Trump dissolves voter fraud commission

[bcking 3,157]

36 minutes ago, Tahoma said:

I'll type this slowly so that you can comprehend without too much pain.

 

YOU ARE OFF TOPIC

Perhaps we should try using pictures next time. Some people here prefer to communicate in meme form.

 

At the very least the study linked here supports the fact that voter fraud exists. 7 non-citizens we're verified to have voted ilegally, among the 30,000+ people that we're polled.

 

Their conclusions as to the frequency and impact of voter fraud is debateable though.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

What's being discussed is the number of non-citizens who may have voted in the election. From the onset of this topic no one here has claimed it would have changed either outcome (Hillary still would have won the popular vote, Trump would still be President). Trump started the commission, and he has dissolved it. The question is about whether or not it would have changed the outcome.

 

Literally the only person here who has even suggested that the outcome would be different is you. You come in here and try to create drama where there is none. We can have a discussion of voter fraud, and the study that has been referenced, without adding conflict. If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, go somewhere else and try to create conflict.

Welcome to CEHST, the forum that has been battling left and right issues for many years, voter fraud being a very common one.  You weren’t here for the previous accusations and counter accusations that abounded, but back when Obama got elected, it was shouted from the hilltops by several MDL people that there was no such thing as voter fraud.  No way, Jose, could it ever happen.  Illegals cannot vote.  Voter IDs and drivers licenses are not needed.  It’s all just a ploy of the republicans to detract from the real issues.  We’ve heard it all.

 

If you’re level-headed enough to admit that voter fraud DOES exist, you are one of the very few on the left who can, congratulations and I welcome your input.  Is it enough to throw any election?  Perhaps not, at least not at the federal level.  But anyone who thinks that people who shouldn’t be voting don’t vote, or who think that people don’t vote twice, are kidding themselves.

 

As for me “adding conflict” or “leaving”, you better get used to my presence.  Not going anywhere anytime soon.  Perhaps my patience with ignorant claims is less than yours, forgive me if I cut straight to the chase on some things instead of typing paragraphs upon paragraphs of what may be.

[Tahoma 2,292]

4 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Welcome to CEHST, the forum that has been battling left and right issues for many years, voter fraud being a very common one.  You weren’t here for the previous accusations and counter accusations that abounded, but back when Obama got elected, it was shouted from the hilltops by several MDL people that there was no such thing as voter fraud.  No way, Jose, could it ever happen.  Illegals cannot vote.  Voter IDs and drivers licenses are not needed.  It’s all just a ploy of the republicans to detract from the real issues.  We’ve heard it all.

 

If you’re level-headed enough to admit that voter fraud DOES exist, you are one of the very few on the left who can, congratulations and I welcome your input.  Is it enough to throw any election?  Perhaps not, at least not at the federal level.  But anyone who thinks that people who shouldn’t be voting don’t vote, or who think that people don’t vote twice, are kidding themselves.

 

As for me “adding conflict” or “leaving”, you better get used to my presence.  Not going anywhere anytime soon.  Perhaps my patience with ignorant claims is less than yours, forgive me if I cut straight to the chase on some things instead of typing paragraphs upon paragraphs of what may be.

Ahem, I've been lurking around here for ten years and I've never seen anyone claim that voter fraud doesn't exist.  If they did, then they are wrong.  Voter fraud, by any credible study, exists in tiny amounts.

 

Now that we have our housekeeping out of the way, let's get back to reality.  Where is Trump's evidence that 5 million people fraudulently voted in the 2016 election?  Why didn't Trump instruct the Voter Integrity Commision to proceed with a study of those states that were willing to submit their voter info?  Where is the evidence that Trump would have won the popular vote if not for the 5 million fraudulent votes?  

 

It's rather ironic that you say you may not have patience with ignorant claims, yet, like most of what Trump says, there is not a shred of credibility to his claims. He's a malignant narcissist and liar who can't even accept the fact that he lost the popular vote, just like he couldn't accept the fact that he had a small turnout for his inauguration, and just like he continually lied about the size of his electoral college vote...etc...etc...etc.

 

A normal person would not have obsessed about these things at all.  Trump continually obsesses about them because he has a severe personality disorder making him unfit to serve as President.  Thankfully, Mueller is tightening the noose on Trump.

