Trump seeks a 'major investigation' into voter fraud

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click for alt.​

It's too early by a couple of standards. First is the simple idea that none of us have a good enough sample. Toward that end, though, there is talk about how much television the president watches. Yes, really.

This all looks really bad but what pretty much everyone is up against is the question of how many excuses we can afford to make while waiting how long to be just how certain, because once we do this every president will be fending off an Article XXV challenge.

The other standard is a professional one. This is the time for the television doctors like Keith Ablow, who have set aside professional ethics for the sake of money and fame, to begin speculating. I heard a swirling ghost of a whisper yesterday, and then came across the Washington Post’s right-wing blogger making the point by explicitly not invoking XXV.4↗.

But it's far too early for responsible professionals to start publicly speculating their distal diagnoses. I don't know if you recall former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) asserted to diagnose a vegetative patient by videotape in the middle of a political controversy. As political stunts go, it was pretty tasteless; that Sen. Frist is also a medical doctor only made it worse. That was beyond the pale.

Virtually nothing attending President Trump's ascent lacks the taint of illegitimacy; the great downfall everyone pretends to expect will reek even worse.

Hey, do you remember the time a guy pushed oil to break two hundred dollars a barrel, and the reason he did it was so that he could say he was the guy who did it? It's hard to imagine the mental health professional who wants to be the first loud, echoing pebble in the landslide that buries an empire; were I so credentialed, I would be very hesitant to risk that much until I was precisely certain, and that in turn is a steep, tall, massive standard. Nearly indescribable, almost unattainable, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

The question is how much damage he can do before that threshold is either fulfilled or set aside for the fact of that much damage.

Which, in turn, sounds bleak.

But never underestimate the crass masses. Like BuzzFeed. I mean, we all get why they posted the "dossier", but that does not automatically make it journalism.

The shitshow will be Donald Trump's undoing.

Spoiler

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alright Wellwisher... I'm formally calling you out on this.

You made several points, but included ZERO evidence... back them up.

1) Provide proof that there are "Democrat" specific voter rolls.
2) Provide proof that Democrats "resist removing the deceased from voter rolls".
3) Provide proof that anyone in the government with computer access could obtain the information required to submit an absentee ballot in someone else's name and that it would go undetected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey Wellwisher! Here's a great example of the honesty of conservatives:
============
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A man who President Donald Trump has promoted as an authority on voter fraud was registered to vote in multiple states during the 2016 presidential election, the Associated Press has learned.

Gregg Phillips, whose unsubstantiated claim that the election was marred by 3 million illegal votes was tweeted by the president, was listed on the rolls in Alabama, Texas and Mississippi, according to voting records and election officials in those states.

. . .

Reached by telephone Monday, Phillips said he was unaware of his multiple registrations but asked, "Why would I know or care?"

https://apnews.com/80497cfb5f054c9b8c9e0f8f5ca30a62

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

¿Forget All What?

So much for that, eh?

O'Reilly: Is there any validity to the criticism of you that you say things you can't back up factually, and as the president, if you say, for example, that there are 3 million illegal aliens who voted and then you don't have the data to back it up, some people are gonna say that it's irresponsible for a president to say that. Is there any validity to that?

Trump: Many people have come out and said I'm right. You know that.

O'Reilly: I know, but you've gotta have data to back that up.

Trump: Let me just tell you. And it doesn't have to do with the vote, although that's the end result. It has to do with the registration. And when you look at the registration and you see dead people that have voted, when you see people that are registered in two states that voted in two states, when you see other things, when you see illegals, people that are not citizens, and they're on the registration rolls. Look, Bill, we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, you have dead people, you have this. It's really a bad situation. It's really bad.

O'Reilly: So you think you're gonna be proven correct in that statement?

Trump: Well, I think I already have. A lot of people have come out and said that I am correct.

O'Reilly: But the data has to show that 3 million illegals voted.

Trump: Forget that. Forget all of that. Just take a look at the registration, and we're gonna do it, and I'm gonna set up a commission, to be headed by Vice President Mike Pence, and we're gonna look at it very, very carefully.

(via SB Nation↱)​

So here's the thing: When they run their investigation and find ill-maintained rolls and not much for fraud, what are they going to do? President Trump is already telling people to forget his bogus claims. To the one, we should accept that even he knows they're fake. To the other, do we really think the president is going to let us forget about his bogus claims?
____________________

Notes:

Ellenstuck, Matt. "Donald Trump Super Bowl interview transcript with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly". SB Nation. 5 February 2017. SBNation.com. 5 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2kIT24p

 

Oh so there

are no separate roll for Democrats, Republicans

and

Democrats don't oppose purging voting rolls of dead people,.....

but

object to voter suppression efforts

by

illegally purging voter rolls of people who are most likely to be Democrats

who they don't know if they are Democrats because there

are no separate roll for Democrats, Republicans

How does that work?

