree turn out is the key. The Democrats hold the enthusiasm gap for the midterms. Who knows come 2020? The party which doesn't hold the White House having the advantage in the enthusiasm gap is normal. They want to turnout and show that whatever in the White House a thing or two. The party that does hold the white house becomes complacent to a certain extent. They hold the highest office in the land and that is what counts the most.

This attitude and complacency, which gives the out of power party along with their extra enthusiasm the edge to turnout to prove a point. This is why in all first midterms since FDR the party that holds the white house has lost seats in congress. The lone exception was G.W. Bush in 2002. But Bush had 9-11 happen which united the country behind him and his party. Bush promptly lost 33 seats in his second midterm, 2006.
 
upsideguy said:
Its pretty much a myth, but in no case is it a known problem. No one has proven that it exist, hence the presumption that it does not exist prevails.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...on-integrity-found-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud
https://www.factcheck.org/issue/voter-fraud/
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/01...aud-in-maine-so-lets-stop-wasting-time-on-it/
Wash. secretary of state: No evidence of voter fraud here | KOMO
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nothing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.64babd8ad51a


No one has produced evidence of voter fraud such that it threatened to alter the outcome of an election. Most "voter fraud" is about voters voting when the were not properly registered. Most of it is error, not fraud. What Trump is trying to sell, that millions voted in California, is completely idiotic. No one is going to risk jail time to vote in an election where there is NO chance of changing the outcome.... let alone "millions" of people.

You can pretty much consider the idea of voter fraud to be debunked.
Click to expand...

Shifting of the Burden of Proof
onus probandi

(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.


FTR, I'm not claiming either side is right.
 
Last edited:
jwzg said:
Shifting of the Burden of Proof
onus probandi

(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.


FTR, I'm not claiming either side is right.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say?

The burden of proof lies with those that make a proposition that is contrary to conventional wisdom, like trying to tell us there is a problem as we get to presume that there is no problem. On the matter of "voter fraud", the burden of proof lies with those trying to tell us there is voter fraud; that our election system is flawed; that a problem exists. To date, they have failed to create the prima facie case that shifts that burden of proof, hence it is still with them.

In my post, I offered up substantial evidence that the matter has been studied and fraud has not been found. I did so as an offensive defense, though not required as no one has delivered a compelling case that voter fraud, as problem exists. No one has met that burden of proof. My "proof" merely supported that last sentence, that "no one has met that burden of proof." That statement could be its own proposition that requires its own proof.... "no one".... but, that would be an independent proposition from the notion that "there is voter fraud"... which has its own burden.

Do you get that, or do we need a discussion as to who has the burden proof? Its pretty clear who has the burden, which is why people keeping trying to form committees, that consistently go nowhere.

Now I am happy to argue debate theory as it is a subject that I am of which I reasonably educated and passionate about.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom