Massive voter fraud in the US - where's the investigation?

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

I love how liberals proclaim an issue settled, when it’s never even been studied.

I linked to the studies already.

@adaher

They just assume the hypothesis, that voter fraud isn’t a problem, and then whenever researchers find voter fraud, they attempt to debunk the research, while still not doing any of their own.

You are not even wrong.

The actual timeline (that you are missing, yet another item I notice with many conservatives), : is like this

=> Original research finds a discrepancy that the authors think it is biased.
=> The 2014 team grabs it (so much for original research, this is more like the research of climate change deniers that abuse the data from other researchers) and makes what turned to be a garbage conclusion (even debunked by the election of 2014) because:
=> The original researches were real ones and did not let that clear biased data to just stand there, they did go to check properly if the ones interviewed early were indeed illegal and that they did vote. Virtually nothing was found to be illegal.
=>And now we get even more GIGO from the right wing sources of information.

@adaher

That’s not how the scientific method works. No research has even attempted to find out what the level of voter fraud is. Except for of course the ones cited, but since those have been debunked, can’t anyone point me to a study on voter fraud that purports to show that there is very little?

:rolleyes:

Can you explain why is that the original researchers (not the abusers of data from 2014) confirming that the original data was flawed and finding better information and numbers obtained does not = voter fraud study that shows that there is very little of it?

[Buck_Godot]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

Also, we know certain individuals linked to the Democratic Party have recently stated they help facilitate voter fraud.

I admit that I’m coming to the party late, I’ve skimmed the thread and haven’t found anything related to this so called Democratic Party facilitating voter fraud. Is this still about the totally debunked ACORN allegations or some other story. I could probably track down what he’s referring to, but it’s Saturday morning my coffee hasn’t kicked in and I’m feeling lazy. Can one of you guys help a brother out and link to what Fuzzy Wuzzy’s on about?

[GIGObuster]

@Buck_Godot

I admit that I’m coming to the party late, I’ve skimmed the thread and haven’t found anything related to this so called Democratic Party facilitating voter fraud. Is this still about the totally debunked ACORN allegations or some other story. I could probably track down what he’s referring to, but it’s Saturday morning my coffee hasn’t kicked in and I’m feeling lazy. Can one of you guys help a brother out and link to what Fuzzy Wuzzy’s on about?

Remember the bad penny? here is another one: weasel James O’keefe is the common denominator with ACORN, the issue there and many others!

Only one correction here: the operatives targeted by O’keefe were in Florida not New York .

James O'Keefe's October Surprise Shows He's Still A Hack, Not A Journalist

Project Veritas released a video purporting to show “the ‘misogynistic’ nature of the Hillary Clinton campaign and its organizers, who joke about sexually harassing women and committing voter fraud on the campaign.” The six-and-a-half-minute video features heavily edited undercover footage of two field organizers with the Florida Democratic Party – not the Clinton presidential campaign – making out-of-context statements about “acceptable conduct” on “this campaign” and about “the ballots.”

The only context provided to viewers about the discussions is provided by Project Veritas text, not by video. O’Keefe repeatedly compares the out-of-context footage of low-level field staffers to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s 2005 hot mic comments describing sexual assault. All three staffers shown by name in the video identify themselves on their LinkedIn accounts as field organizers for the Florida Democratic Party, not the Clinton campaign. A search of the Federal Election Commission database returned no results indicating any of the three staffers have been paid directly by the Clinton campaign in 2015 or 2016.

Like the flawed study of 2014 one can notice what for many it is a red flag: That conservatives are relying on crappy and few “original” sources to make their points. In scientific terms they could not be more biased and flawed in their logic because IMHO there would be no need to grasp at those straws if the data and evidence overwhelmingly supported their points.

[Buck_Godot]

Thanks, so there is evidence that Democrats facilitated voter fraud in the same way that this post is evidence that the Democratic party thinks that women hate babies.

[ThelmaLou]

This is the most important thing:

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

What sometimes gets lost is that “voter fraud” is generally being used as an excuse for voter suppression. If we do a study before instituting additional measures that suppress the vote, I’m not too upset about that (reserving judgment for biased studies, flawed studies, studies that through their investigation intimidate legitimate voters, etc.)

But the general approach up to this point has been, “We don’t know if it’s a problem, so let’s (heh heh) tighten up the voting system.” That’s what’s bogus.

Yes, there is likely voter fraud on some minimal level. The voting process is handled by human beings with the help of machines that were built by human beings.

All of that is neither here nor there.

The point is that the Republicans are blowing up the whole voter fraud into this absurd monster that did what-- ELECTED DONALD TRUMP?? WTF?? The man WON. What possible reason could there be to dwell on this issue??

Oh yeah: now they have an excuse to go through voter registrations, residency claims, i.d.s, local polling practices with a fucking fine-toothed comb and make it impossible for a Democrat ever to get elected again!

Trump WON, so why spend $$$ on investigation of voter fraud? To suppress Democratic voters in the future! Open your eyes and get a clue!

