• 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!

Voter fraud

Kobie said:
That "study" was pretty widely discredited.
Click to expand...

Bhahahaha. And Trump only won because of Putin, right?

In any case, no. It was not.

Wishful thinking doesn't change facts. The Left is apparently immune to this reality, for whatever reason.
 
Yarff said:
According to the latest estimates, at least 800,000 illegals voted in the last election.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/study-ballots-from-noncitizens-added-more-than-800000-to-clintons-popular-vote-margin/

I'm really not sure how you people can believe otherwise, to be honest. There are millions of these vagrants in California alone, and they clearly don't have much respect for our laws, otherwise they wouldn't be here to begin with.

What on Earth is stopping them from voting in our elections as well? The "honor system?"
Click to expand...

Ah, the original article was from the Washington times.. I see.

They are basing it on a self published (not peer reviewed) essay on illegal voting that someone put out in 2012 that was trying to do to an anyalsys of the 2008 election.

Wow, such wonderful credentials for that claim.

Oh, and finding another source about it (not just looking through the chain of evidence from your so called 'newspaper' report', my impression was validated

from Did a Study Show That Hillary Clinton Received More Than 800,000 Votes from Non-Citizens in the 2016 Election? - Snopes.com

o be clear, when Sean Spicer cited this study to support Trump’s assertion that millions voted illegally in the 2016 election, he was referring to a set of extrapolations made in 2014 based on data collected by another research group in 2008 and 2010. Further, the validity of those extrapolations has been repeatedly challenged by the original pollsters (more about that later). Just as importantly, the lead author of the study advancing those extrapolations, Jesse Richman, has said that even if their conclusions were 100 percent valid — which, again, is in question — they don’t confirm Trump’s claim that “millions” voted illegally:

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.

Here I run some extrapolations based upon the estimates for other elections from my coauthored 2014 paper on non-citizen voting. You can access that paper on the journal website here and Judicial Watch has also posted a PDF. The basic assumptions on which the extrapolation is based are that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted, and that of the non-citizens who voted, 81.8 percent voted for Clinton and 17.5 percent voted for Trump. These were numbers from our study for the 2008 campaign. Obviously to the extent that critics of my study are correct the first number (percentage of non-citizens who voted) may be too high, and the second number (percentage who voted for Clinton) may be too low.

The count of the popular vote is still in flux as many states have yet to certify official final tallies. Here I used this unofficial tally linked by Real Clear Politics. As of this writing Trump is 2,235,663 votes behind Clinton in the popular vote.

If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clinton’s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clinton’s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.

Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
Ah, the original article was from the Washington times.. I see.

They are basing it on a self published (not peer reviewed) essay on illegal voting that someone put out in 2012 that was trying to do to an anyalsys of the 2008 election.

Wow, such wonderful credentials for that claim.

Oh, and finding another source about it (not just looking through the chain of evidence from your so called 'newspaper' report', my impression was validated

from Did a Study Show That Hillary Clinton Received More Than 800,000 Votes from Non-Citizens in the 2016 Election? - Snopes.com
Click to expand...

First off, Snopes is trash. When it comes to these sorts of political claims, they often deliberately go out of their way to miss the "bigger picture," so they can obsfuscate around petty details and confuse the issue with unnecessary literalism instead.

i.e. Generally something along the lines of this:

"Trump claimed that a bird in the hand was better than two in the bush.

FALSE.

Our sources determine that Trump has neither birds in his hands, nor in a bush at this time."

We see the same basic formula here.

Regardless of whether "millions" voted, exactly as Trump claims (which is never what I was arguing to begin with), the fact of the matter is that there IS evdience to suggest that they vote, and that they do not do so in trivial numbers. The authors of the study and the Snopes article you just cited basically admit to as much on a begrudging tacit basis.

Again, explain to me why on Earth they wouldn't. The honor system, or what?
 
Last edited:
Yarff said:
First off, Snopes is trash. When it comes to these sorys of political claims, they often deliberately go out of their way to miss the "bigger picture," so they can obsfuscate around petty details and confuse the issue with unnecessary literalism instead.

i.e. "Trump claimed that a bird in the hand was better than two in the bush.

FALSE.

Our sources determine that Trump has neither birds in his hands, nor in a bush at this time."

Regardless of whether "millions" voted, exactly as Trump claims (which is never what I was arguing to begin with), the fact of the matter is that there IS evdience to suggest that they vote, and that they do not do so in trivial numbers. The authors of the study and the Snopes article you just cited basically admit to as much on a tacit basis.

Again, explain to me why on Earth they wouldn't. The honor system, or what?
Click to expand...

Tell me, what is your evidence that 'snopes' is fraud?? Have you also to the original documentation?? SNope is fact oriented. Do you have an aversion to facts?
 
