-
"Don't I need to show you some proof of citizenship?" I asked. She replied "no." I asked her how she could verify that I wasn’t lying. Sensing she might be on a slippery slope, she called over a supervisor from the Registrar's Office and told the woman of my concern. The official told me they never checked citizenship status because I would be penalized if I lied. Really? So I asked her how she would verify my truthfulness, or those of the dozens of new voters being registered that day. Defensively, she replied that they checked all registrations for accuracy at the Registrar's Office when they were turned in.
I called the Registrar Monday, and asked if they do indeed verify citizenship status. I was told that they didn't unless someone made a specific complaint against an individual applicant.
The brutal truth is that illegal aliens vote, and in large numbers. Voter fraud is not exclusive to illegal aliens. There are also legal aliens (green card, H1B visas, tourist visa holders, etc.) who vote illegally. And it's not just Latin Americans. The non-citizen demographic includes South Asian tech workers, Irish overstays, West and Horn of Africa immigrants, and Asian students. Then there are dual-state voters (college kids, snowbirds, transients), reincarnated voters, and un-purged voters long moved from their precincts.
In fact, numerous studies document the fraud that these politicians and their media votaries consciously ignore or derisively rebut. A well researched report on illegal alien voting in my home state of Virginia revealed more than a thousand illegal alien registrants in just eight counties. It did not include the two most populous, of which one, Fairfax County, is a de facto sanctuary county, and the very county described in the opening paragraphs of this article. Extrapolate those eight Virginia county totals to the whole state, and then to the entire United States, including states like California where no illegal alien controls exist, and you can see that President Trump's claims are not so frivolous.
The effects of turning a blind eye to this felonious voter fraud? Virginia was once a solid red state. Once the illegal alien invasion hit the state in full flood after 2004, (thanks in part to Republican amnesty advocate George Bush's indifference to the tsunami) it became a blue state.
The margin of Hillary Clinton's victory over Donald Trump in Virginia was almost entirely her margin in Fairfax County, where illegals have sanctuary and are protected by a solidly Democrat government. In five recent statewide elections, the Republican margin of defeat - Cuccinelli for Governor (vs. McAuliffe), Gillespie for Senate (vs. Warner), Allen for Senate (vs. Webb), and two Attorneys General - was almost certainly the result of illegal voting.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/heres-why-voter-fraud-so-difficult-fight
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Extrapolate those eight Virginia county totals to the whole state, and then to the entire United States, including states like California where no illegal alien controls exist, and you can see that President Trump's claims are not so frivolous.
Extrapolating those 8 counties for illegals is a case of taking the maths you like and exploding them to support your argument. Without providing all the numbers, you just make a straw man in the shape you want.
Here's another one:
Using 1000 per 8 counties is 125 per county
3144 counties in the USA
Total is 393,000 - so let's say 400,000 illegal alien registrants (not voters) in the USA.Even if the maths was accurate (and based on that sample size, it can't be) that is a factor of ten smaller than Trump's 3-5 million.
And that's only registrants - doesn't even tally those who actually voted.
If hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens voted, and THEN hundreds of thousands of "college kids, snowbirds, transients" and others voted, effectively the entire system - including both the Democrat and Republican monitors at polling stations - have failed.
So its really a crap shoot as to who benefits.
The results are in. Trump won. Move on.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Extrapolate those eight Virginia county totals to the whole state, and then to the entire United States, including states like California where no illegal alien controls exist, and you can see that President Trump's claims are not so frivolous.
Extrapolating those 8 counties for illegals is a case of taking the maths you like and exploding them to support your argument. Without providing all the numbers, you just make a straw man in the shape you want.
Here's another one:
Using 1000 per 8 counties is 125 per county
3144 counties in the USA
Total is 393,000 - so let's say 400,000 illegal alien registrants (not voters) in the USA.Even if the maths was accurate (and based on that sample size, it can't be) that is a factor of ten smaller than Trump's 3-5 million.
And that's only registrants - doesn't even tally those who actually voted.
If hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens voted, and THEN hundreds of thousands of "college kids, snowbirds, transients" and others voted, effectively the entire system - including both the Democrat and Republican monitors at polling stations - have failed.
So its really a crap shoot as to who benefits.
The results are in. Trump won. Move on.
Yup. Lots of doubt.... best they have an investigation to clarify then...
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Yup. Lots of doubt.... best they have an investigation to clarify then...
Yes.
If we now categorise "doubt" as:
"an article on an amateur conservative website"
and / or
"the bullshitting of a random Aussie guy on a Kiwi rugby website, about flawed mathematical technique", then sure.But why waste taxpayer money when the heavy lifting has already been done?
28 things to remember about Trump’s ‘investigation into voter fraud’
President Trump announced on Twitter on Wednesday morning that he will launch an investigation to prove that there was, despite your naysaying, a wolf.
A few things to keep in mind.
-
It’s likely that those tweets make more sense read in reverse. We will strengthen up voting procedures if there is rampant voter fraud, so we will now look for rampant voter fraud.
-
Stronger voting procedures generally means voter ID laws aimed at in-person voting fraud. Those laws disproportionately affect the poor, the elderly and people of color — groups that often overlap with Democratic voters.
Link to Details -
A study from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that new voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee reduced the total vote in those states in 2012 by 100,000 votes. Most affected? Young people, black people and newly registered voters.
Link to Details -
Trump began talking about the possibility of the 2016 election being affected by voter fraud before the election even happened. At the time he first mentioned it, in Pennsylvania in early October, he trailed Hillary Clinton both nationally and in that state. He told an audience that the only way he would lose Pennsylvania was if fraud occurred.
Link to Details -
He won Pennsylvania.
-
In fact, Pennsylvania itself tried to crack down on voter fraud under a previous Republican governor. In defense of a law implemented before the 2012 election, the state filed a brief with the court acknowledging that there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”
Link to Details -
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Multiple investigations of the extent of in-person voter fraud — someone showing up to vote fraudulently — have found that it’s not a significant problem.
-
One study found 31 credible incidents of fraud out of 1 billion votes cast over a decade nationally.
Link to Details -
Last year, given the attention being paid to fraud by a major-party candidate, research was done to evaluate the extent of fraud in the 2016 election.
-
Researchers from Dartmouth looked for statistical fingerprints of fraud, comparing vote totals to county deaths and noncitizen populations. They found no evidence that either noncitizens or the dead were casting illegal votes.
Link to Details -
The report put it bluntly: “Voter fraud concerns fomented by the Trump campaign are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 presidential election.”
-
Those two possibilities — voting by noncitizens or the dead — have been highlighted in the past by Trump as evidence of rampant fraud, and are the two examples he uses in his tweets.
-
Those who claim that noncitizens vote regularly often point to a study that purported to show that 14 percent of noncitizens in the United States were registered to vote. That study was thoroughly rebutted last year. The apparent voting was, it seems, a function of errors in measurement.
Link to Details -
Claims that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election are largely rooted in one tweet from one guy who made the claim shortly after Election Day. He has offered no evidence to support the claim, and a voter protection organization with which he’s affiliated has declined to do so as well.
Link to Details -
The dead-people-voting idea is one rooted in the popular imagination, certainly, but those who argue that it’s a rampant problem usually point to a 2012 study from Pew Trusts pointing out that the nation’s voter rolls are often out-of-date and include hundreds of thousands of dead people.
Link to Details -
Which is not to say that 1) those registrations are used to cast votes or 2) that they were used to cast votes in the 2016 election. After Trump began hammering this drum, one of the authors of the study stated explicitly that there was “zero evidence of fraud” in this election.
Link to Details -
That’s not exactly true. We looked for media reports of fraud after the election and found that it did exist.
-
We found four incidents.
Link to Details -
Two of the four were Trump voters, who cited Trump’s claims of fraud as their excuse. One was not a federal election. One was a Republican election judge who cast a ballot for her dead husband.
-
The National Association of Secretaries of State — an organization of the elected officials responsible for conducting elections at the state level — released a statement saying that it was “not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”
-
The majority of those secretaries of state, by the way, are Republican.
