Illegal voter found in TX

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
No i don't and you don't know either. You support voter fraud because you and your fellow Democrats think it enables you to win more elections.

I see dead people ................ voting.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dead-people-voting-in-colorado/article/2602775

I don't support voter fraud at all.You fail to show any electoral significance in the extremely rare cases of voter fraud that actually occur. It can't be shown to help Dems win elections in the slightest.

Strict voter ID won't take the deceased off the voter rolls, either.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,759
2,086
136
I don't support voter fraud at all.You fail to show any electoral significance in the extremely rare cases of voter fraud that actually occur. It can't be shown to help Dems win elections in the slightest.

Strict voter ID won't take the deceased off the voter rolls, either.
No, but it shows why we need more funds to check the roles and clean out ineligible voters. Well, if you think that being dead should keep Democrats from voting?
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,228
136
No i don't and you don't know either. You support voter fraud because you and your fellow Democrats think it enables you to win more elections.

Then why did Trump's own attorneys dismiss claims of voter fraud in a legal filing responding to Green Party candidate Jill Stein's demand for a recount in Michigan late last year?

"On what basis does Stein seek to disenfranchise Michigan citizens? None really, save for speculation," the attorneys wrote. "All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-by-fraud-or-mistake/?utm_term=.30c47efefffe

During the George W. Bush administration, the Justice Department spent three years investigating allegations of voter fraud and produced 14 convictions for non-citizens voting in U.S. elections. A two-year investigation by Iowa’s secretary of state yielded 27 criminal charges, most of them involving misunderstanding of eligibility rules rather than out-and-out fraud.

In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott claimed to have found evidence of as many as 182,500 non-citizens on the state’s voting rolls. Further investigation resulted in the removal of 85 names.

Kansas’ secretary of state, a Republican, examined 84 million votes cast in 22 states to look for cases of duplicate registration. The project yielded 14 prosecutions.

Trump’s daughter Tiffany is presently registered to vote in two states. So are Spicer, presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner, White House strategist Steve Bannon and Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary-designate. There isn’t any indication that any of them voted illegally.

So, where's all this voter fraud because Republican administrations just seem to be unable to find widespread fraud, at least for in-person voting. Now, if you want to talk absentee ballots, and the conservatives never want to address this facet of voting which is vastly more susceptible to fraud, let's talk. But Republicans seem uninterested in the areas that are more easily manipulated than in-person fraud.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,035
55,507
136
Then why did Trump's own attorneys dismiss claims of voter fraud in a legal filing responding to Green Party candidate Jill Stein's demand for a recount in Michigan late last year?

"On what basis does Stein seek to disenfranchise Michigan citizens? None really, save for speculation," the attorneys wrote. "All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-by-fraud-or-mistake/?utm_term=.30c47efefffe

During the George W. Bush administration, the Justice Department spent three years investigating allegations of voter fraud and produced 14 convictions for non-citizens voting in U.S. elections. A two-year investigation by Iowa’s secretary of state yielded 27 criminal charges, most of them involving misunderstanding of eligibility rules rather than out-and-out fraud.

In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott claimed to have found evidence of as many as 182,500 non-citizens on the state’s voting rolls. Further investigation resulted in the removal of 85 names.

Kansas’ secretary of state, a Republican, examined 84 million votes cast in 22 states to look for cases of duplicate registration. The project yielded 14 prosecutions.

Trump’s daughter Tiffany is presently registered to vote in two states. So are Spicer, presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner, White House strategist Steve Bannon and Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary-designate. There isn’t any indication that any of them voted illegally.

So, where's all this voter fraud because Republican administrations just seem to be unable to find widespread fraud, at least for in-person voting. Now, if you want to talk absentee ballots, and the conservatives never want to address this facet of voting which is vastly more susceptible to fraud, let's talk. But Republicans seem uninterested in the areas that are more easily manipulated than in-person fraud.

What I never quite understand is why Republicans refuse to take good news for an answer. They claim to be VERY CONCERNED about voter fraud but when they find out it's not happening they just get angrier and more insistent that it secretly is. You would think they would be super happy to learn that something which strikes at the very foundation of American democracy isn't going on!

It's almost like their problem isn't actually with fraudulent votes at all, but instead Democratic votes. It's a pretty disgusting thing when an ideological group in a democracy decides its best bet is to keep as many people from participating in it as possible.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Are you being intentionally obtuse or just an idiot?

