Meathead Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Press Secretary Affirms that Trump Believes Lie of Millions of Illegal Voters ■ White House press secretary Sean Spicer stood by President Trump’s false assertion that millions of illegal voters gave Hillary Clinton her popular vote win. ■ Gag orders seem to be proliferating throughout the federal bureaucracy, but Washington can’t keep the Badlands down. ■ A new national security political action committee, assembled by former intelligence officers and national security officials, has begun posting “no spin” research on the president’s business interests abroad. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html this feels like a reeeally bad beginning for anyone hoping trump will be a reasonable effective potus btw is there a button to turn off retained formatting, ie. to allow me to paste text from an article without it looking like the title above and just look like normal text? usually its a button toggle but i dont see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Probably off but not way off. I'd guess between 1M and 2M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I don't think there's any way to know how many illegals voted. 'Millions' seems like a fanciful estimate, but the larger issue is we should be striving for zero. Therefore the motives of those who would block common sense measures (i.e., voter ID laws) need to be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 ? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Press Secretary Affirms that Trump Believes Lie of Millions of Illegal Voters ■ White House press secretary Sean Spicer stood by President Trump’s false assertion that millions of illegal voters gave Hillary Clinton her popular vote win. ■ Gag orders seem to be proliferating throughout the federal bureaucracy, but Washington can’t keep the Badlands down. ■ A new national security political action committee, assembled by former intelligence officers and national security officials, has begun posting “no spin” research on the president’s business interests abroad. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html this feels like a reeeally bad beginning for anyone hoping trump will be a reasonable effective potus btw is there a button to turn off retained formatting, ie. to allow me to paste text from an article without it looking like the title above and just look like normal text? usually its a button toggle but i dont see it So just to be clear...the Trump Administration's study on illegal voting is Alex Jones spouting off...and the Times' study is the Times saying "Nuh-uh!" Let me know when someone introduces anything resembling a fact into that discussion, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 So just to be clear...the Trump Administration's study on illegal voting is Alex Jones spouting off...and the Times' study is the Times saying "Nuh-uh!" Let me know when someone introduces anything resembling a fact into that discussion, Oh, that's neat, you put the liar and the person calling bs on the same level. Obfuscustion. How can the times prove something that didn't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 im going by a faulty memory here, but prior studies have shown actual voting irregularities to be miniscule, as in way way less than one percent. we should be able to find that around the interwebs somewhere. one of you guys obsessed with proving me wrong please take a look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Would you do us all a favor? A very small favor? Post what you want. Link what you want. But for the love of Pete, would you PLEASE stop telling everyone you're not partisan? We're asking nicely. We already have a baskin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 im going by a faulty memory here, but prior studies have shown actual voting irregularities to be miniscule, as in way way less than one percent. we should be able to find that around the interwebs somewhere. one of you guys obsessed with proving me wrong please take a look Prior studies have shown that. More importantly, prior studies have shown that the records are so horribly maintained that it's impossible to make any real estimate. Really, when your voter rolls show World War 2 vets from Brooklyn as illegal aliens, but then when you reconcile them you find that you have only seven irregularities out of 300k registered voters, both your data and your reconciliation are severely FUBAR'd. GOOD data isn't even 0.002% reliable. The idea that any conclusion can be drawn based on the data currently available is laughable. Oh, that's neat, you put the liar and the person calling bs on the same level. Obfuscustion. How can the times prove something that didn't happen? It pains me that the DC-Tom-bot is down and I have to respond to you in person for once. Shut the !@#$ up, you !@#$ing retard. Go back to the kiddie table and rub mashed potatoes in your hair, and let the adults talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 Prior studies have shown that. More importantly, prior studies have shown that the records are so horribly maintained that it's impossible to make any real estimate. Really, when your voter rolls show World War 2 vets from Brooklyn as illegal aliens, but then when you reconcile them you find that you have only seven irregularities out of 300k registered voters, both your data and your reconciliation are severely FUBAR'd. GOOD data isn't even 0.002% reliable. The idea that any conclusion can be drawn based on the data currently available is laughable. a very fair point. but it is all we have so its a starting point of consideration ive said for a looong time i would like A LOT more money poured into ethics. so i say we just ask the people who make the law ... ohhhhh riiiiiiiiiiight still, to jump from zero point a jillion percent to several million is like the sesame street politics It pains me that the DC-Tom-bot is down and I have to respond to you in person for once. Shut the !@#$ up, you !@#$ing retard. Go back to the kiddie table and rub mashed potatoes in your hair, and let the adults talk. you know im starting to think youre not the guy i thought you were or im confusing you with someone else not very nice at all mister. smart. but not nice. i feel it only fair to warn you that earns points on my mental ignore filter. not that i expect you to care but now its out there btw: prediction. my cut and paste list will show up below even tho i cant see it here ... Prior studies have shown that. More importantly, prior studies have shown that the records are so horribly maintained that it's impossible to make any real estimate. Really, when your voter rolls show World War 2 vets from Brooklyn as illegal aliens, but then when you reconcile them you find that you have only seven irregularities out of 300k registered voters, both your data and your reconciliation are severely FUBAR'd. GOOD data isn't even 0.002% reliable. The idea that any conclusion can be drawn based on the data currently available is laughable. It pains me that the DC-Tom-bot is down and I have to respond to you in person for once. Shut the !@#$ up, you !