 

 

 

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

18 hours ago, bcking said:

 If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, go somewhere else and try to create conflict.

please remember this part of the TOS
 

Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Forums.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, Tahoma said:

Ahem, I've been lurking around here for ten years and I've never seen anyone claim that voter fraud doesn't exist.  If they did, then they are wrong.  Voter fraud, by any credible study, exists in tiny amounts.

 

Now that we have our housekeeping out of the way, let's get back to reality.  Where is Trump's evidence that 5 million people fraudulently voted in the 2016 election?  Why didn't Trump instruct the Voter Integrity Commision to proceed with a study of those states that were willing to submit their voter info?  Where is the evidence that Trump would have won the popular vote if not for the 5 million fraudulent votes?  

 

It's rather ironic that you say you may not have patience with ignorant claims, yet, like most of what Trump says, there is not a shred of credibility to his claims. He's a malignant narcissist and liar who can't even accept the fact that he lost the popular vote, just like he couldn't accept the fact that he had a small turnout for his inauguration, and just like he continually lied about the size of his electoral college vote...etc...etc...etc.

 

A normal person would not have obsessed about these things at all.  Trump continually obsesses about them because he has a severe personality disorder making him unfit to serve as President.  Thankfully, Mueller is tightening the noose on Trump.

 

 

 

Yes, you’ve been on VJ for quite a while, but if you cannot remember Teddy and others proclaiming that voter fraud doesn’t exist, you must have a memory gap.

 

If you’ll notice, I said nothing about Trump’s claims on voter fraud.  In fact, if you are a really good lurker and pay attention to people’s posts, you’ll notice I don’t really portray Trump in a positive light very often.  I like some of what he is doing, and I dislike some of what he is doing.  Which is good for me, because in the last administration, I rarely saw anything being done that was positive for America.

 

Whether or not it bother Trump that he lost the popular vote is not the discussion here.  What IS the discussion is me pointing out the fact that popular votes don’t matter when certain on the left continue to bring it up.  I mean, why bother?  At this point, what difference can it possibly make? (tm)

[bcking 3,157]

15 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Welcome to CEHST, the forum that has been battling left and right issues for many years, voter fraud being a very common one.  You weren’t here for the previous accusations and counter accusations that abounded, but back when Obama got elected, it was shouted from the hilltops by several MDL people that there was no such thing as voter fraud.  No way, Jose, could it ever happen.  Illegals cannot vote.  Voter IDs and drivers licenses are not needed.  It’s all just a ploy of the republicans to detract from the real issues.  We’ve heard it all.

 

If you’re level-headed enough to admit that voter fraud DOES exist, you are one of the very few on the left who can, congratulations and I welcome your input.  Is it enough to throw any election?  Perhaps not, at least not at the federal level.  But anyone who thinks that people who shouldn’t be voting don’t vote, or who think that people don’t vote twice, are kidding themselves.

 

As for me “adding conflict” or “leaving”, you better get used to my presence.  Not going anywhere anytime soon.  Perhaps my patience with ignorant claims is less than yours, forgive me if I cut straight to the chase on some things instead of typing paragraphs upon paragraphs of what may be.

Taken me awhile to get to this, busy morning.

 

This isn't the first time you've referenced how long you've been here, and specifically how I've been here a relatively shorter period of time. If it makes you feel better, please continue but it doesn't do much for me. I don't really care about people who were here in the past but aren't here now. Why have a discussion assuming that those people are still around? Why not just focus on the actual people who are present and discussing the topic? I don't care that other people (who haven't posted in this thread) have argued voter fraud doesn't exist. No one in this thread has up to this point. There are millions of people who don't post in this thread, why don't we just ignore them? That seems pretty logical.

 

I didn't mean "leave" in the sense of leave these forums. I just meant this thread. Not every thread on these forums have to be a conflict between people, and in my opinion the very first post you made on this thread was purely to sow seeds of conflict. It was off topic, but specifically in a way to create drama. No one in this thread suggested that Clinton would have won, or should have won. The thread was talking about the voter fraud commission, and then it segued to a discussion of the study that examined the incidence of voter fraud. Someone brought up a point regarding the total number of votes Clinton received and the impact voter fraud would have had on it (worst case scenario). That is valid and on topic. Then you coming in and typing in bold about why Hillary lost provided nothing to the actual topic, and as I've already said was just an attempt to cause conflict. You weren't "cutting to the chase" on anything. No one was talking about why Hillary lost. You're statement wasn't cutting, or even relevant. If anything it just reflected your own insecurities about the election since no one else here was talking about why Hillary lost or were trying to argue otherwise.

 

This forum will always be filled with lots of arguments. Lets try to at least keep things as civil and on topic for as long as we can. We can all do better. Lets not just assume because "Oh well people in the past have not thought that way". Lets just deal with the people that are here now. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,504]

On 1/4/2018 at 11:58 AM, Tahoma said:

One of the authors of the Old Dominion study said that Trump misinterpreted the study.

 

Even if Trump's misinterpretation were correct, Clinton still would have won the popular vote by over two million votes.

I guess I Really don’t care how Trump interpreted it, but I do care about close to a million illegal votes.  I posited this a while back that illegal votes dilute the actual legal votes and have the effect of violating a voter’s franschise.  To me this is important to our society, but many others do not think it is a big deal.  This is why I am in favor of voter ID laws as long as they provide for those that are disadvanted to get the proper ID, but many folks think this is no big deal.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

I guess I Really don’t care how Trump interpreted it, but I do care about close to a million illegal votes.  I posited this a while back that illegal votes dilute the actual legal votes and have the effect of violating a voter’s franschise.  To me this is important to our society, but many others do not think it is a big deal.  This is why I am in favor of voter ID laws as long as they provide for those that are disadvanted to get the proper ID, but many folks think this is no big deal.

I won't go into the detail again but the article gives estimates ranging from 0.2% to 14.7% of non-US citizens voting. If we use 22.3 million, that means between 44,600 illegal votes and 3,278,100.

 

As I've said, that is a very very wide margin which suggests a very high level of uncertainty. That is also applying data from 2008 to now.

 

All that being said I agree with you that illegal votes shouldn't happen. Even if I think that certain non-US citizens that are permanent residents should be able to vote, I still agree that as it stands that's illegal and shouldn't happen. While any number technically dilutes legal votes, for sure, the impact is still incredibly questionable for me.

 

In the article for 2008 they found one state where the margin that Obama won made it even POSSIBLE that illegal votes could have influence the result (in that state). That doesn't mean it did, but only one was even possible (There were only 3 that would have required less than 100% "turn out" from all non-US citizens to have been impacted). In legislative branch elections there were a couple of more, but again those were just places where it was even possible.

 

I agree that we can do better with voter ID, and I think we should as long as it doesn't diminish turn out from those who do have the legal right to vote. But again I'm just not sure the numbers are cause for concern right now.

[Dashinka 24,504]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

I won't go into the detail again but the article gives estimates ranging from 0.2% to 14.7% of non-US citizens voting. If we use 22.3 million, that means between 44,600 illegal votes and 3,278,100.

 

As I've said, that is a very very wide margin which suggests a very high level of uncertainty. That is also applying data from 2008 to now.

 

All that being said I agree with you that illegal votes shouldn't happen. Even if I think that certain non-US citizens that are permanent residents should be able to vote, I still agree that as it stands that's illegal and shouldn't happen. While any number technically dilutes legal votes, for sure, the impact is still incredibly questionable for me.

 

In the article for 2008 they found one state where the margin that Obama won made it even POSSIBLE that illegal votes could have influence the result (in that state). That doesn't mean it did, but only one was even possible (There were only 3 that would have required less than 100% "turn out" from all non-US citizens to have been impacted). In legislative branch elections there were a couple of more, but again those were just places where it was even possible.

 

I agree that we can do better with voter ID, and I think we should as long as it doesn't diminish turn out from those who do have the legal right to vote. But again I'm just not sure the numbers are cause for concern right now.

That is where I disagree a bit in that I think it is important to take care of this issue regardless of the potential impact (nip it in the bud so-to-speak) rather than to wait until it possibly become a bigger issue.  Most of the recent proposed voter ID laws I have seen bend over backward to accommodate those that may not be able to afford a state ID, or some other form of voter ID, but when they are proposed, they are immediately attacked as being racist, or trying to suppress a voter’s franschise.  

