Trump campaign chief is registered to vote in Florida at unoccupied home

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

Donald Trump’s new presidential campaign chief is registered to vote in a key swing state at an empty house where he does not live, in an apparent breach of election laws.

Stephen Bannon, the chief executive of Trump’s election campaign, has an active voter registration at the house in Miami-Dade County, Florida, which is vacant and due to be demolished to make way for a new development.

“I have emptied the property,” Luis Guevara, the owner of the house, which is in the Coconut Grove section of the city, said in an interview. “Nobody lives there … we are going to make a construction there.” Neighbors said the property had been abandoned for several months.

Bannon, 62, formerly rented the house for use by his ex-wife, Diane Clohesy, but did not live there himself. Clohesy, a Tea Party activist, moved out of the house earlier this year and has her own irregular voting registration arrangement. According to public records, Bannon and Clohesy divorced seven years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walrus

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
So the Trump campaign, while complaining that the election will be rigged, has a chairman that from this report appears to be committing voter fraud and potentially tax fraud?

This is the most incompetently run campaign in modern history. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walrus
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
Voter fraud!!!!! It's rigged!!!

The overall disorganized and sloppiness of Trumps campaign and staff never ends. I read yesterday they almost missed the ballot deadline in Michigan because as I understood it they didn't mail a letter saying they wanted to be on the ballot. Amazing when a big platform of Trump is he gets stuff done & business organization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walrus

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
So the Trump campaign, while complaining that the election will be rigged, has a chairman that from this report appears to be committing voter fraud and potentially tax fraud?

This is the most incompetently run campaign in modern history. Lol.
It was clear a long time ago that Trump is a vapid lump of clay. The people he surrounds himself with (the best people) mold him into whatever they want him to be since he doesn't know any better. He has to take their word for it. I'm sure all it takes to get into his circle is some mild success and a bunch of flattery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walrus

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I guess it takes the risk of a Republican breaking voting laws for you guys to care. If it was just the issue of establishing someone's identity, or preventing voting in multiple jurisdictions, or absentee mail fraud you guys first need to do a quick analysis to determine if you think the person will vote Democratic before deciding what to do (or not do) about it.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
I guess it takes the risk of a Republican breaking voting laws for you guys to care. If it was just the issue of establishing someone's identity, or preventing voting in multiple jurisdictions, or absentee mail fraud you guys first need to do a quick analysis to determine if you think the person will vote Democratic before deciding what to do (or not do) about it.
Honestly I don't care in any significant way but I do find I funny that a campaign that's floating voter fraud idea's is violating voter laws/rules. I'd assume FL has some kind of requirement to actual live there to vote. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe there is more to this that wasn't reported.

I'm fine with requiring an ID to vote its just the court has said it needs to be free and easy to obtain. My state would need to pull back from businesses handling licenses and open far more DMVs. How do the low tax guys want to fund this?
I'd also like to see voting happen on more than one day
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
I guess it takes the risk of a Republican breaking voting laws for you guys to care. If it was just the issue of establishing someone's identity, or preventing voting in multiple jurisdictions, or absentee mail fraud you guys first need to do a quick analysis to determine if you think the person will vote Democratic before deciding what to do (or not do) about it.

Nope, the answer is always the same. This guy appears to have been committing absentee ballot fraud, which means voter ID would have done literally zero to prevent it. In fact, in plenty of discussions with you about voter ID people such as myself have brought up that absentee ballot fraud actually does happen, unlike in-person voter fraud. This is why working to prevent absentee ballot fraud makes sense and working to prevent in-person voter fraud does not.

It's always just about basic cost/benefit logic.

All that aside, I'm certain that Breitbart has run numerous voter fraud pieces over the years and it's pretty hilarious that the guy running it may have been committing voter fraud himself all that time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegeon

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,966
27,643
136
I guess it takes the risk of a Republican breaking voting laws for you guys to care. If it was just the issue of establishing someone's identity, or preventing voting in multiple jurisdictions, or absentee mail fraud you guys first need to do a quick analysis to determine if you think the person will vote Democratic before deciding what to do (or not do) about it.
It's not his one vote but the hypocrisy of the entire Republican party
 
  • Like
Reactions: walrus

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Nope, the answer is always the same. This guy appears to have been committing absentee ballot fraud, which means voter ID would have done literally zero to prevent it. In fact, in plenty of discussions with you about voter ID people such as myself have brought up that absentee ballot fraud actually does happen, unlike in-person voter fraud. This is why working to prevent absentee ballot fraud makes sense and working to prevent in-person voter fraud does not.