-
Another significant body argued in a legal briefing that the 2016 election was free from significant fraud: the Trump campaign.
-
In a response to efforts to recount ballots in Michigan, Trump’s lawyers wrote that “all available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.”
Link to Details -
A presidential investigation into voter fraud has been conducted before. George W. Bush enacted one when he was president. After five years of looking, it found “virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections,” in the words of the New York Times.
Link to Details -
Trump’s press secretary said Tuesday that Trump believed in voter fraud in the 2016 election because of “studies and evidence.” Those have not been presented, nor have any observers seen them.
-
That Trump focuses on the possibility of 3 million fraudulent ballots indicates another motivation for his raising the issue: His 2.9 million vote loss to Hillary Clinton. There may, in other words, be a personal political motivation for making these claims.
-
The last time Trump embarked on a thorough investigation, it was for personal political purposes.
-
His investigatory team failed to find evidence that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States. But by then, the damage had been done.
-
-
so much denial, ha. A lot of those points are very weak. It wouldn't hurt to make a full investigation. You know the saying, you can tell you're over the target by the amount of flak. Trump has hit a winner in this strategy.
Here's one for Shady Gollum. Same dishonest tactics as he tried earlier in the thread.
ABC deletes Trump’s March for Life reference in its online transcript
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/27/abc-deletes-donald-trump-march-life-reference-its-/
following another's example...
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
so much denial, ha. A lot of those points are very weak. It wouldn't hurt to make a full investigation. You know the saying, you can tell you're over the target by the amount of flak. Trump has hit a winner in this strategy.
By all means, ignore the points WP have put up. Maybe you don't like the content. Maybe you don't like the source (just don't accuse anyone of not having an open mind, right?)
Go to the links, and the corresponding studies. Find flaws in their arguments. Trump's team hasn't by the looks of things. Republicans certainly aren't supporting the prospect of mass voter fraud. Even Paul Ryan has said so. The NASS aren't supporting it, either. Fact.
So again - in the face of GOP principles for smaller government, more efficiency, and personal responsibility - why waste the money?
Maybe... Just maybe we shouldn't be looking at GOP principles, because Trump is the one to make serious change, and drain the swamp, and actually stands apart from all those party lines?!! He alone will lift humanity above petty squabbles into a new age...
-
So ultimately US consumers will pay for the wall by paying higher prices to cover import tariffs in order to make the Mexicans pay for the wall.
Add in scrapping of the TPPA (grrr) and threatened renegotiation of seemingly every trade deal under the sun, and this is starting to look like a building a set of economic policies that Fortress NZ and Sir Robert Muldoon would have been very proud of.
Short term it'll look great with loudly shouted headlines of X number of jobs repatriated by company Y etc. In the long run I suspect someone else will have to clear up the mess of relatively lower US domestic consumption based on higher prices and a range of subsequent flow on effects. The US does have a huge domestic market to work with unlike Muldoon, but the rest of the world won't be standing still either.
Beyond the sabre rattling in the South China Sea, I suspect the people who are really delighted are the Chinese. Given they generally take a much longer horizon to politics and the economy than "look what Trump has done in one week!", "Look at the Dow Jones!" they'll be rubbing their hand with glee at countries dependent on exports to the US now looking even more to the next biggest game in town - and China will be looking to the long term possibilities and advantages.
As for Mexico, it sounds like their dependency on exports to the US is roughly similar to NZ having almost all export eggs in the UK basket prior to the UK joining the Common Market. Short run pain for Mexico is inevitable, but in the long run both Mexico and the USA might find out that the USA is still a huge deal... but isn't the only game in town.
-
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
So ultimately US consumers will pay for the wall by paying higher prices to cover import tariffs in order to make the Mexicans pay for the wall.
Add in scrapping of the TPPA (grrr) and threatened renegotiation of seemingly every trade deal under the sun, and this is starting to look like a building a set of economic policies that Fortress NZ and Sir Robert Muldoon would have been very proud of.