RAMOSS said:
Tell me, what is your evidence that 'snopes' is fraud?? Have you also to the original documentation?? SNope is fact oriented. Do you have an aversion to facts?
Click to expand...

I actually read their supposed "debunkings," and I have the intellectual ability to recognise the various rhetorical loop-de-loops they use to try and slant the truth one way or another for what they are, perhaps? It's not exactly hard if one has a head for critical thinking (lost art these days, I know).

The fact of the matter is that there is no really no logical or factual grounds whatsoever from which to claim that non-citizens do not vote. The Left simply likes to jam its collective head in the sand ( or other, less savory, places ) and deny it on a knee jerk basis, because it better suits their narrative.
 
MaggieD said:
The one thing I am not, gentlemen, is stupid. The fact that we profoundly disagree does not reflect on the IQs of any of us. I don't call you stupid -- or your opinions stupid -- because I don't think you or they are. We simply disagree.

I've found that most of those people who resort to calling others stupid were called stupid by their parents. I'm sorry for you both. To my knowledge, we don't have one stupid person on this website. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, we don't have one stupid person on this forum. :mrgreen:
 
MaggieD said:
I don't even know Steve Bannon.

As to illegals voting in any great numbers? I doubt they do. I think you're probably right. But there is no doubt in my mind that the Democratic machine considers immigrants an important demographic in their voting base. And is anxious for an easy path to citizenship for illegals because it will increase their base. And supports NOT enforcing our laws against illegals because it knows the legal immigrants will flock to their agenda at the polls. Foreigners first is the Democratic meme, most assuredly those coming in through our southern borders.

Anywhere Democrats can set a group of people against Republicans, you will find them inciting them with lies.
Click to expand...

Many local issues and races are won and lost by just a few votes. Lib claims that a small number illegals voting is no big deal, is wholly incorrect. I personally suspect the numbers are far greater than anyone is willing to admit.
 
Kobie said:
"Northern Asia" is Russia.

Prove that immigrants with higher IQ vote for "smaller government."

HINT: Voting for Republicans is not and has never been voting for "smaller government."
Click to expand...

Where did I claim voting Republican was voting for "smaller government".

Between neocons and neolibs the US hasn't been a REAL 2 party state for awhile now.
 
countryboy said:
Many local issues and races are won and lost by just a few votes. Lib claims that a small number illegals voting is no big deal, is wholly incorrect. I personally suspect the numbers are far greater than anyone is willing to admit.
Click to expand...

And, the evidence for this is????

In my district, while you don't have to show I.D., you do have to sign every year you vote at the voting polls, and you have to sign when you do an absentee ballot. They do have people's signatures on file.

I hear lots of claims about voter fraud. I see them basing their claims on misreading of older essays, and tweets from people. If you have evidence, please present it.
 
I just watched an interview with an atty over voter fraud being committed by illegals and persons here on visas or have green cards etc. It is a problem. He says the only way to remedy it is through the federal government. Every immigrant legal in the U.S. and illegal immigrant who has applied for any government assistance etc. goes into a database. All the federal government would have to do is crosscheck these names with voter registrations in each state for a cross match. Currently an atty must file a FOIA in federal court to get the information released from state voting records. The DHS, DOJ and other agencies could work together to arrest those who committed voter fraud and issue a deportation order immediately.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, the evidence for this is????

In my district, while you don't have to show I.D., you do have to sign every year you vote at the voting polls, and you have to sign when you do an absentee ballot. They do have people's signatures on file.

I hear lots of claims about voter fraud. I see them basing their claims on misreading of older essays, and tweets from people. If you have evidence, please present it.
Click to expand...

Present what evidence? That local races are often won and lost by just a few votes? That is common knowledge. If you are attempting to claim that the libs on this very board incessantly downplay the effects of possible illegals voting, you really need to pay closer attention.
 
countryboy said:
Present what evidence? That local races are often won and lost by just a few votes? That is common knowledge. If you are attempting to claim that the libs on this very board incessantly downplay the effects of possible illegals voting, you really need to pay closer attention.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I want you to present evidence of voter fraud, or 'back end' fraud. I pointed out that 'back end' fraud is much easier to coordinate. I mean, there is insinuation, and then there is evidence. If you don't have evidence, you can't show you speak the truth.
 
For Immediate Release
January 24, 2017

WASHINGTON, DC - The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), which represents 40 of the nation's chief state election officials, today issued the following statement:

"We are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump, but we are open to learning more about the Administration’s concerns. In the lead up to the November 2016 election, secretaries of state expressed their confidence in the systemic integrity of our election process as a bipartisan group, and they stand behind that statement today.”
Click to expand...
Jan. 24 Statement by NASS

Downright odd that 40 Secretaries of State, both Republican and Democrat, did not see any evidence of election fraud.
 