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is where I disagree a bit in that I think it is important to take care of this issue regardless of the potential impact (nip it in the bud so-to-speak) rather than to wait until it possibly become a bigger issue.  Most of the recent proposed voter ID laws I have seen bend over backward to accommodate those that may not be able to afford a state ID, or some other form of voter ID, but when they are proposed, they are immediately attacked as being racist, or trying to suppress a voter’s franschise.  

I honestly don't know the details of those voter ID laws, but it's very possible I would support them.

 

I'm not saying don't solve the problem...I'm just saying that I take comfort in knowing that what impact it is currently having, if any, is incredibly minor. Will it get worse in the future without change? Possibly, which is why I've said I support change with some caveats/limitations.

 

THis is something that really needs an individualized approach...at the very least by the state, and maybe even more localized. Certain places will have much larger problems than others, so I don't think it's reasonable to just use one giant number to apply to the whole country. If a voter ID law would be expected to prevent an estimated 10,000 illegal votes in a state, but at the same time is estimated to reduce the legal votes by 500,000 because of issues of access etc... (I'm just making up these numbers mind you), then I would have an issue with it.

 

The solution has to match the magnitude of the problem, which will be different depending on where you are.

Edited January 5, 2018 by bcking

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is where I disagree a bit in that I think it is important to take care of this issue regardless of the potential impact (nip it in the bud so-to-speak) rather than to wait until it possibly become a bigger issue.  Most of the recent proposed voter ID laws I have seen bend over backward to accommodate those that may not be able to afford a state ID, or some other form of voter ID, but when they are proposed, they are immediately attacked as being racist, or trying to suppress a voter’s franschise.  

the Conservative 5th district court found that the Texas ID law unfairly targeted folks by race and income, Texas has made several adjustments.  

[Dashinka 24,504]

Just now, Il Mango Dulce said:

the Conservative 5th district court found that the Texas ID law unfairly targeted folks by race and income, Texas has made several adjustments.  

Isn’t that how it is supposed to work?  But tell me this, are there any voter ID laws that the various MDL activist groups would actually support?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Taken me awhile to get to this, busy morning.

 

This isn't the first time you've referenced how long you've been here, and specifically how I've been here a relatively shorter period of time.

First off, my comment in all caps to which you refer was not directed at you, nor in response to you.  

 

And yes, I have a memory of conversations that happened before your arrival.  Just as I imagine things other people said prior to you meeting me.  Sorry (not sorry) if my memory of past conversations doesn’t fit your particular motif, but it has helped to build who I am today.

 

All that being said, there IS voter fraud, as I said before.  I have read of cases where dead people have voted, some twice; of people voting in two different locations (as if that could happen “by accident”); of illegals voting.  Do those votes matter?  Some say no, but I say they do.  Because if they are allowed to continue, if we just turn a blind eye to 100 illegal votes today, then 200 next year, and 1,000 the year after... at which point to the legal votes cease to matter?

 

And no, I am in no way insecure over the election.  America voted, and the right (better choice) president was elected.  It’s just a crying shame we had to pick between the two worst possible candidates.

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by IDWAF

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

57 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

the Conservative 5th district court found that the Texas ID law unfairly targeted folks by race and income, Texas has made several adjustments.  

Do you think voters should have to present an ID to vote?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

8 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

 

 

And no, I am in no way insecure over the election.  America voted, and the right (better choice) president was elected.  It’s just a crying shame we had to pick between the two worst possible candidates.

Do you think voters should be required to show an ID to vote, to prove who they are?

 

Yes I do, but why is an ID or DL alone not enough?  When I started out I had a printed no photo voter ID card and that told me which poll to go to.  No one ever accused me of printing my polling card.

 

If you are recently redeployed from the Mid East,  Got married and changed the name on your DL, Moved across town or had your middle name hyphenated you could be rejected for a mismatch.  It affected the poor disproportionally because they needed to file a provisional and trek to the country seat once they had their records in hand. In some Texas counties that is impossible without a car. 

 

What was proven in court is that the legislature targeted groups intentionally and that is unconstitutional.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Il Mango Dulce