Short term it'll look great with loudly shouted headlines of X number of jobs repatriated by company Y etc. In the long run I suspect someone else will have to clear up the mess of relatively lower US domestic consumption based on higher prices and a range of subsequent flow on effects. The US does have a huge domestic market to work with unlike Muldoon, but the rest of the world won't be standing still either.
Beyond the sabre rattling in the South China Sea, I suspect the people who are really delighted are the Chinese. Given they generally take a much longer horizon to politics and the economy than "look what Trump has done in one week!", "Look at the Dow Jones!" they'll be rubbing their hand with glee at countries dependent on exports to the US now looking even more to the next biggest game in town - and China will be looking to the long term possibilities and advantages.
As for Mexico, it sounds like their dependency on exports to the US is roughly similar to NZ having almost all export eggs in the UK basket prior to the UK joining the Common Market. Short run pain for Mexico is inevitable, but in the long run both Mexico and the USA might find out that the USA is still a huge deal... but isn't the only game in town.
What?
That is some A Grade wishful thinking on behalf of Mexico. -
I never said they weren't in big trouble in the short run....
-
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
I never said they weren't in big trouble in the short run....
I know.... it was the long run optimism.
-
I can't figure Mexico's options out either, but then we took a while. I'm fuzzy on my trade history, but arguably it was 20 years before we recovered from our overreliance on exports to the UK? (And other shocks around the time in the mix). Mexico is a tough one to figure out given they'd need China to make one heck of s shift towards a consumption driven economy before they can send their lower ost manufacturing products there.
From a US point of view there's a range of reasons they started losing their manufacturing off shore... can a golden manufacturing/onshoring age really be brought back to America (First), or is it just holding back the tide until the pressures build up and a Rogernome takes over?
Mexico did have some somewhat reasonable economies nearby to do more trade with... until the likes of Chavez fucked them up...
-
This side of things may start to get interesting as the Trump administration develops (the word was interesting, not earth shattering or a huge challenge to All Hail Trump's reign before people on both sides get too excited).
Employers are often the biggest beneficiaries of skilled migration, though for a range of reasons they are usually silent on the public debate that surrounds immigration.
-
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
From a US point of view there's a range of reasons they started losing their manufacturing off shore... can a golden manufacturing/onshoring age really be brought back to America (First), or is it just holding back the tide until the pressures build up and a Rogernome takes over?
I think the latter is nigh impossible in the traditional sense. What the US needs to do is look at onshore companies who aren't just cranking out the same old stuff, but doing something different. Something where superior QA is going to set them apart. That might need government subsidy but it could stabilise their domestic situation, get some jobs going again and make them overwhelmingly a net exporter.
Infrastructure is probably going to be a massive stimulus, and has the extra positive effect of helping underpin further productivity. Even moreso if they're not giving the work to offshore companies
I think a bigger issue is to tackle the financial sector as it relates to housing. That can take some pressure off the citizenry while at the same time giving them jobs to pay for that housing.
On a loosely related measure: implement housing efficiency legislation. The US can put in a hell of a lot of work on better construction practice during this reform, and lower their emissions while they're at it. Then they become a hub for exporting those products to the region.
They become internally stable with construction industries right across both domestic and industrial levels, give themselves an economic kick in the guts, and advance a range of technologies to do it.
If Trump masters that kind of thing, no-one will care that the top end of town are still making gazillions.
-
@NTA I got bored half way through but gave you a like because that is a very thorough looking post! ;). Seriously though, I'd imagine that most illegals would be far more concerned with staying under the radar than risking exposure by casting a vote.
-
Good to see President Trump continuing to keep his promises.
Interestingly - 6 of the 7 countries on the Trump's ban list permanently disallow Israelis from their countries. (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan Syria and Yemen).
And Obama had a 6 month Iraq refugee ban in 2011.
Different times, different measures.
-
If USA wants to ban certain nationalities temporarily, whatever. If they're worried about terrorism in the US, Saudi Arabia should really be on that list as well, but this is a good PR move for his base.
Signing such an order without an exception for current visa holders, especially residence visa holders (green cards) is terrible.
US Politics