Election Fraud

[babe]

Proving Non-Existence is a logical fallacy. There are reasons to believe X could exist, but there is no evidence X DOES exist.

Ballots for inactive votes being mailed out proves only that Ballots were sent out.

Could ineligible voters cast votes? Agree.
Could the wrong people cast votes? Agree.
Confidence it has happened? High.

Proof it is happening in any statistically relevant nature? Still waiting.

Agreed.

I use the argument sometimes myself. Can't proof "God" does not exist. Logically, etc etc we have no universally accepted definition of what to look for, even. My point about the paucity of convictions for fraud was substantially validated by the brief evaluation of what it costs to prosecute even known crime, even if we had the political will in place to do it.

That it is likely happening, and therefore needs law enforcement resources, is the point of my analysis in the past. But prosecutions are more expensive than preventions. So that is where the limited money of Judicial Watch is going.

I doubt I will have a list of millions of convictions for voter fraud within your lifetime, but you're welcome to wait. We can talk all day.

So, I think your notion that the fraud occurs with mailed out voter packets..... actually mailed out.... is not exactly the method I have in mind. No, the county official, partisan and corrupt, takes in requests from voters for absentee ballots, but he has to send them out or he'll get into trouble. So those folks who have requested mail ballots are not the problem.

It's the inactive voters who never show up or request anything, and that stack of convenient ballots. Within the confines of the office, the partisan can mail out a bunch to his work office (assuming no secretary or other person seeing them), and fill them out how he wishes, and mail them back with the dead/moved voter name or return address. And then there's the other stack of unused ballots he can load into his car trunk in the dead of election eve, and bring in when he can safely unload them. It's the access to the ballots that's required, and the lack of realistic security provisions to prevent mishandling. That is a local government issue.....

I think there will more attention this coming election.....

 

[Harambe]

Agreed.

I use the argument sometimes myself. Can't proof "God" does not exist. Logically, etc etc we have no universally accepted definition of what to look for, even. My point about the paucity of convictions for fraud was substantially validated by the brief evaluation of what it costs to prosecute even known crime, even if we had the political will in place to do it.

That it is likely happening, and therefore needs law enforcement resources, is the point of my analysis in the past. But prosecutions are more expensive than preventions. So that is where the limited money of Judicial Watch is going.

I doubt I will have a list of millions of convictions for voter fraud within your lifetime, but you're welcome to wait. We can talk all day.

So, I think your notion that the fraud occurs with mailed out voter packets..... actually mailed out.... is not exactly the method I have in mind. No, the county official, partisan and corrupt, takes in requests from voters for absentee ballots, but he has to send them out or he'll get into trouble. So those folks who have requested mail ballots are not the problem.

It's the inactive voters who never show up or request anything, and that stack of convenient ballots. Within the confines of the office, the partisan can mail out a bunch to his work office (assuming no secretary or other person seeing them), and fill them out how he wishes, and mail them back with the dead/moved voter name or return address. And then there's the other stack of unused ballots he can load into his car trunk in the dead of election eve, and bring in when he can safely unload them. It's the access to the ballots that's required, and the lack of realistic security provisions to prevent mishandling. That is a local government issue.....

I think there will more attention this coming election.....

If we have no evidence that it exists any any significant measure, why allocate resources to it?

To your thinking, why throw resources at proving God's existence if there is no evidence he exists? You don't throw resources at something that isn't significant.

 

[babe]

I think a lot of people are very concerned with the protracted comedies of election officials "finding" ballots days after the elections, and people have good reason to want the ballots watched and tracked securely so there is no opportunity for this kind of fraud.

That is why some folks are financing Judicial Watch, and why there will be more such measures sought.

honestly, it has been my opinion that this fraud is going on in significant terms. For one thing, I noticed Barack Obama's response to a question posed about voter eligibility, and Obama actually said.... Don't worry if you're eligible, just go vote." Now that was on the news. Talk about dog whistles and ****. That was like a clarion call for ineligible voters to turn out. But that is not exactly the subject of ballot handling issues..... either creating ballots or disposing of ballots....that you want data to substantiate before you're willing to allocate resources.

I'm saying that when we have political leaders being so openly cavalier about voting issues, we had damn well better start watching what they do.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I've posted some stuff in this forum before, and it's always gonna be controversial, but here is an attempt to get actual facts on the table, if available.