 

Because they are professional people who would steer well clear of making any comment based, on Twitter, TV news, newspaper or any other style of media

Or it just might be they don't see any problems

 

Bring in Dr Phil???

 

out of the billion of votes cast in the 15 years worth of national elections they have found like 31 instances of fraud. I'd write the percentage but i don't feel like typing that many zeros. to reiterate if you took every instance of voting fraud and put them in one election, in one polling precinct you might, operative word here being that might,be able to flip that precinct.

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

 

LOL...

It's actually pretty simple; one voter roll and party affiliation is just one attribute of the voter roll.

Look at a voter roll in your county. Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else are listed on the same voter roll.

What does

Yeah there are no separate voter rolls. Each voting location has one and only one voter roll and on that roll there is column to denote party affiliation. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand. No one said administrators don't know party affiliation. In some states party affiliation is necessary to conduct primary elections.

And I don't understand the rest of you post and how you think it makes sense. Voter suppression isn't confined to just one thing. Purging voter rolls of dead people isn't voter suppression because dead people don't vote. But purging people entitled to vote from the voter roll with specious and incorrect information is voter suppression as occurred in Florida. When you purge real voters without notification and without recourse, as happened in Florida, yeah that is voter suppression. When you make voting more difficult by putting polls in inaccessible places and placing polling in facilities not capable of handling the load, when you make it more difficult to register to vote, when you reduce the time allowed for voting, that's voter suppression, and all of that has occurred.

 

Really? You don't know? You register to vote through whichever state you live in. I live in Washington state, and the way we do it is that we send our voter registration into the County Auditor, who then issues our voter registration card.

The political parties often conduct primary elections, so most states ask voters to include their party affiliation or preference if they want to participate in those. (Tinkering with this is sometimes hilarious, because there was a year Republicans didn't want to be known as Republicans, so they listed themselves as "prefers GOP Party", which is funny because it means Republicans in the Evergreen state don't know their own party's nickname.)

Each state maintains its own voter rolls. And that's the thing about, say, what happened in Florida. They didn't so much maintain the voter roll as deliberately sabotage it. I mean, you've at least heard stories about, say, people getting detained at the airport for no reason, and it turns out that it wasn't even having the same name as a terrorist, but that their name looked and sounded kind of like a known terrorist. In the 2000 Florida purge, similar conditions applied. This person was apparently dead (strike; good check). This person is a felon (strike; good check). This person has the same name as the felon we just struck (strike; bad check). This person has a name that kind of sounds like that dead person over there (strike; bad check). And so on. And the result was clearly lopsided, and resulted in significantly more Democratic voters being struck from the rolls than the declared margin of victory.

I personally think Dr. Phil is a detriment to the human endeavor, and thus cannot help you.

 

In Australia this would be seen as a breach of anonymity laws. A private voter is compromised by having anything other than basic details lodged.
On our voter rolls are no indication of preference at all. The idea being to remove the potential of party interventions on voters using the electoral roll as a source.
The electoral roll has to be entirely non-political....and maintain voter privacy of vote.

Internal Party elections and leadership nominations are handled by the party process and not the federal or state election process.
The political teams are formed and then the country votes on the teams presented...

To have voter preference on the electoral rolls is hugely risky as it attracts potential corruption by breaching the secret ballot principle.
Voting is compulsory for all eligible adults in Australia. Fines apply for failure to vote.

 

I will double check just to be sure but I am fairly confident the voter rolls in Australia do not have a column to denote party affiliation

When you go to vote in Australia your name is cheçked at a polling location where the official draws a small line between the two dots which are level with your name

I'm guessing the line is read by computer when the page is fed through a scanner for counting purposes

We do not have to show identification

I guess I could go to another polling station and vote using my mates name because I know he doesn't vote

Or vote with the name of a dead person who I know somehow is still on the roll

Not sure if individual parties have list showing voter affiliation

Some other person does on their behalf

Having said that I doubt the number would reach into the millions or even the hundreds

There have been cases where some people have obtained identification material using names of young persons who have died

Mostly this has been for obtained a benefit from the Govenment

 

I did not know that but being Australian I had never taken note of the US voting system until now

Even so I still didn't know of that quirk in your system

Sounds weird to me

Stranger still

Now we are definitely not in Kansas

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL...Well, I'm pretty sure Australians don't vote in American elections and aren't on American voting rolls.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And we are talking about American elections here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you are an Australian, you blokes can do your elections any way you want. That's not how it is done in the US. US voter rolls are purged of dead people. But people die all the time; so there will always be dead people on voter rolls. Now if you want to run the risk of a felony conviction just to cast one extra vote, well that's your decision. But I think the cost reward for most people just isn't there and that's why the record of dead people voting is virtually nil.

Voting has been studied extensively in the US. Republicans have gone to great extremes to investigate voter fraud and after spending much money and time investigating voter fraud, they have found virtually nothing. The few cases the did find were where on person voted for other family members resulting in 2 or 3 extra votes being placed, and in another case a guy voted in two states because he owned land in two states. By the way, he was a Republican. He wasn't an illegal alien.

