Donald Trump's false cry-baby election recount tweet

[MarkPerry 488]

I take it they don't have phones to call the cops in the polling places either?

In Mass we have at least one cop on detail in every polling place while the polls are open.

Why do they have cops at each polling place? What kinda of crime happens there? Most of our polling places are either in Fire Station, Public School, or community center. I find it odd they would commit so much man power to assign a cop to each polling location.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Why do they have cops at each polling place? What kinda of crime happens there? Most of our polling places are either in Fire Station, Public School, or community center. I find it odd they would commit so much man power to assign a cop to each polling location.

from my understanding any place of interest should have some sort of legal security in events like this.

[Teddy B 17,252]

As I said before, I don't think anyone enforces it or cares to enforce it, especially since it is once every 4 years. They know it exists but dont' have the resources or just don't care to enforce it. Just like they turn a blind eye to Illegal Aliens in the USA. It's easier to ignore than face it

Voter fraud only happens during the presidential elections? What about all of the local elections, the fraudsters just sit those out?

Why do they have cops at each polling place? What kinda of crime happens there? Most of our polling places are either in Fire Station, Public School, or community center. I find it odd they would commit so much man power to assign a cop to each polling location.

It's always been that way here. We don't have any crime at our polling places. I'm not sure if there was ever some type of event that caused the details to be in place or if it's a crime prevention tactic. My guess is the latter.

[MarkPerry 488]

from my understanding any place of interest should have some sort of legal security in events like this.

This is from Missouri

"Police may certainly be at polls to undertake official police business, such as picking up mid-day ballots, for example, or responding to a 911 call, but cannot simply be stationed at or linger at poll sites without further justification. Vague fears and unsubstantiated concerns about 'divisiveness' do not rise to a cognizable need for police presence. Should an incident arise requiring police presence, they can be dispatched to the site just as with any other incident call," the coalition wrote."

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/11/07/will-police-at-polling-places-cause-voter-intimidation/

[MarkPerry 488]

Voter fraud only happens during the presidential elections? What about all of the local elections, the fraudsters just sit those out?

You won't have voter fraud at the local election,

But with Trump running this year and his stance on illegal aliens you know the illegals came out in droves to try to vote against him. They have no fear of getting in trouble, since they are here illegally and they know US law will not touch them for the most part.

Edited November 28, 2016 by MarkPerry

[yuna628 9,680]

No true,

Sanctary cities shelter illegal immigrants and for the most part local authorities do not cooperate with federal immigration officials. As a result, prosecuting or deporting illegal aliens who commit crimes is much harder.

The state has no authority to deport an immigrant. In that way the term ''sanctuary city'' came to fruition because states did not actively wish to have the feds waste their time, money, and resources to do their jobs for them. The policy began in the 70s, so that cops were not giving themselves the authority to have a ''papers please'' moment. Just like normal citizens, if you have committed no crime and are going about your business, no one belongs demanding 'your papers'. Prior to this, cities were arresting or investigating people based on their immigration status, and they continued to sit there on the taxpayer dime, while the feds did nothing.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.^[18] Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers' reporting persons' immigration status to federal authorities.^[19]

Section 287(g) makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to enter into agreements with the federal government to be trained in immigration enforcement and, subsequent to such training, to enforce immigration law. However, it provides no general power for immigration enforcement by state and local authorities.

Notice that it says possible. It doesn't sound like it's too binding in that states can set their own policy of what they wish to do. The important bit is that for all it's training and info sharing a state law enforcement could be given - there is still no power for them to actually do anything to them. It's the fed's responsibility. Beyond that our Constitution very heavily protects the state in matters like this. If they want to be 'sanctuary like' they absolutely can. And it's been tested many times.

I'll direct to the great Ilya Somin on the matter. Makes a lot of sense to me. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/26/federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.958de6938409 It also points out that any threatening Trump has on this matter is inherently a load of loud and empty hot air.

[Teddy B 17,252]

You won't have voter fraud at the local election,

But with Trump running this year and his stance on illegal aliens you know the illegals came out in droves to try to vote against him. They have no fear of getting in trouble, since they are here illegally and they know US law will not touch them for the most part.

Why wouldn't there be fraud at a local level election, say Senator or congressman or for instance?

No, I do not know that illegals came out in droves to vote against Trump and neither do you. If you want to believe in something like massive widespread voter fraud that has as much fact based truth behind it as the tooth fairy, that's your decision, but I require a bit more proof.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Teddy B

[MarkPerry 488]

Why wouldn't there be fraud at a local level election, say Governor for instance?