There are many ways to do voter fraud, for interested partisans who believe their cause somehow warrants the effort to do it. Well, "cause" might be a superfluity in the case of many perpetrators of the crime, because self-interest, self-dealing almost always plays some role.

The issue is further wonked and wanked by ideological crusaders, usually persuasive liars who don't care about anyone or anything, likely sociopaths of the highest rank, who have little or no real conscience.

And often the perpetrators are sophisticate political operatives with a support network that can depended upon within local or state or federal political establishments.... judges on the team, law enforcement officials, etc.

Like an FBI or CIA or DOJ on the federal level, with corrupt FISA judges or FEC officials, who are perfectly willing and indeed enthusiastic to be of help in the removal of an elected president, or in substantially altering election results or campaign parameters.... anything that can possibly be done to deny the "stupid" American citizens the influence feared by professional insiders whose jobs and networks are just fine thank you.

So here's a list of crimes they can resort to....

(1) ballot harvesting. political operatives somehow given a stack of vote by mail packets or actual ballots, with a list of voters and their addresses, who haven't voted recently. So they drive out to visit the folks, ballots in hand, and help them fill out the ballots......

Or if nobody is home, just fill out the ballot for them. Nice. Wonderful. Helpful public servants.

I'll add the list later, if interest warrants the effort.

So Judicial Watch has won a lawsuit in California, where the j udges approved a settlement with county officials to take steps to remove a burden of registrated voters who no longer live in the jurisdiction

Now there will be representives mailing out requests for verification of residence, maybe going out to check on the registrants.

But the larger issues, for many, is the idea or ideal of open borders, pure unrestricted voter opportunities without regard to quaint notions like citizenship. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and many of you, and many other progressives, see this as the good we should seek....

This notion actually disenfranchises long-time residents in an area, actual citizens with vested interests, the actual taxpayers who support all the government does.

So if you are that kind of progressive, go make another thread. This thread is a discussion of how we can enforce actual laws on the books and protect the rights of citizens. While "taxpayers" and "residents" are terms that would include non-citizens, this thread is only about actual laws and actual citizens who are defrauded by political activists who cheat on the system we have.

This one is hard to believe for me. In Utah at least, all mail in ballots are verified by signature. The ballot returned must be signed and the signature must match a prior legitimate signature from that person that the state/county has on record. If it does not match or can't be validated, then the vote is not counted.

If you have different information on this that shows how filling something out for someone else will actually work, I'm all ear.

 

[Harambe]

I think a lot of people are very concerned with the protracted comedies of election officials "finding" ballots days after the elections, and people have good reason to want the ballots watched and tracked securely so there is no opportunity for this kind of fraud.

That is why some folks are financing Judicial Watch

Look at what you just said, and what you're seeing through Judicial watch, and what you said earlier.

I use the argument sometimes myself. Can't proof "God" does not exist. Logically, etc etc we have no universally accepted definition of what to look for, even. My point about the paucity of convictions for fraud was substantially validated by the brief evaluation of what it costs to prosecute even known crime, even if we had the political will in place to do it.

That it is likely happening, and therefore needs law enforcement resources

And what you said agreed with just before than that:

Agreed.

I use the argument sometimes myself. Can't proof "God" does not exist. Logically, etc etc we have no universally accepted definition of what to look for, even.

Putting that in a different order;

1. You identify that Judicial Watch, a conservative advocate group(Special interest), financed privately(including application for Grants), is currently investigating AND
2. You agree there to be No Universally Accepted Definition of what to look for(let alone a conclusive, causal link exists between possible and tangible)
3. Yet, based on private belief, you want law enforcement resources to be allocated in combating "it"

How you don't see the simple fallacy here is kind of awe inspiring. That's kind of how it's supposed to be; state real, true evidence, and let's do something about it. You even agree that there isn't even a bar, let alone hard evidence of a major issue.

Let's punt on that.

In numbers and sources, what would it take for you to accept that additional funding for electoral fraud is fiscally irresponsible?

 

[Archie Moses]

I'll add the list later, if interest warrants the effort.

Bro, u gonna put the effort and write a book regardless of interests.

 

[NUMBERICA]

To no one's surprise, someone is getting spanked in public and asked for it.

 

[Red]

honestly, it has been my opinion that this fraud is going on in significant terms. For one thing, I noticed Barack Obama's response to a question posed about voter eligibility, and Obama actually said.... Don't worry if you're eligible, just go vote." Now that was on the news. Talk about dog whistles and ****. That was like a clarion call for ineligible voters to turn out.