I'm guessing the former, mostly because you don't want to answer the original question.
You don't really expect him to engage with you honestly and directly, do you? He doesn't do that. He's nothing but a sad, beta troll, here to disrupt and dissemble for Donnie and the deplorables. You'll have more productive discussions with your cat.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,759
2,086
136
Are you being intentionally obtuse or just an idiot?

I'm guessing the former, mostly because you don't want to answer the original question.
So you won't answer questions, but somehow if i don't answer yours, i'm an idiot. I doubt if you even remember which particular question you asked me.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,035
55,507
136
So you won't answer questions, but somehow if i don't answer yours, i'm an idiot. I doubt if you even remember which particular question you asked me.

You're trying really, really hard to not answer a very simple question. We both know why too, because you know your answer will make you look stupid.

I predict right now that no matter how many questions of yours he answers you will refuse to answer this. Prove me wrong!
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,725
2,087
126
Fraudulent illegal voters are kind of like cockroaches, there's always more than you can easily find.

You won't listen to this, but it is sound inferential and statistical logic.

There are 165,000 voting precincts in the United States. There are 50 states which oversee voter integrity. If there were any significant voter fraud, we would know it from whatever number of those independent, bipartisan-administered precincts.

Add to that the nature of reality. There IS absolute truth, but only in a sense of probability. It makes a good strategy in the Christmas season to avoid jury duty, because simply mention of a scientific approach in the context of legal standards will get the defense attorney to remove you from the jury pool.

The legal standard of "Truth" is biased in the rules of evidence and procedure in favor of letting some guilty go free in order to protect the innocent. Thus, it was noted during the Zimmerman trial in Florida that he was "Not Guilty," as opposed to "Innocent."

If you find evidence of a crime, you gather more evidence to build a case against the intended bias of the judicial system. You follow a trail of evidence based on successive hypotheses given what you already found. If that standard had been applied during congress's "Benghazi witchhunt," millions of dollars would have been saved, because -- "There was no THERE there."

Instead, we're looking at the possibility of some statistical scatter of crimes, with the thought of "correcting the process" in voting. In serious scientific application of statistics, there is a distinction between "statistically significant" and insignificant.

There was, for instance, a Trump voter (Wisconsin?) who was caught trying to vote twice. A single instance of voter fraud. There may have been a few others, in whatever states they may have occurred. And there is this woman in Texas.

But as for chasing cockroaches, if 165,000 precincts and 50 states acting independently could not turn up more than a handful, it would be like calling Terminix exterminators to fumigate and kill -- probably -- the cockroach that was seen.

Statistical reality itself should be an indicator as to how much time, effort and money should be spent in finding those mythical fraudulent voters.

Your "champion" -- the Disgusting Slug and his entourage of sycophants and Liars -- wants to make this a big issue because he lost the popular vote. He would love to grandstand with massive spending to prove nothing. Because there is nothing to prove -- of any significance. You can continue to spit in all of our faces to assert the Lie that the Pig won the popular vote, or there were 3 million fraudulent votes in California because of an estimated 3 million illegals. But it abandons the Truth, and chases the Lie.

And if that's what your delusional ignorant mind wants to do, tell me you're an upstanding fine American when you're out of gas in Death Valley needing a drink. I grant you that -- by spitting in your disgusting Tory Traitor face.

PS This is my personal Fort Sumter. Democrats -- or Republicans who voted against Trump -- don't HATE him. We F***ing DESPISE HIM! And his most ardent supporters aren't "deplorable." They are DESPICABLE. So -- go on, now! Take over another BLM Wildlife Refuge. Or raid Harper's Ferry. See ya in Hell.
 
Last edited:
Jul 9, 2009
10,759
2,086
136
You won't listen to this, but it is sound inferential and statistical logic.

There are 165,000 voting precincts in the United States. There are 50 states which oversee voter integrity. If there were any significant voter fraud, we would know it from whatever number of those independent, bipartisan-administered precincts.

Add to that the nature of reality. There IS absolute truth, but only in a sense of probability. It makes a good strategy in the Christmas season to avoid jury duty, because simply mention of a scientific approach in the context of legal standards will get the defense attorney to remove you from the jury pool.

The legal standard of "Truth" is biased in the rules of evidence and procedure in favor of letting some guilty go free in order to protect the innocent. Thus, it was noted during the Zimmerman trial in Florida that he was "Not Guilty," as opposed to "Innocent."