There's no way an 'illegal' is going to risk arrest and deportation just to cast a vote. The whole idea of being an illegal is to blend in, to stay in the background and be invisible.

I know that won't matter to Cons, this whole issue is just another made up 'bogeyman , it's just more raw meat the Con media machine throws out there for their gullible listeners. Oh NO 'Illegal' brown people are stealing our elections, even though there is NO evidence of it.., That's the new norm now in Trump's USA. Cons and the Con media don't have to prove illegals are voting.. But others have to prove illegals are NOT voting. Trump doesn't have to prove 3-5 mil illegals voted, others have to prove they didn't vote.

That's completely backwards to all logic, but that's the world Trump and the Con media live in.
 
Yarff said:
First off, Snopes is trash. When it comes to these sorts of political claims, they often deliberately go out of their way to miss the "bigger picture," so they can obsfuscate around petty details and confuse the issue with unnecessary literalism instead.

i.e. Generally something along the lines of this:

"Trump claimed that a bird in the hand was better than two in the bush.

FALSE.

Our sources determine that Trump has neither birds in his hands, nor in a bush at this time."

We see the same basic formula here.

Regardless of whether "millions" voted, exactly as Trump claims (which is never what I was arguing to begin with), the fact of the matter is that there IS evdience to suggest that they vote, and that they do not do so in trivial numbers. The authors of the study and the Snopes article you just cited basically admit to as much on a begrudging tacit basis.

Again, explain to me why on Earth they wouldn't. The honor system, or what?
Click to expand...

Please post that evidence, keeping in mind that having people on the registry who have died and whose names haven't been purged and being able to vote in more than one state does NOT provide evidence that dead people actually voted or actually voted in more than one state. In California, no person can vote without having their signature verified when they show up at the polls, or on their absentee ballots, so unless you can prove that hundreds of thousands of folks actually forged signatures well enough to fool poll workers and back-up computer validations, you have NO evidence whatsoever... and neither does Trump or anyone else.

Every Secretary of State in every state the Trump administration has accused of counting illegal votes has bristled, categorically denied it, and invited Trump or anyone else to come in and compare every single voter signature with the number of votes cast. Guess what? Nothing has been done but repeating the same damned lie over and over and over in the hope that anyone who really, really wants to believe it, will believe it.
 
code1211 said:
In our system, people win elections and people lose elections.

The winners don't conduct investigations because they won. The losers can't conduct investigations because they lost.

Trump is blazing a new trail. Again.
Click to expand...

The new trail trump/Bannon/Miller are blazing is that Oversight Chair Chaffetz will no longer be investigating the executive branch, as he would have been relentlessly doing since the election if Clinton had won .
 
RAMOSS said:
That is where you aren't thinking. Democrats know that illegal immigrants don't vote. A case might be made that the LEGAL immigrants are an important part of the democratic base, and part of the reason is the attitudes they get from Republicans due to the fact that they do not appear to be White Anglo-Saxon protestant, and are viewed at with the attitude they are here illegally.

As for Steve Bannon, you don't have to know him at all to be effected by him. All you have to do is read his web sites for 'news', or listen to people who do.
Click to expand...

They don't want to know who the alt-reich wing of Bannon/Miller are and the control of trump they have, such as the botched EO.

trump will continue to repeat 'The Big Lie' of five million illegals voting, only now in public in front of bi-partisan lawmakers who cannot argue back at that moment .
 
Yarff said:
Bhahahaha. And Trump only won because of Putin, right?

In any case, no. It was not.

Wishful thinking doesn't change facts. The Left is apparently immune to this reality, for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

We'll never know if trump only won because of Putin because of what a poosay Chaffetz is.

How long do you think Logan Act Flynn will last ?
 
DiAnna said:
Please post that evidence, keeping in mind that having people on the registry who have died and whose names haven't been purged and being able to vote in more than one state does NOT provide evidence that dead people actually voted or actually voted in more than one state.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what?

This is idiotic. If the loop hole exists, why wouldn't someone, somewhere, take advantage of it?

Are you unfamiliar with how human beings tend to work?

In California, no person can vote without having their signature verified when they show up at the polls, or on their absentee ballots, so unless you can prove that hundreds of thousands of folks actually forged signatures well enough to fool poll workers and back-up computer validations, you have NO evidence whatsoever... and neither does Trump or anyone else.
Click to expand...

California allows hundreds of thousands of illegals to be registered for driver's licenses, which is basically half the battle when it comes to getting into a polling station. Yes, for that matter, I absolutely believe that the typical petty bureaucrats and soccer moms volunteering to work at a polling station for two or three days out of the year can be fooled, and that it's probably not even all that difficult to do so (which isn't even accounting for the possibility of more blatant forms of corruption on the part of Leftist do-gooder types who don't really believe in 'citizenship' to begin with).