[Johnny_Ace]

@adaher

I love how liberals proclaim an issue settled, when it’s never even been studied. They just assume the hypothesis, that voter fraud isn’t a problem, and then whenever researchers find voter fraud, they attempt to debunk the research, while still not doing any of their own.

That’s not how the scientific method works. No research has even attempted to find out what the level of voter fraud is. Except for of course the ones cited, but since those have been debunked, can’t anyone point me to a study on voter fraud that purports to show that there is very little?

Hahaha. Please outline the ‘scientific method’ involved in claiming 3 to 5 million illegal votes.

[drad_dog]

I say we end voter fraud and also end voter suppression, and see how it plays out. Just for the sake of democracy is all.

[Czarcasm]

@drad_dog

I say we end voter fraud and also end voter suppression, and see how it plays out. Just for the sake of democracy is all.

End the imaginary problem and the real one? Sounds fair to me

[HurricaneDitka]

@drad_dog

I say we end voter fraud and also end voter suppression, and see how it plays out. Just for the sake of democracy is all.

ISTM that any steps taken to end voter fraud get labeled as voter suppression and anything the other side does to end suppression will be labeled as enabling fraud.

[CarnalK]

@HurricaneDitka

ISTM that any steps taken to end voter fraud get labeled as voter suppression and anything the other side does to end suppression will be labeled as enabling fraud.

You know what? From the non hyper partisan viewpoint, there’s plenty of uncontroversial things that could be done. Do you think a law forcing or encouraging states to share their voter databases, in order to removal double registration, would be greeted by howls of outrage? If a voter ID law was coupled with an explicitly budgeted and spelled out plan to get IDs for everyone then don’t you think that would soften lefty critcism?

[ThelmaLou]

@CarnalK

You know what? From the non hyper partisan viewpoint, there’s plenty of uncontroversial things that could be done. Do you think a law forcing or encouraging states to share their voter databases, in order to removal double registration, would be greeted by howls of outrage? If a voter ID law was coupled with an explicitly budgeted and spelled out plan to get IDs for everyone then don’t you think that would soften lefty critcism?

The Republicans are not interested in cleaning up voter fraud. Because there isn’t enough “voter fraud” to bother with. There were NOT three million fraudulent votes in the recent election. Do you seriously believe this is even a remote possibility? Of course not. No sensible person with half a functioning brain could possibly think there were THREE MILLION illegal votes.

The Republicans only want an excuse to “investigate” this bogus bullshit with the ultimate goal to suppress Democratic votes. No. Other. Reason. Period.

[HurricaneDitka]

@CarnalK

Do you think a law forcing or encouraging states to share their voter databases, in order to removal double registration, would be greeted by howls of outrage?

Not sure. I would hope not, but I’ve been surprised at what the left has howled with outrage about before, so I’ve quit trying to guess what might upset them.

@CarnalK

If a voter ID law was coupled with an explicitly budgeted and spelled out plan to get IDs for everyone then don’t you think that would soften lefty critcism?

Perhaps (see above), although I suspect that whatever level of funding Republicans deemed appropriate, Dems would deem insufficient.

[CarnalK]

@ThelmaLou

The Republicans are not interested in cleaning up voter fraud. Because there isn’t enough “voter fraud” to bother with. There were NOT three million fraudulent votes in the recent election. Do you seriously believe this is even a remote possibility? Of course not. No sensible person with half a functioning brain could possibly think there were THREE MILLION illegal votes.

The Republicans only want an excuse to “investigate” this bogus bullshit with the ultimate goal to suppress Democratic votes. No. Other. Reason. Period.

That may be the thinking of some Republicans, particularly politicians looking to protect their advantages, however I would suggest you don’t assume every Republican here thinks that. I think it’s a little misguided but I’m sure some people honestly feel this is a problem paying attention to.

[ThelmaLou]

@CarnalK

That may be the thinking of some Republicans, particularly politicians looking to protect their advantages, however I would suggest you don’t assume every Republican here thinks that. I think it’s a little misguided but I’m sure some people honestly feel this is a problem paying attention to.

Let me clarify: I certainly don’t think every Republican here (at SDMB) thinks that, or even every Republican everywhere. I was referring specifically to the Republican Congressional leadership, especially, but not limited to Ryan and McConnell.

I hope with all of my being that there are still some moderate, non-extremist, level-headed Republicans in Congress who are capable of putting country before party… AND that they soon stick their heads above the crowd and make their opinions known. I know they aren’t encouraged to think for themselves, but I do have hope. A little.

[E-DUB]

Thelma Lou wrote: “I hope with all of my being that there are still some moderate, non-extremist, level-headed Republicans in Congress who are capable of putting country before party…”

I think there are, but for the most part they’ve got their fingers in their ears and are making loud noises to drown out…the other loud noises.

[drad_dog]

@HurricaneDitka

ISTM that any steps taken to end voter fraud get labeled as voter suppression and anything the other side does to end suppression will be labeled as enabling fraud.

You don’t need to try too hard to end something that is a blip and inconsequential, which is what voter fraud is. So there won’t be that much to bitch about.

To try to peg them as the same, qualitatively and/or quantitatively is trolling the political system.

Hey let’s get rid of that too.

[drad_dog]

Nobody mentions the boy crying wolf effect of don the con talking about 3 million dead people voting. It is really giving a bad name to voter fraud concerns that other people might have; Bad name to the presidency; the rebumkiss party; and conservatives who can’t resist the bait of piling on. Sad.

[ThelmaLou]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

What sometimes gets lost is that “voter fraud” is generally being used as an excuse for voter suppression. If we do a study before instituting additional measures that suppress the vote, I’m not too upset about that (reserving judgment for biased studies, flawed studies, studies that through their investigation intimidate legitimate voters, etc.)

But the general approach up to this point has been, “We don’t know if it’s a problem, so let’s (heh heh) tighten up the voting system.” That’s what’s bogus.

More on this. In case anyone still doesn’t get it.

…So why does Trump continue to make such claims [voter fraud] when they have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false, even by members of his own party? Simple: Because claims of voter fraud offer a seemingly legitimate justification for enacting restrictive voting laws that have the effect of making it harder for people to vote, particularly people of color who are statistically likely to vote for Democrats.

In places like my home state of North Carolina, unproven and unspecific allegations of voter fraud formed the basis for sweeping legislation that placed onerous restrictions on voting. The new law required voters to provide a state-issued identification to cast a ballot, limited the number of early voting days and eliminated same-day voter registration. In North Carolina and elsewhere, these kinds of restrictions have a documented disproportionate effect on voters of color, particularly African American voters. In other words, widespread allegations of voter fraud provide a vehicle to do indirectly what cannot legally be done directly anymore — limit the number of voters of color who turn out at the polls…

Cite

And those voters tend to be Democrats.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@k9bfriender

Oh, and came across this. Wasn’t even looking for it, but as soon as I saw it, I thought of you.

You may find it informative, as using that edited video of yours is promoting fake news.

I do wonder if you knew you were spreading misinformation (I am sorry, alternative facts), or if you were taken in by it yourself.

She was apparently talking about legal citizens who could vote, but had family members who were not legal. She was concerned that, should they vote (completely legally), then there would be retaliation against their families.

I’m going to just make this a note. But the whole ‘alternative facts’ thing is considered an accusation of lying. Please don’t do it again.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

This is so ridiculous it gets you honorable mention in the hall of infamy. Back in post #161, I successfully predicted the future and wrote a note, just for you. Here’s what it said:

You didn’t instantly think of me. You didn’t think at all, instantly or for a prolonged period, before you posted this. It’s so utterly wrong and completely countered by my disclaimer in post #161, that

Well, you are right, I did not spend much time pondering. I had not seen the video, and came across that snopes link by chance. Yes, I thought of you.

I do not know if the vid that you posted was the original or the edited, so you got that.

Now, I don’t understand you point, though. Some ransom person doesn’t know as much about voting rights, and was educated on voting rights by the president?

Can you please tell me why this video means anything to anyone.

You have made implications that it is important, but when pressed as to why, you say, no, that’s not it.

The worst I can come up with is that you are accusing some random actor that I have barely heard of of not knowing voting law.

if I were you I’d slink away from this thread and this entire board with my tail between my legs and my head hung in shame.

If I leave this board, it will be at a time and manner of my choosing, or at the request of moderating staff.

I will ask you not to give me direction on this matter.

Secondly, the video I posted wasn’t “edited”, at least not in the context you’re using. It was the original interview, as it “aired”, in it’s entirety.

Then I apologize for assuming that the video that you posted was in fact the one that apparently has been made popular and has been making the rounds.

I am well aware that Obama steered the conversation back to citizens that can legally vote, but in her original question, SHE was clearly talking about illegals voting. That’s why I quoted her question and not Obama’s answer. In her question, she used terms that have specific meanings. “DREAMers” and “undocumented citizens - and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country”. Do you know what these words mean? Do you understand what a DREAMer is? Or what “undocumented” means in the context of immigrants?

I guess I just don’t understand the reason for you posting the video in the first place.

I suppose a better counter argument would have been showing some random person on your side of the aisle saying or doing something silly.

I grant that (from still not having watched the video, maybe I will someday, but I have better things to do), some actress asked a silly question, and apparently does not understand voting laws as well as you do.

Did you have a point other than that to make?

Maybe you’re just out of your depth here. The discussion seems to be going right over your head.
[/QUOTE]

Nah, I just don’t understand your point there.

People say stupid shit?

Sure.

@Jonathan_Chance

I’m going to just make this a note. But the whole ‘alternative facts’ thing is considered an accusation of lying. Please don’t do it again.

Apologies. I was intending to impugn the integrity of his source, not of him. I regret if I phrased things to come across otherwise.