If you find evidence of a crime, you gather more evidence to build a case against the intended bias of the judicial system. You follow a trail of evidence based on successive hypotheses given what you already found. If that standard had been applied during congress's "Benghazi witchhunt," millions of dollars would have been saved, because -- "There was no THERE there."

Instead, we're looking at the possibility of some statistical scatter of crimes, with the thought of "correcting the process" in voting. In serious scientific application of statistics, there is a distinction between "statistically significant" and insignificant.

There was, for instance, a Trump voter (Wisconsin?) who was caught trying to vote twice. A single instance of voter fraud. There may have been a few others, in whatever states they may have occurred. And there is this woman in Texas.

But as for chasing cockroaches, if 165,000 precincts and 50 states acting independently could not turn up more than a handful, it would be like calling Terminix exterminators to fumigate and kill -- probably -- the cockroach that was seen.

Statistical reality itself should be an indicator as to how much time, effort and money should be spent in finding those mythical fraudulent voters.

Your "champion" -- the Disgusting Slug and his entourage of sycophants and Liars -- wants to make this a big issue because he lost the popular vote. He would love to grandstand with massive spending to prove nothing. Because there is nothing to prove -- of any significance. You can continue to spit in all of our faces to assert the Lie that the Pig won the popular vote, or there were 3 million fraudulent votes in California because of an estimated 3 million illegals. But it abandons the Truth, and chases the Lie.

And if that's what your delusional ignorant mind wants to do, tell me your an upstanding fine American when you're out of gas in Death Valley needing a drink. I grant you that -- by spitting in your disgusting Tory Traitor face.

"by spitting in your disgusting Tory Traitor face." back at you sweetheart.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
"by spitting in your disgusting Tory Traitor face." back at you sweetheart.

WTF are you babbling about ?

Tory ?

"Tory" has become shorthand for a member of the Conservative Party or for the party in general. Some Conservatives call themselves "Tory" and the term is common in the media, but deprecated by some media channels.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
What I never quite understand is why Republicans refuse to take good news for an answer. They claim to be VERY CONCERNED about voter fraud but when they find out it's not happening they just get angrier and more insistent that it secretly is. You would think they would be super happy to learn that something which strikes at the very foundation of American democracy isn't going on!

It's almost like their problem isn't actually with fraudulent votes at all, but instead Democratic votes. It's a pretty disgusting thing when an ideological group in a democracy decides its best bet is to keep as many people from participating in it as possible.

For the Plutarchs at the top of the Repub money machine, representative govt isn't what they want but rather something they have to put up with, more or less. It's why they hated ACORN so desperately. It's why they use voter fraud as a beard for voter suppression. It's why they gerrymander quite ruthlessly & why they feed their base a string of preposterous conspiracy theories. Keeps 'em nicely irrational & voting for that good ol' trickledown.

The only reason any of them ever opposed Trump is because they figured his pitch was too much over the top even for the people they've been crazifying for decades. They just didn't realize quite how effective their efforts have been.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,125
792
126
Why not both?

Good question. I was trying to determine if he is stupid or a troll, but he could be a stupid troll.


You don't really expect him to engage with you honestly and directly, do you? He doesn't do that. He's nothing but a sad, beta troll, here to disrupt and dissemble for Donnie and the deplorables. You'll have more productive discussions with your cat.

He's usually a bit better about being direct but in this instance he's looking like the second coming of buckshot.


So you won't answer questions, but somehow if i don't answer yours, i'm an idiot. I doubt if you even remember which particular question you asked me.

1. I asked the question first, you are the one that continues to avoid answering.
2. I answered you last question :

MrPickins said:
imported_tajmahal said:
None are disenfranchised. Do you have evidence they are?
Yes. The only way you could miss the many many articles about them is if you actively avoided it.

3. I knew you had forgotten the question, so I reiterated it in my last post (you know, the one you quoted)...


You're trying really, really hard to not answer a very simple question. We both know why too, because you know your answer will make you look stupid.

I predict right now that no matter how many questions of yours he answers you will refuse to answer this. Prove me wrong!

He's either a troll or a child who is scared of critical thinking. This much is obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,035
55,507
136
He's either a troll or a child who is scared of critical thinking. This much is obvious.

bcf011d75f2f39acf22ebe0bfb9b21f7.jpg


Like I said, he will never answer. At least you can know if he does refuse to answer a simple question this stubbornly in his heart he knows what he's saying is stupid.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,759
2,086
136
I just answered his question about how many people i'm willing to disenfranchise in order to catch fraudulent voters and i replied "none" I bet you just didn't bother to read it , did you?