It's always just about basic cost/benefit logic.

All that aside, I'm certain that Breitbart has run numerous voter fraud pieces over the years and it's pretty hilarious that the guy running it may have been committing voter fraud himself all that time.

Which is why I always in every thread state we need to address all possible vectors for fraud and not just do what you want and ignore those you think that will benefit your side.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
Which is why I always in every thread state we need to address all possible vectors for fraud and not just do what you want and ignore those you think that will benefit your side.

No we don't, we need to address the vectors of fraud that actually happen and ignore the ones that don't. That's smart lawmaking.

As I say in every thread, creating burdens on people to stop something that isn't happening is irrational. I do not support irrational laws, regardless of who passes them or why. While it happens to be that Republicans are trying to pass irrational laws in this case because they think it will give them an electoral advantage I would be equally against it if the Democrats were trying to pass the exact same law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walrus and Aegeon
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
Which is why I always in every thread state we need to address all possible vectors for fraud and not just do what you want and ignore those you think that will benefit your side.

Glenn while I don't think voter fraud is an issue that happens often enough to addressed I am open to the idea of ID to vote. As I said earlier the ID needs to be free or minimal cost like pocket change. The ID also needs to be easy to obtain. How do you suggest we pay for them? Are you open to the idea of voting takes place over 3 day one of which is either a holiday or weekend?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Glenn while I don't think voter fraud is an issue that happens often enough to addressed I am open to the idea of ID to vote. As I said earlier the ID needs to be free or minimal cost like pocket change. The ID also needs to be easy to obtain. How do you suggest we pay for them? Are you open to the idea of voting takes place over 3 day one of which is either a holiday or weekend?

Yes, IDs should be provided free; almost every state currently already mails out for free "Registered Voter" cards so adding a photo to one would be relatively trivial. Or foot the bill for a full driver's license for all poor and indigent, the money we're talking about is less trivial but not exorbitant and would certainly be a public good. Even assuming tens of millions of free IDs the nation probably spends that much on throwaway pet projects that lawmakers add to bills for like "bridges to nowhere" and such. As far as the costs to address some of the other possible vectors for vote fraud like absentee votes, I have no idea but I would wager it's not trillions. If we address them all simultaneously inside a comprehensive reform effort it should be cheaper than fixing each piecemeal.

All for changes that make voting easier so long as those controls are in place to reduce fraud. Sure, why not 3 days over a holiday or weekend. Hell, how about 13 days? I don't care who you vote for, I want you to have all possible barriers removed from you exercising your franchise. What I care about is that you only vote once, as yourself and not someone else, and in the jurisdiction you're legally domiciled in for voting purposes.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
Yes, IDs should be provided free; almost every state currently already mails out for free "Registered Voter" cards so adding a photo to one would be relatively trivial. Or foot the bill for a full driver's license for all poor and indigent, the money we're talking about is less trivial but not exorbitant and would certainly be a public good. Even assuming tens of millions of free IDs the nation probably spends that much on throwaway pet projects that lawmakers add to bills for like "bridges to nowhere" and such. As far as the costs to address some of the other possible vectors for vote fraud like absentee votes, I have no idea but I would wager it's not trillions. If we address them all simultaneously inside a comprehensive reform effort it should be cheaper than fixing each piecemeal.

All for changes that make voting easier so long as those controls are in place to reduce fraud. Sure, why not 3 days over a holiday or weekend. Hell, how about 13 days? I don't care who you vote for, I want you to have all possible barriers removed from you exercising your franchise. What I care about is that you only vote once, as yourself and not someone else, and in the jurisdiction you're legally domiciled in for voting purposes.

Just for clarity when you're talking small costs or pet projects does this mean you are OK with (lets use imaginary numbers) $8 more in federal taxes and $8 more in state taxes to open and staff these places? What if the true number is $75 more in State and $20 more in federal are you still OK with it?
Add some kind of fast replacement policy that can cover someone who lost their ID during the voting days and we have a deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: walrus

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Just for clarity when you're talking small costs or pet projects does this mean you are OK with (lets use imaginary numbers) $8 more in federal taxes and $8 more in state taxes to open and staff these places? What if the true number is $75 more in State and $20 more in federal are you still OK with it?
Otherwise we have a deal.