Even the California government admits that some significant loop holes exist in their system which can potentially be taken adavntage of.

Every Secretary of State in every state the Trump administration has accused of counting illegal votes has bristled, categorically denied it
Click to expand...

No freaking duh. What does that prove?

Bottom line: If you don't think fraud can and does happen, I've got some swampland to sell you in Florida.
 
Last edited:
Yarff said:
I'm sorry, but what?

This is idiotic. If the loop hole exists why wouldn't someone, somewhere, take advantage of it?

Are you unfamiliar with how human beings tend to work?
Click to expand...

There is no loophole. Please reread what I wrote.



California allows hundreds of thousands of illegals to be registered for driver's licenses, which is basically half the battle when it comes to getting into a polling station. Yes, I absolutely believe the typical soccer mom volunteering to work at a polling station for one weekend out of the year can be fooled, and that it's probably not even all that difficult to do so (which isn't even accounting for the possibility of more blatant forms of corruption on the part of Leftist do-gooder types who don't really believe in 'citizenship' to begin with).
Click to expand...

Licenses which are clearly marked as non-citizen licenses. Besides, first-time registers in California also have to provide a validated birth certificate. BTW, I have lived in California since I was a child, and am quite familiar with state requirements for getting a drivers license, registering to vote, and confirming my registration annually.

Even the California government admits that some significant loop holes exist in their system which can potentially be taken adavntage of.
Click to expand...

Link to your source for that assertion, please.

No freaking duh. What does that prove?
Click to expand...

It proves that they know how their state conducts elections, how the ballots are validated, and how to investigate their own systems during elections based upon the checks and balances the state employs. Duh.
 
Yarff said:
I'm sorry, but what?

This is idiotic. If the loop hole exists, why wouldn't someone, somewhere, take advantage of it?

Are you unfamiliar with how human beings tend to work?



California allows hundreds of thousands of illegals to be registered for driver's licenses, which is basically half the battle when it comes to getting into a polling station. Yes, for that matter, I absolutely believe that the typical petty bureaucrats and soccer moms volunteering to work at a polling station for two or three days out of the year can be fooled, and that it's probably not even all that difficult to do so (which isn't even accounting for the possibility of more blatant forms of corruption on the part of Leftist do-gooder types who don't really believe in 'citizenship' to begin with).

Even the California government admits that some significant loop holes exist in their system which can potentially be taken adavntage of.



No freaking duh. What does that prove?

Bottom line: If you don't think fraud can and does happen, I've got some swampland to sell you in Florida.
Click to expand...

California needs to tell me what steps they take to keep illegals from voting, and they need to provide either enough documentation on their efforts that I have confidence in them or they need to provide some other form of confidence that they run their elections system well on this question.

So far we get squat.
 
MaggieD said:
What's your problem? You know it's true.
Click to expand...

I have friends who are illegals. Have you considered that they are PEOPLE and sometimes people can care about other people for reasons beyond politics?

No.

Didn't think so.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
California needs to tell me what steps they take to keep illegals from voting, and they need to provide either enough documentation on their efforts that I have confidence in them or they need to provide some other form of confidence that they run their elections system well on this question.

So far we get squat.
Click to expand...

I was unaware that California owed you personal assurances regarding policies you can easily look up yourself.
 
DiAnna said:
There is no loophole. Please reread what I wrote.
Click to expand...

YOU re-read what you wrote. You listed several.

Licenses which are clearly marked as non-citizen licenses. Besides, first-time registers in California also have to provide a validated birth certificate.
Click to expand...

All of which depends on those things actually being enforced. Like I said, this tends to be iffy, conveniently, most so, in minority dominated urban areas in Blue States.

Remember all those Chicago neighborhoods which had turn outs far larger than their actual populations this cycle?

BTW, I have lived in California since I was a child, and am quite familiar with state requirements for getting a drivers license, registering to vote, and confirming my registration annually.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly care. It's not terribly relevant considering the points already raised.

It proves that they know how their state conducts elections, how the ballots are validated, and how to investigate their own systems during elections based upon the checks and balances the state employs. Duh.
Click to expand...

It also means that they are in a great position to cover up any potential wrong-doing.

Coming from the single most badly run and corrupt state in the Union, which also simply happens to be the most politically entrenched against the current President's political party? Yeah... I really don't lend much crediblity to the assertions of their government.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I have friends who are illegals. Have you considered that they are PEOPLE and sometimes people can care about other people for reasons beyond politics?

No.

Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

That's fine, so long as you still have a problem with the sins, and are willing to take efforts on them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom