Modded Mustang Forums banner

21 - 40 of 67 Posts

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Maybe he knows more about it than the average citizen.
Yikes, maybe more than the average citizen, but I'm not sure I'd even speculate that.

At the end of the day, why does anyone care if this investigation is done? Let it be done. If there is none than we can move on and end the debate. Not sure how it's an issue lol.
Waste of time, resources and taxpayer money. The things that conservatives rail on constantly regardless of how insignificant it is. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, it doesn't take much critical thought to know the conclusion to this "investigation": nowhere near 3 million, or even 300 votes are due to voter fraud.

Studies have been done in the past that show how truly insignificant voter fraud is and the cases that do show up tend to be Republican ventures. I would go find the articles, but ya know, #FakeNews , #AlternativeFacts and all that jazz...

---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

Steve Bannon registered to vote in two states despite Trump's cries of 'voter fraud'

Commentary I've copied before someone starts brushing this off talking about the legality of this:
The problem is that Trump is using voter rolls showing person A being on the roll in Alabama and Georgia at the same time as evidence of massive voter fraud. Or that person B died in 2015 but was still on the roll in 2016.

And it's actually not legal to be registered in two different states. You can only legally have 1 primary residence according the federal government. That's what voter registration goes off, where your primary residence is. The issue is that there's no requirement to inform your old municipality that you've moved away, or that your grandmother died. So those voter rolls don't get updated constantly, only audited infrequently based on if you've not voted in the last x# of elections.

That's how people end up on multiple voter rolls, or dead people showing up on them. As an example, lets say your state's policy is to automatically purge someone that hasn't voted in the last 2 general elections (because not voting in one may just mean you couldn't get off work or didn't like the candidates, skipping two shows that you don't actually want to vote or aren't there anymore and you'll have to re-register in order to vote there again) and the purge happens 2 years before the next one to give people who lapsed time to see and re-register, that's 10 years that a person could be on the rolls without even being alive or living there (say they voted in 2000, died or moved in 2002, obviously didn't vote there in 2004 or 2008, their name wouldn't be purged until 2010.

Trump's position is that that person dying in 2002 and still being on the rolls because the purge didn't happen until 2012 is evidence of fraud in the 2004 and 2008 elections because their name was still on there.

Using voter rolls as evidence of voter fraud is a huge issue because it undermines the process and is designed to plant doubt in the people's minds about how legitimate the process is. If he really thinks there was widespread voter fraud, his evidence should be voter tally's from the polling places showing that Person A was checked off as voting at polling place Y as well as polling place Z, or that Person B died in 2013 and was checked off as voting in 2016.
There is 0 evidence of that at all.
The standard players on here always make this comment in regards to democrats as if their **** don't stink - so I'll rebut: the hypocrisy on the right is ****ing staggering. If not moreso, then at least as equal as the left.

Trump Tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824227824903090176
I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and....
Wait, it gets better:

Tiffany Trump Is Currently Registered to Vote in Two States

Trump cabinet nominee Steven Mnuchin is also registered to vote in two states

SAD!
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
Betsy DeVoss for Education Secretary. Really? Rex Tillerson for SOS? We hate that professional politicians have ****ed up our government so lets put people that have absolutely zero experience in their place. Good idea.
I thought Betsy Devos was an excellent choice for education. She is actually very knowledgeable on the subject. She is a member of the Foundation for Excellence in Education and she has chaired the Alliance for School Choice. And she has been the primary defender of the Detroit charter school system. If you are against charter schools and school choice then you would be against her selection. But she has plenty of experience on the subject.

I'm not so sure about Rex Tillerson. He has a lot of international experience. I'm just not sure it the right kind of experience to be Secretary of State. But then again how much experience did Hillary Clinton have? Far less than Tillerson.

I've already posted links to a report that the DOJ refused to render assistance to and later sued Florida when they tried to clean up their voter registration system. While I do not think we have massive voter fraud we need to periodically clean up the list of registered voters. People die. People move. Just because someone is registered in two states doesn't mean fraud. I have moved around a lot and I have never once thought to notify the state I left that I shouldn't be registered there anymore. If they never cleaned up their list I could be registered in four or five states. But its not fraud because I have never voted in more than one at a time.

Brtnstrns, did you notify the Texas Voting Commission when you left Texas or are you registered in two states?

No one knows how much voter fraud exists. An investigation will let us know and it will let us clean up the voter registration lists. I don't see anything wrong with that.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Brtnstrns, did you notify the Texas Voting Commission when you left Texas or are you registered in two states?

No one knows how much voter fraud exists. An investigation will let us know and it will let us clean up the voter registration lists. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Of course not but that's kind of the point. The investigation will reveal that tens of millions of people are registered in multiple states and the dummies that read Trump's tweets and make the connection of "double registration = voter fraud" will decide that not only is voter fraud running rampant, it's five times worse than we ever even knew!!11!! Of course this means the elections are rigged but we showed them this time with God Emperor Trump!1!!1ll!!

Systems are already in place to purge these registries. They may not work as fast as some people would like and it's easy to for politicians to use those statistics to dupe the dummies into believing that a non-existent issue exists. But the fact remains that, for the most part, the systems are in place. But ya know, true bureaucracy - this kind of logistical **** takes time.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
If I were doing an investigation on voter fraud I would look at actual fraud. Dead people that voted after they died. People that are registered in multiple states that actually voted in multiple states. Non-citizens who actually voted. Being dead or having double registration doesn't mean anything by itself.

God Emperor Trump?:lmao:lmao:lmao

You made me choke on my soda. That stuff kind of burns when it comes out your nose.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
God Emperor Trump?:lmao:lmao:lmao

You made me choke on my soda. That stuff kind of burns when it comes out your nose.
Oh man, you haven't done nearly enough diving into the deepest corners of internet echo chambers if you think a silly liberal like myself came up with that title!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
I thought Betsy Devos was an excellent choice for education. She is actually very knowledgeable on the subject. She is a member of the Foundation for Excellence in Education and she has chaired the Alliance for School Choice. And she has been the primary defender of the Detroit charter school system. If you are against charter schools and school choice then you would be against her selection. But she has plenty of experience on the subject.
You're kidding me right?


John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
Very few people have had experience running a trillion dollar or even a billion dollar program. I've worked in government and was a part of a couple of $200-500 million dollar development programs. Just in case you don't know how it works. Secretaries set policy. The staff implement the policies according to law. None of the other Secretaries of Education had had any previous experience managing a trillion dollar budget. Duncan was the superintendent of Chicago public schools and King was a New York state education commissioner.

Warren seemed to be concerned about Trump University which wasn't a college or a university. But under the Obama Administration ITT Technical Institute did close. It's credits were not transferable and its students were left deeply in debt with no chance of getting a diploma. The University of Phoenix is probably the next one that is going to have problems.
ITT Tech closing all campuses

As I have pointed out the problem that Warren discussed does exist. It just didn't exist with Trump University. But that isn't the biggest scam in student loans. Students borrow far more than tuition. The university gives any excess to the student for books and living expenses. We have had groups of individuals enroll, attend the first class, get the money and run. We try to crack down on this but procedures are really only effective if they do not show up for the first class.

In the ITT case, it was pointed out that their students were older students. During the Great Recession as jobs were lost people were trying to pay bills and just survive. For some the only answer was student loans. Traditional students stayed in school working on a Masters getting deeper and deeper in debt. Non-traditional students who were displaced out of the workforce enrolled in college in large numbers. I had many of these students in my classes. Enrollment of both went up and people borrowed student loans just to live on. During the recovery enrollment dropped.

DeVoss was caught off guard by that question. It was obvious that it was outside of her experience but like all Secretaries she will have career bureaucrats handling the details. I do not know of any Secretary of Defense that knew how to pay soldiers or pay contractors for the aircraft that we bought. Yet soldiers and contractors are paid.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
Back on topic. I just read this study. It is far from conclusive but using the data submitted on anonymous surveys where 6.4% of non-citizens admitted that they voted in US elections. From that polling sample the researchers estimate that 834,381 non-citizens voted for Clinton in the last presidential election.
Hillary Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, bolsters Trump argument, study finds - Washington Times

Voter fraud is going on. No one knows how much. I do not have a problem with the federal and state governments working together to clean up our voter registration.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Honestly, I don't see why anyone cares about the popular vote.
I'm not sure either. I'd ask Trump if I ever got the opportunity.

Yes he lost the popular vote in an electoral college vote. It is 100% inaccurate for anyone to say or assume that if the vote was a popular vote (not electoral college) he would have lost. The only thing one can say is it's inconclusive.

The reason you cannot make any conclusion on who would have won a popular vote if it mattered is because it would change how people vote. Lets just look at California where the entire state is decided by the big cities and everyone knows it. What incentive is there for the conservative person living not on the coast of California to go out and vote? ZERO. They know the state is going blue for the president. For their local representatives there are two candidates running against each other who received the two most votes. So not only do they know the presidential vote will be blue, they are voting for one of two liberals. Under the electoral college, there's no incentive for a conservative to vote in California. So if you change the rules, how many conservatives in California actually go out and vote?

Just like in football, the person with the most yards at the end of the game doesn't win. If the rules change so the winner is determined by the most yards, you cannot conclude winners/losers from games established under old rules.

I honestly for the life of me cannot understand why people think the outcome of the popular vote means anything.
Concrete conclusions? No, but we can surely draw reasonable conclusions. I too wonder how many California republicans don't even bother to go to the polls. I also wonder how many liberals don't bother, fully aware that their state will be dominated by votes for the blue candidate. The country is still most populated in the coastal cities. If there is any change, it would negatively effect those in flyover country. The electoral college gives more weight to a vote in some states as opposed to others. Making everyone's vote equal only empowers us coasties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Concrete conclusions? No, but we can surely draw reasonable conclusions. I too wonder how many California republicans don't even bother to go to the polls. I also wonder how many liberals don't bother, fully aware that their state will be dominated by votes for the blue candidate. The country is still most populated in the coastal cities. If there is any change, it would negatively effect those in flyover country.
The point was that based off the popular vote you cannot make any conclusion on if Trump would have won or lost the popular vote if that's what mattered. I don't see that anything stated shows anything to the contrary. There's no disagreeing with me just to disagree here. All you can say is he lost the popular vote but it doesn't matter. You cannot extrapolate and say he wouldn't be president if it was based on popular vote.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
The point was that based off the popular vote you cannot make any conclusion on if Trump would have won or lost the popular vote if that's what mattered. I don't see that anything stated shows anything to the contrary. There's no disagreeing with me just to disagree here. All you can say is he lost the popular vote but it doesn't matter. You cannot extrapolate and say he wouldn't be president if it was based on popular vote.
To be clear, it doesn't matter, and I never said it did. I just find it funny that you're prancing around the idea that if the President was elected based on the popular vote, things would have swung his way despite A) a pretty significant popular vote loss and B) the fact that all signs point to a popular vote emboldening the votes of city dwellers, not those in flyover country. That's not some blind assumption. The whole ****ing point of the electoral college was to cede power from the population centers like California and New York and give the low density conservative states a voice. The probability is pretty damn high that baby hands would still lose the popular vote.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
The whole ****ing point of the electoral college was to cede power from the population centers like California and New York and give the low density conservative states a voice. The probability is pretty damn high that baby hands would still lose the popular vote.
California and political parties didn't exist when the electoral college was created. The electoral college was created to mirror Congress. It was states like New Jersey and Delaware that didn't want a Congress chosen by popular vote. They knew they would be ruled over by the more populated states like Virginia and Pennsylvania. They wanted each state to have equal representation in Congress. That didn't sit well with the more populated states. Connecticut, a middle size state, came up with the compromise that we have today, a House of Representatives chosen by popular vote and a Senate where each state is equal.
http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf

The electoral college is still benefiting Delaware which had a population of less than 1 million (2014). There are four blue (Democrat) states with the minimum electoral vote: Delaware, Washington D.C., Vermont and Maine (split but mostly blue). And there are five red (Republican) states with the minimum electoral vote: Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota. Counting up the states with 4 or less you get 7 blue and 6 red. But those states have very little electoral power compared to California's 55 electoral votes or Texas' 38. California is the 800 pound gorilla whether it be popular vote or electoral vote.
Election Results 2016
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
The whole ****ing point of the electoral college was to cede power from the population centers like California and New York and give the low density conservative states a voice. The probability is pretty damn high that baby hands would still lose the popular vote.
California and political parties didn't exist when the electoral college was created. The electoral college was created to mirror Congress. It was states like New Jersey and Delaware that didn't want a Congress chosen by popular vote. They knew they would be ruled over by the more populated states like Virginia and Pennsylvania. They wanted each state to have equal representation in Congress. That didn't sit well with the more populated states. Connecticut, a middle size state, came up with the compromise that we have today, a House of Representatives chosen by popular vote and a Senate where each state is equal.
http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf

The electoral college is still benefiting Delaware which had a population of less than 1 million (2014). There are four blue (Democrat) states with the minimum electoral vote: Delaware, Washington D.C., Vermont and Maine (split but mostly blue). And there are five red (Republican) states with the minimum electoral vote: Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota. Counting up the states with 4 or less you get 7 blue and 6 red. But those states have very little electoral power compared to California's 55 electoral votes or Texas' 38. California is the 800 pound gorilla whether it be popular vote or electoral vote.
Election Results 2016
I don't literally mean California, but the idea that the electoral college protects smaller, less populated states. We've had a Republican presidential candidate win the popular vote 1 time since 2000. It's clear as day that the electoral college as it stands today benefits the conservative cause. That doesn't make it obsolete or wrong. I completely support the current system over a popular vote, but it's clearly benefited one party over the other based on the current landscape of politics in this country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
I just find it funny that you're prancing around the idea that if the President was elected based on the popular vote, things would have swung his way despite
I'm sorry, WHAT??

I understand we don't agree on much. But honestly when I read things like this I wonder if you have trouble comprehending what's typed out. Please tell me where I stated things would have swung different because in the very first post I made this was my statement, "The only thing one can say is it's inconclusive"

That's not saying he would win, that's not saying he would lose, that's saying you cannot make a conclusion based on how it turned out in the current setup. The only way you take it the way you've taken it is if you take it personally and contort it to what you personally think I mean from the statement. Disagree with me about everything is fine. But to say I'm prancing around saying Trump would have won the popular election is wrong (because I've never said that and if you think so quote it) and terrible comprehension on your part. Now I remember why I don't come in here anymore to discuss anything.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
Voter fraud in Virginia. Virginia has removed over 5,500 ineligible registered voters from their voter registration lists and over 1800 of them actually voted. That is not enough to sway a national election (unless it was Florida which Bush won with a little over 400 votes) but it is enough to sway local elections.
Virginia Voter Fraud Report: Noncitizens Voted Illegally | National Review
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,183 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
I'm out of town for a bit but decided to browse the forum for a bit. The president made a claim of 3 to 5 million people(decent gap in between that number) voted fraudulently. I see a few coins have been thrown in that bucket since those claims were floated out. I guess I will check back in a few months to see if it eventually nears 3 to 5 million people as the bucket sits and there are numbers dropped in it over time.

Maybe the president will put out a report on it since he made the claim and end all speculation and people adding to the claim with some numbers here and there with quite a way to go. We should all know he has people on it and what type of people you say the best people and after his team of the best people finish with their finding he will release his findings on Twitter or maybe Myspace. Ha... Smh
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,527 Posts
I don't think so. I know for a fact that during the last election there was an attempt to disenfranchise Republican voters in Indiana. There have been news reports in many states about ineligible voters being registered. That needs to be cleaned up. And, there is evidence in several states of actual voter fraud. Not enough to sway a presidential election but enough to change the outcome of local elections which are just as important in many was as a presidential election.

From the reports that I have read it is easier to detect registration problems and illegal voting in some states than in others. Sitting here in the Midwest I wonder about California. California has a culture that welcomes illegals. I think it was the speaker there that said he has family members that are illegals. I have heard California politicians say that they should be able to vote in local elections.

This is also true of the attitude of many big city politicians. So it make me wonder how big the problem really is. There isn't any way of knowing until someone looks into it.
 
21 - 40 of 67 Posts
Top