No, I do not know that illegals came out in droves to vote against Trump and neither do you. If you want to believe in something like massive widespread voter fraud that has as much fact based truth behind it as the tooth fairy, that's your decision, but I require a bit more proof.

I don't see any voter fraud for Governor in my state, if so it would be abnormally low.

I don't think there was widespread voter fraud, I believe it was isolated to large cities where a lot of illegal aliens live, especially in states like California who give Illegal Aliens Driver License, and they tend to have heavy population of Illegals in areas.

[bcking 3,157]

I don't see any voter fraud for Governor in my state, if so it would be abnormally low.

What do you mean by you "don't see" it? I didn't "see" any voter fraud for the Presidential election either. I wouldn't see it if it was there or not there.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I don't see any voter fraud for Governor in my state, if so it would be abnormally low.

I don't think there was widespread voter fraud, I believe it was isolated to large cities where a lot of illegal aliens live, especially in states like California who give Illegal Aliens Driver License, and they tend to have heavy population of Illegals in areas.

For something to be abnormally low, there would have to be a normal to compare it to. You've already stated that you have "no clue" as to what the actual voter fraud numbers are, so how can you possibly know when voter fraud would be abnormally low?

I got news for you. If there were voter fraud on large enough levels to sway elections in big cities, that is widespread massive voter fraud. The numbers would be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

[MarkPerry 488]

What do you mean by you "don't see" it? I didn't "see" any voter fraud for the Presidential election either. I wouldn't see it if it was there or not there.

Texas Talk, for I don't foresee it, I don't expect to it will happen

For something to be abnormally low, there would have to be a normal to compare it to. You've already stated that you have "no clue" as to what the actual voter fraud numbers are, so how can you possibly know when voter fraud would be abnormally low?

I got news for you. If there were voter fraud on large enough levels to sway elections in big cities, that is widespread massive voter fraud. The numbers would be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

I am sure it was it was at least 1 million. Would shock me to see it be double or triple that number.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Texas Talk, for I don't foresee it, I don't expect to it will happen

I am sure it was it was at least 1 million. Would shock me to see it be double or triple that number.

Show me the proof that makes you sure it was a million.

[bcking 3,157]

Texas Talk, for I don't foresee it, I don't expect to it will happen

I am sure it was it was at least 1 million. Would shock me to see it be double or triple that number.

Oh thanks! I have to learn more of the lingo. A lot of the nurses are born and raised so sometimes I don't quite get what they're saying. Lots of "y'alls" but not really sure who they are talking about (sometimes they mean all of us, sometimes all of a different group, sometimes everyone including themselves it's confusing)

Again though, how are you "sure" it is at least 1 million? What is the data to support that? Is there a sample size with a percentage of fraudulent votes that you are then extrapolating from? If so, how big was the size? Was it large enough to sufficienty power the study?

You can't just use the word "sure" when what you are really saying is "I have a hunch" or something similar. In my line of work we can be "sure" something helps, but we still need to do a randomized control trial (and usually several, with a cochrane review) before we say we are "sure". Before that it is just "expert opinion" or something similar. No offense, but even then I would want to see what credentials you have to be considered an "expert" in the area before I say that the 1 million number is based on expert opinion. As of right now (since I don't know what you do), it seems like the number is "Based on the opinion of one person on an immigration website's forum who lives in Texas".

Edited November 28, 2016 by bcking

[yuna628 9,680]

Texas Talk, for I don't foresee it, I don't expect to it will happen

I am sure it was it was at least 1 million. Would shock me to see it be double or triple that number.

To be sure about something, there is absolutely no assuming or guessing, but knowledge.

When you say you are sure it was at least 1 million, tell us how you are sure as to this number?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Oh thanks! I have to learn more of the lingo. A lot of the nurses are born and raised so sometimes I don't quite get what they're saying. Lots of "y'alls" but not really sure who they are talking about (sometimes they mean all of us, sometimes all of a different group, sometimes everyone including themselves it's confusing)

Again though, how are you "sure" it is at least 1 million? What is the data to support that? Is there a sample size with a percentage of fraudulent votes that you are then extrapolating from? If so, how big was the size? Was it large enough to sufficienty power the study?

You can't just use the word "sure" when what you are really saying is "I have a hunch" or something similar. In my line of work we can be "sure" something helps, but we still need to do a randomized control trial (and usually several, with a cochrane review) before we say we are "sure". Before that it is just "expert opinion" or something similar.

I think in Texas it is okay to use the word "sure" in place of "I really have no clue" if it is prefaced by or followed by at least one "y'all".