I was so curious about that statement, as it seemed counterintuitive as something Obama would actually say. (Fwiw, if that were an actual quote, look at the difference a comma would make: "Don't worry, if you're eligible, just go vote").

Anyway, I found this entry at Snopes that seems to pertain to this claim.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

From the entry: "In the full interview, it’s clear Obama is urging Latino citizens to vote in order to give voice to members of their community who are precluded from doing so by lack of citizenship, not urging non-citizens to vote illegally. Rodriguez’s question seems to be addressing a fear that voting will result in scrutiny on one’s family which could result in deportation of undocumented relatives".

The relevant part of the interview is at the link to judge, including this exchange:

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

 

[babe]

I was so curious about that statement, as it seemed counterintuitive as something Obama would actually say. (Fwiw, if that were an actual quote, look at the difference a comma would make: "Don't worry, if you're eligible, just go vote").

Anyway, I found this entry at Snopes that seems to pertain to this claim.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

From the entry: "In the full interview, it’s clear Obama is urging Latino citizens to vote in order to give voice to members of their community who are precluded from doing so by lack of citizenship, not urging non-citizens to vote illegally. Rodriguez’s question seems to be addressing a fear that voting will result in scrutiny on one’s family which could result in deportation of undocumented relatives".

The relevant part of the interview is at the link to judge, including this exchange:

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

Thanks for this contribution. I'm sure there are all kinds of fears playing upon folks on every side of this question.

But it is a racist or race=mongering statement on Obama's part to infer that one Latino can vote for those who can't, representing a sort of homogenous community perception. It is a noxious claim that we could rely on such representation of incoming folks. Trump has been getting more Latino and black votes than former Republican candidates, partly because he talks about jobs and helping businesses here, despite--or like-- my probably equally invalid generalization that lots of the Latino newcomers have been schooled in slavish obedience to authorities they have absolutely no hope of doing anything at all for them.

The cocky sort of claims dems make on segmented portions of the electorate is falling short, I believe. Socialism is not what people come here for. They want a chance to work and build a better life.

I'll take the notes you've brought here as an alert that Obama is actually pretty clever, and whether an open borders believer or not, he's not going to just run his mouth like that.

Well, I've advertised my concerns and motives to get facts, now lets see what is really going on.

 

[babe]

Look at what you just said, and what you're seeing through Judicial watch, and what you said earlier.



And what you said agreed with just before than that:



Putting that in a different order;

1. You identify that Judicial Watch, a conservative advocate group(Special interest), financed privately(including application for Grants), is currently investigating AND
2. You agree there to be No Universally Accepted Definition of what to look for(let alone a conclusive, causal link exists between possible and tangible)
3. Yet, based on private belief, you want law enforcement resources to be allocated in combating "it"

How you don't see the simple fallacy here is kind of awe inspiring. That's kind of how it's supposed to be; state real, true evidence, and let's do something about it. You even agree that there isn't even a bar, let alone hard evidence of a major issue.

Let's punt on that.

In numbers and sources, what would it take for you to accept that additional funding for electoral fraud is fiscally irresponsible?

I'll just pass on the argument here, as it seems to be the same argument why we should devote no resources to detecting or preventing any crime, well... for example, a related crime quite universally claimed by some, that there is voter intimidation going on. If we get anyone saying something like that, it doesn't take long for the cops to set up a zone around the polls to watch for anyone doing something like that.

And yes, we do have poll watchers from various parties often observing the conduct of the officials passing out the ballots and making sure the voter puts them in the box.

What I am saying is that ballots should be handled like bank cash transport companies do it. Armed guards, double witnesses signing off every movement. And nobody should be out driving around with a stack of ballot "looking for voters". That kind of vote harvesting is what is causing a lot of negative public apprehensions across the state.

Yes go get your people and bring them to the poll.

I have no idea how to prevent someone from leaning on a disinterested voter with a vote-by-mail ballot and get it filled out as the activists wants. But if it happens, it is illegal, and people need to speak up. Especially if it is an organized effort.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Lol. Judicial watch. Lol

 

[babe]

Lol. Judicial watch. Lol

you and others with no valid contributions get the hell outta here.

Judicial won the case in court, and the judge ordered the counties to address their concern about moved-out, dead, and ineligible voters on the voter registration rolls.

If you want to help get good facts that would be appreciated.