 

I'll take your word for all of that

 

In an anthropological or, at the very least, societal context by which we look at the sum of what "Americans" do and have done, it is no coincidence that traditional norms of honor and decency are now so challenged by a declining traditional political influence that has for so long enjoyed undue traditional privilege.

The more complicated part is trying to figure out why so many American voters are willing to buy in. The conflation of social and economic issues, in the context of certain voter blocs feeling left behind or abandoned, presents certain historical challenges; in truth, ego defense is a major influence in what is happening.

But it's kind of like the idea of how nobody really likes "attorneys". Except, well, lots of people pretend to like prosecutors. And when it's our turn to square off against prosecutors, people really like defense lawyers who know how to fight in those ways we always complain about; that is to say, sharks are bad, except for my shark. Generally speaking, there are approximate norms that attorneys follow, and they allow for a good deal of sharking, and if people think defense attorneys are sharks, they love themselves a ferocious and predatory prosecutor. Even still, there are valences that are just beyond the pale. And like we see in certain legal arguments, conservatives are just getting stupid. Mat Staver is astounding until we accustom ourselves to the idea that one creates a lot of noise in order to try to assert, "Look, your honor, it's a squeaky wheel, a whole lotta noise, there must be something there; it's time to change your mind and allow our complaints." (Similarly, there was an occasion after the infamous Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during a sporting event that reporters investigating how those complaints came about discovered that over ninety percent of the content complaints were coming from a limited number of organized communmication trees within Christianist organizations. They were making a lot of noise in order to say there was a lot of noise, and the FCC fell for it time and again over the years.)

Republicans are navigating traditionally forbidden waters; their essential reason for this breach of decency is a nihilistic notion of questioning everything. In the end, with no psychomoral anchor of function, their political theses have no inherent connection other than the sentiments of the advocates. Thus they unironically complain loudly about this, that, or the other while going out of their way to empower it. But now that they find their backs against the wall, the quickest route they can perceive is the indecency of subversion; if we attend the old Cold War division by which liberals were alleged to be Communists and conservatives spoke for American "capitalism" (i.e., Machiavellianism in a capitalist framework as political theory), we ought not be surprised that Republicans will burrow so low in pursuit of profit (i.e., "electoral currency", more commonly known as "votes") as to attack the market structure itself.

Conservative democracy means we are all free to agree to do things their way or we will not do anything at all.

And the Republican Party is pulling some desperate monkeys from their asses in pursuit of their right to a permanent conservative electoral majority.

The sad thing is that they aren't smart enough to recognize that there will always be conservatives. It's not like conservative politics disappear entirely if they don't get their permanent freedom to subjugate everyone else.

 

Voluntary public participation must surely be hampered by the lack of a "secret ballot" where anonymity is assured?

I for one would be less inclined to vote if I knew my preference was already established. The electoral role could be used as a weapon against any identified grouping.

If a truly secret vote system was installed I would imagine participation levels would improve thus allowing the outcome to be more reflective of a broader community.
To me it is little wonder that the USA system is so confrontational and divisive... 'tis obvious...even...

 

I would put it down to the various was Americans isolate themselves and play the victim

The most obvious example would be the AfricanAmerican a country I am unable to find on any map

Now quiet at the back I understand the argument they are referring to the cultural aspects

Which still begs the questions

• Why is Africa first?
• Does not Africa have countries with comprable systems to America?

Stand up for where you LIVE or if you don't like the system actively work to change it explaining why your system would be better

 

Uh, hello? That was the point. The slaves - unlike any other immigrants - lost track of their origins, their home culture, their home languages, all of it. It was deliberately destroyed, by the slave marketers and owners, in a variety of ways (separating co-tribal people, punishing non-English speech, etc). The only origin they had, finally, was a continent. That is what the name refers to - rather pointedly.
I don't like its PC function either, but it makes perfect sense.

There are many ways to arrange a purge of the registered voting rolls so that more legitimate voters from one Party are purged than from the other. It's a statistical game - the Republicans (who are the people doing this) know where Democrats are more likely to live and vote, what names they are more likely to have, and so forth.

So if a Mike Brown from inner city Detroit has committed a felony and may not vote, the "Crosscheck" system recently put in place by Republican State administrations in many States can arrange to purge every combination of Mike or Michael with Brown or Browne from every heavily black voting precinct in every State that signed on to it. Along the way they may knock out a few Republican voters - but what are the odds?

And that is just the beginning of the voter suppressions and electoral riggings employed in the last few election cycles, pretty much all by Republicans.

 

Agreed

The name refers to a continent which does not exist, ie AfricaAmerica?

Not a cultural heritage link?

OK if you say so

My knowledge in that arena is lacking

Can you help me with this please?

How many of those who identify as AfricanAmerican are original reluctant immigrants and how many are 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc descendants?

Again I take your word of the above