Trump to order a major investigation into voter fraud
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
Sure, you could.... if you were willing to risk being charged with a felony for doing so.
My mom is still on the voter registration rolls here in MWC. Do you think that it's likely that someone, up to nefarious purposes, would happen to know her name her address, etc. and show up to the polls trying to pass themselves off as a 90 yr old woman and vote in her stead?
Dude, you took a winning position.
Now this?
Pick a MO...agitator/belittler or wait-and-see open-minded style, like you alluded to above.
Oklahoma has an id law, I believe. I know I had to show my license when they checked my name on the roll of registered voters.
Kind of where I am.
I anticipate that an investigation will reveal isolated examples of actual voter fraud (which is why I was working on a working definition we could all agree on...good luck with that), but nowhere remotely near the two or three million claimed by Spice/Trump....and nowhere near enough to turn the election.
Redefining what they actually claimed....Trump will say see I told you so....the left will say the same...and we can move on.
I have no doubt that there is massive voter fraud. There's too much power at stake, it appears fairly easy to do, and both sides can rationalize it.
Based upon our working definition of "voter fraud" or some other one?
And how are you defining "massive"? An approximate number would be nice.
I'm talking about organized efforts to add or change votes illegally. I think it's in the millions.
I have a cousin who went to vote a couple of years ago and looked down to see his deceased father listed on the voter rolls. He told them that his father had been dead for several years, so then scratched through his name. The next year he saw his father's name still listed.
Why can't they purge dead people from voter rolls immediately when the death certificate is created and filed? When my father died, social security and all his credit card companies and likely several other entities were immediately notified. SSecurity contacted my mother and demanded the payment he received in the month he died be returned. Many of the CC companies canceled his credit cards notwithstanding that my mother was also a qualified user. She had to reapply.
Apparently, it wasn't only the Russians who tried to "hack" the election. Looks like the Obama Dept. of Homeland Security tried to hack the Georgia Election System.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/e...-dhs-cyberattacks-on-georgia-election-system/
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/e...-dhs-cyberattacks-on-georgia-election-system/
Efforts to add or change votes or efforts that actually resulted in millions of illegal votes?
Still working on this working definition of what voter fraud actually means and how we are going to prove it.
Or is this more of a you know it when you see it?
A legal vote is one placed, without coercion, by a registered voter in his/her precinct. Any votes cast otherwise are illegal. Does that work?
Sounds legit.
And maybe it doesn't swing a presidential election, but it can have massive consequences elsewhere, city, county, state elections and referendums, where the split is nearly 50/50.
Pretty legit....depending upon how you define coercion.
A little bit of a quibble with it going down all the way to precincts if voting in the wrong precinct doesn't affect the offices you are entitled to vote on.
I think the Dems are a little worse though
I'm biased here, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think the pressure to maintain/gain power and the opportunity to committed voter fraud is the same for both parties. I see a difference in the third piece of the fraud triangle - rationalization. In my biased head the Dems believe more than the republicans that the ends justify the means.
Just a theory.
I've got a couple of questions -- Can you name, say 5, other Western nations that do not require ID to vote?
Are you aware that the state of MN, which Hillary was certified to have won by about 45,000 votes has ELECTION day registration and has for some time, that they typically get over 1/2 a million registrants on election day (somewhere between 15 and 20% of all voters) and they do not check them until long after the election is certified (they are at ~ 350K and still counting as of today)? Minnesota has a rather substantial Somali population. Is it really that far fetched that some of these illegally voted, among others?
One more -- when evidence has surfaced time and again of ACORN and its successor organizations admitting on camera or being caught with thousands of illegally filled out registrations, why are people incredulous when it is suggested that illegal voting has occurred and is likely on the increase?
Are you aware that the state of MN, which Hillary was certified to have won by about 45,000 votes has ELECTION day registration and has for some time, that they typically get over 1/2 a million registrants on election day (somewhere between 15 and 20% of all voters) and they do not check them until long after the election is certified (they are at ~ 350K and still counting as of today)? Minnesota has a rather substantial Somali population. Is it really that far fetched that some of these illegally voted, among others?
One more -- when evidence has surfaced time and again of ACORN and its successor organizations admitting on camera or being caught with thousands of illegally filled out registrations, why are people incredulous when it is suggested that illegal voting has occurred and is likely on the increase?