Unsure of what time period you're discussing, but if it's say $16 in additional per capita combined fed/state taxes over the course of one POTUS election cycle that doesn't sound too ominous. I'd like to have more clarity on the "all-in" costs of a comprehensive fix for most major fraud vectors but I'd be hard pressed to say it wouldn't be worth paying. We might even prioritize which vector to address first based upon cost, complexity of the fix, etc. and voter ID might not be the first one to tackle but it should be included on the list. Honestly with things like absentee vote fraud I'm unsure how you would even go about addressing that so we'll likely need some creative thinking for many of these problems and who knows which vectors have dependencies on others.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
Honestly it is time we move to a secure online voting system where your key is based on your SSN. There could still be "polling stations" where people without internet access could log in to vote.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
Honestly it is time we move to a secure online voting system where your key is based on your SSN. There could still be "polling stations" where people without internet access could log in to vote.

No not trusted without paper to audit. Imagine NK, China or Russia hacking something like this.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,063
1,464
126
No we don't, we need to address the vectors of fraud that actually happen and ignore the ones that don't. That's smart lawmaking.

As I say in every thread, creating burdens on people to stop something that isn't happening is irrational. I do not support irrational laws, regardless of who passes them or why. While it happens to be that Republicans are trying to pass irrational laws in this case because they think it will give them an electoral advantage I would be equally against it if the Democrats were trying to pass the exact same law.
Exactly. Creating voter ID laws which massively disenfranchise voters to address in person vote fraud which occurs at a statistically nonexistent rate would be like mandating use of an Ebola vaccine that will kill a million people because 3 died in the US of Ebola last year.
 

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,352
95
91
Back to the original topic, is this the only state where he is registered? This could be a lot worse if he has or is able to vote in multiple places in one election.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
If you're going to be the champion of preventing voter fraud, members of your staff shouldn't be breaking or skirting the laws designed to do just that.

If your going to make tranparency a cornerstone of your administration, you're SOS shouldn't have a private email server.

If your going to question a sitting President over sexual misconduct, you shouldn't have a mistress on the side instead.

This isn't hard
 
  • Like
Reactions: walrus

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Exactly. Creating voter ID laws which massively disenfranchise voters to address in person vote fraud which occurs at a statistically nonexistent rate would be like mandating use of an Ebola vaccine that will kill a million people because 3 died in the US of Ebola last year.

There are means to control in-person voter impersonation fraud that would minimize if not eliminate disenfranchisement, voter ID is one means but not the only one. For example, Canada has a system where you can bring someone who does have an ID to vouch for your identity and you both sign an affidavit. Or you could develop a parallel identity verification system for those without IDs that use challenge questions (e.g. 'what is your mother's maiden name?') or other means to verify identity. Pretty much your creativity is the only limit for how you could implement a control. It doesn't need to be Fort Knox-like in robustness, it just needs to be better than the "no solution at all" that your side champions on this because you think that it benefits your election prospects.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
There are means to control in-person voter impersonation fraud that would minimize if not eliminate disenfranchisement, voter ID is one means but not the only one. For example, Canada has a system where you can bring someone who does have an ID to vouch for your identity and you both sign an affidavit. Or you could develop a parallel identity verification system for those without IDs that use challenge questions (e.g. 'what is your mother's maiden name?') or other means to verify identity. Pretty much your creativity is the only limit for how you could implement a control. It doesn't need to be Fort Knox-like in robustness, it just needs to be better than the "no solution at all" that your side champions on this because you think that it benefits your election prospects.

You're arguing that one side is offering no solution to a problem that doesn't exist. In the case of a nonexistent problem no solution is not just an acceptable answer, it is the affirmatively correct one.

Not preventing legitimate voters from voting might help Democrats (as they are the ones that conservatives are targeting for disenfranchisement) but that is irrelevant. Allowing all eligible voters the opportunity to vote is a positive good worth pursuing all on its own.

No matter your political persuasion e we gone should oppose these laws. They are literally purposeless.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You're arguing that one side is offering no solution to a problem that doesn't exist. In the case of a nonexistent problem no solution is not just an acceptable answer, it is the affirmatively correct one.

Not preventing legitimate voters from voting might help Democrats (as they are the ones that conservatives are targeting for disenfranchisement) but that is irrelevant. Allowing all eligible voters the opportunity to vote is a positive good worth pursuing all on its own.

No matter your political persuasion e we gone should oppose these laws. They are literally purposeless.

I hope those votes are worth the price of your conscience, if you have one. Folks like you make it laughable that you're actually being serious about other vectors for vote fraud instead of just indulging in obstruction akin to what GOP does with Obamacare.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,966
27,643
136
Exactly. Creating voter ID laws which massively disenfranchise voters to address in person vote fraud which occurs at a statistically nonexistent rate would be like mandating use of an Ebola vaccine that will kill a million people because 3 died in the US of Ebola last year.
+1