What I don't get is all the liberals who call voter ID racist because they say it is a hardship for people in black or minority communities to get ID because they are poor and don't know how. Then if you tell black people or a minority person they are to poor and don't know how to get ID they get pissed that someone would think that about them.
There was a great video someone posted showing liberals talking about voter ID being racist and black people getting pissed when their comments were read back to them.
There was a great video someone posted showing liberals talking about voter ID being racist and black people getting pissed when their comments were read back to them.
Oklahoma uses a process that requires either a family member submitting a death certificate and sworn statement to scrub the voter rolls of the name of deceased voters. Merely informing the old lady working the polling station to cross out the name is not legally sufficient. If you don't go through that process, like most every other state if the deceased misses voting for 3-4 consecutive elections they are removed under that provision. (What do you figure the odds are that someone waltzes into the precinct and tries to vote under your dead uncle's name?)
As to voter registration fraud, that is an entirely different issue. Just because someone submitted a registration form that read Mickey Mouse, 101 Disney Lane, Anaheim, CA, with a SS# of 111-111-1111 and a DOB of Dec 5, 1901, does NOT mean that the state will issue a voter ID.
Just as I mentioned above, in nearly every state you get cross-referenced by the information you provide. So if the SS#, address, DOB, etc. don't match what is on the Registration Card (or is non-existent) the State will not issue a Voter Registration. So, how does filling out a phony registration card ever result in someone actually getting to vote?
Personal Knowledge here - in many states you have "for-profit" enterprises set up to get people to register to vote, often in relationship to some particular ballot initiative and paid for whatever group, or business is backing/opposing it. They pay people anywhere from 50 cents to up to $2 for every signature they get on a ballot and the same for everyone that they can get to fill out a voter registration form.
Under virtually EVERY state's law, if a person fills out a voter registration form, regardless of whether the people receiving it believe it to be legit, it must be submitted to state officials "as is."
There's actually companies running these "fill out the forms/sign the petition" drives who literally recruit hundreds/thousands of people within a state, organize them and assign them their "territory" to set up and solicit signatures. While they pay 50 cents and more, they're often collecting 3 times that amount. It's an extremely lucrative business and since the people actually paying for the registration drive cannot see the finished applications and have no way of knowing how many are legit, they do not care if the application is phony or not.
But again, those people who fill out illegitimate voter registration cards are virtually guaranteed NEVER to get approved for the voter rolls and will never be able to cast a legal ballot. So that in no way leads to actual "voter fraud."
Yes, it makes perfect sense that left leaning organizations (e.g. like those backed by Soros) would pay so much money to register voters such that it becomes "an extremely lucrative business", yet those same organizations "do not care if the application is phony or not" and are perfectly satisfied if the voter registrations they paid "extremely lucrative" amounts of money for "are virtually guaranteed NEVER to get approved for the voter rolls and will never be able to cast a legal ballot".
That makes perfect sense and everyone realizes this is the way incentives work in the real world.
Spicer said yesterday (perhaps Tuesday) that there was no indication of fraud in Michigan.
Also, during the requested recount of Michigan by Jill Stein, Trump's own attorneys argued that there was no voter fraud in Michigan.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...f-trump-voter-fraud-claims-michigan/97088356/
A chapter on voter fraud, from a new book out by Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch:
https://structurecms-staging-psyclo.../0f00/57d05b1769702d5f6a4b0f00.pdf?1473272599
An Excerpt -
"Voter ID laws provide the same basic kind of protection. Al-
legations of fraud are a regular feature of every election cycle,
and fraud does sway elections. For those who care to look, there
is a steady stream of stories concerning electoral fraud of various
kinds. But the justification for voter ID does not depend on estab-
lishing the existence of fraud. It is enough that fraud should not be
permitted, and that the opportunity to commit such fraud exists.
That there is an opportunity is clear. To begin with, vote fraud
is both hard to spot and hard to prove. Particularly where it is suc-
cessful, vote fraud may never be detected. For example, without an
ID requirement the authorities are unlikely to discover that some-
one has voted on the still-valid registration of his friend who has
moved out of state. Even where vote fraud is detected, successful
prosecution remains unlikely. There may be no way to track down
a perpetrator where, for example, authorities often have nothing
but a bogus signature on a poll book or a bogus registration or
absentee ballot form. Too many prosecutors are not interested in
pursuing these types of cases because they represent a low priority
compared to other crimes or will incur political costs.
The typical argument we hear from the Obama administra-
tion and other leftists is that voter ID laws discourage minorities,
young people, and the elderly from voting. Yet, we know from
reputable surveys that the common sense use of photo ID is sup-
ported by every demographic group in America. Two-thirds of
African Americans support it; two-thirds of Hispanics; two-thirds
of liberals; and even two-thirds of those who consider themselves
to be Democrats.
There is simply no evidence to support the contention that the
requirement to show a photo ID (which are provided for free in
every state with such a requirement) discourages legitimate voters
from voting. In fact, in states such as Indiana and Georgia where
photo ID requirements have been in place for almost a decade,
studies show that voter turnout has actually increased. Photo IDs
are part and parcel of living in a modern society. We have to show
a photo ID to fly on a plane, cash a check, purchase prescription
drugs, and to enter federal and private office buildings—including
the US Department of Justice in Washington, where the Obama
administration has directed its mostly unsuccessful attacks on
voter ID laws. South Carolina beat the Justice Department in a
court fight, when former Attorney General Eric Holder tried to
stop the state from implementing its law."
https://structurecms-staging-psyclo.../0f00/57d05b1769702d5f6a4b0f00.pdf?1473272599
An Excerpt -
"Voter ID laws provide the same basic kind of protection. Al-
legations of fraud are a regular feature of every election cycle,
and fraud does sway elections. For those who care to look, there
is a steady stream of stories concerning electoral fraud of various
kinds. But the justification for voter ID does not depend on estab-
lishing the existence of fraud. It is enough that fraud should not be
permitted, and that the opportunity to commit such fraud exists.
That there is an opportunity is clear. To begin with, vote fraud
is both hard to spot and hard to prove. Particularly where it is suc-
cessful, vote fraud may never be detected. For example, without an
ID requirement the authorities are unlikely to discover that some-
one has voted on the still-valid registration of his friend who has
moved out of state. Even where vote fraud is detected, successful
prosecution remains unlikely. There may be no way to track down
a perpetrator where, for example, authorities often have nothing
but a bogus signature on a poll book or a bogus registration or
absentee ballot form. Too many prosecutors are not interested in
pursuing these types of cases because they represent a low priority
compared to other crimes or will incur political costs.
The typical argument we hear from the Obama administra-
tion and other leftists is that voter ID laws discourage minorities,
young people, and the elderly from voting. Yet, we know from
reputable surveys that the common sense use of photo ID is sup-
ported by every demographic group in America. Two-thirds of
African Americans support it; two-thirds of Hispanics; two-thirds
of liberals; and even two-thirds of those who consider themselves
to be Democrats.
There is simply no evidence to support the contention that the
requirement to show a photo ID (which are provided for free in
every state with such a requirement) discourages legitimate voters
from voting. In fact, in states such as Indiana and Georgia where
photo ID requirements have been in place for almost a decade,
studies show that voter turnout has actually increased. Photo IDs
are part and parcel of living in a modern society. We have to show
a photo ID to fly on a plane, cash a check, purchase prescription
drugs, and to enter federal and private office buildings—including
the US Department of Justice in Washington, where the Obama
administration has directed its mostly unsuccessful attacks on
voter ID laws. South Carolina beat the Justice Department in a
court fight, when former Attorney General Eric Holder tried to
stop the state from implementing its law."
The inability to get an ID is a red herring argument. I haven't been in a bank recently which hasn't required an ID and/or fingerprint to conduct business. I haven't done a survey but I suggest there aren't too many who can live without conducting some bank business. Many, if not most, government payments are sent EFT and require some place to receive these payments which require IDs to get started. Those which come via paper check require someplace to cash it with appropriate IDs. Ergo, I don't believe there are many who live in society who don't have IDs including those eligible to vote.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
Trump argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds.
Trump argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds.
ALL states who require or have attempted to require photo ID to vote will provide them for free. ALL OF THEM.
Liberals are extremely racist. Instead of letting blacks speak for themselves, they run out and claim they are too stupid to figure out how to obtain an id.
White liberals are a disgusting part of our history.
White liberals are a disgusting part of our history.
Tell me about state cooperation
Did California allow a review?
Don’t be a tease
Good to see JD jump on the Pussyhat wagon just because he loves to feel like he’s being all contrarian and shit
Did California allow a review?
Don’t be a tease
Good to see JD jump on the Pussyhat wagon just because he loves to feel like he’s being all contrarian and shit