@#$ing retard. Go back to the kiddie table and rub mashed potatoes in your hair, and let the adults talk. AAAAND BINGO! stupid editor. and no i dont mean me. not totally. just tell me where the button is you bastards lol Probably off but not way off. I'd guess between 1M and 2M wow, for real? that seems way impossible to me but i would look at any reasonable analysis btw - somebody in this forum claimed i didnt answer direct questions but i cant find it now. if you know who it was let me know and i will respond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 im going by a faulty memory here, but prior studies have shown actual voting irregularities to be miniscule, as in way way less than one percent. we should be able to find that around the interwebs somewhere. one of you guys obsessed with proving me wrong please take a look That's because many states (especially CA) make it possible and legal for illegal immigrants to register to vote. Registered voters are not considered "irregularities" in the studies you mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 you know im starting to think youre not the guy i thought you were or im confusing you with someone else not very nice at all mister. smart. but not nice. i feel it only fair to warn you that earns points on my mental ignore filter. not that i expect you to care but now its out there 1) I never claimed I was nice. Hell, I wrote an automated script to make it easier to be an !@#$. That should tell you something. 2) You don't know Tiberius, ex-gatorman, ex-a bunch of other banned usernames, current !@#$wit. He richly deserves the abuse. I've got toenail fungus smarter than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 3.5 million out of 131.7 million is 2.7% of votes were illegally cast again that seems utterly impossible. well unless it was computer sabotage, we appear to be woefully unprepared in that. but millions of illegals managing to finagle their way into the polls seems like, well again, sesame street politics i will gladly eat those words if someone shows me some definitive proof. well not gladly, but appreciatively Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 btw is there a button to turn off retained formatting, ie. to allow me to paste text from an article without it looking like the title above and just look like normal text? usually its a button toggle but i dont see it I've been known to occasionally "cut & paste" ... If the title is too large, you can just highlight that and change the size (usually to 14 ) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 2) You don't know Tiberius, ex-gatorman, ex-a bunch of other banned usernames, current !@#$wit. He richly deserves the abuse. I've got toenail fungus smarter than him. oh ok well i still dont condone the abuse but i know those types. they can be long term pains once in a while they turn and become productive posters. i try to bridge my frustrations with them with the chance they might turn it around some blue moon was skooby ever around here. at least the one im thinking about. he was bad for years then idk had a kid or something and notched it up quite a bit. that doesnt always work, having kids, or whatever, but sometimes it does. it was maybe skoobys twentieth iteration before he crossed to tolerableland I've been known to occasionally "cut & paste" ... If the title is too large, you can just highlight that and change the size (usually to 14 ) yeah but theres usually an option to turn the 'retain formatting' off. much muuch easier. if should be here somewhere but i cant find it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 3.5 million out of 131.7 million is 2.7% of votes were illegally cast again that seems utterly impossible. well unless it was computer sabotage, we appear to be woefully unprepared in that. but millions of illegals managing to finagle their way into the polls seems like, well again, sesame street politics i will gladly eat those words if someone shows me some definitive proof. well not gladly, but appreciatively Well...if you consider that there's some 11 million illegals in the country, and assume they mirror the citizen population's demographics...that would be 55% eligible to vote, with a 65% turnout, which is 36% of 11 million = almost 4 million illegal votes. I can see where they could get the number (and given it comes from Alex Jones, I can entirely believe that's how that (*^*&%^$^#generated the estimate.) It's even mathematically valid. It's just not statistically valid, as it presumes that citizens and illegals will act the same way, which we already know is untrue (since illegals, unlike citizens, are here illegally). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 That's because many states (especially CA) make it possible and legal for illegal immigrants to register to vote. Registered voters are not considered "irregularities" in the studies you mention. i admit im not expert on that level of voting standards, though ive heard of it loosely do we have a bref summary of those criteria or anything? Well...if you consider that there's some 11 million illegals in the country, and assume they mirror the citizen population's demographics...that would be 55% eligible to vote, with a 65% turnout, which is 36% of 11 million = almost 4 million illegal votes. I can see where they could get the number (and given it comes from Alex Jones, I can entirely believe that's how that (*^*&%^$^#generated the estimate.) It's even mathematically valid. It's just not statistically valid, as it presumes that citizens and illegals will act the same way, which we already know is untrue (since illegals, unlike citizens, are here illegally). another fair point but the reason i ask for criteria is to see if the criticism of them voting at all is valid if they are responsible 'illegals' then i dont have much of a philosophical argument to letting them vote. i need to know the parameters and admit that i dont on this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 oh ok well i still dont condone the abuse but i know those types. they can be long term pains once in a while they turn and become productive posters. i try to bridge my frustrations with them with the chance they might turn it around some blue moon was skooby ever around here. at least the one im thinking about. he was bad for years then idk had a kid or something and notched it up quite a bit. that doesnt always work, having kids, or whatever, but sometimes it does. it was maybe skoobys twentieth iteration before he crossed to tolerableland yeah but theres usually an option to turn the 'retain formatting' off. much muuch easier. if should be here somewhere but i cant find it Gatorman (Tiberius) has had ten years to become a productive poster. He's repeatedly doubled down on being a ****head. I'd accuse him of having oatmeal for brains, but it's an insult to oatmeal. He actually criticized me once for "obfuscating with facts." If you're ever told here that you've gone full gatorman, it is not a compliment. i admit im not expert on that level of voting standards, though ive heard of it loosely do we have a bref summary of those criteria or anything? another fair point but the reason i ask for criteria is to see if the criticism of them voting at all is valid if they are responsible 'illegals' then i dont have much of a philosophical argument to letting them vote. i need to know the parameters and admit that i dont on this point I'd counter that if they're responsible illegals, they wouldn't be here illegally. Though I will admit that the hurdles for legal immigration are pretty damned high...but that's a discussion better suited for immigration reform, not voting. I'm not sure anyone has any reasonable criteria for determining the scope of the problem. Hell, I'm not even willing to concede there is a problem, if you define "problem" as "a number of improperly cast votes greater than the margin of error of polling." (Which every polling system has - the mess in 2000 was caused by a combination of badly written FL state law and an immature expectation of perfect polling.) It's why you never see any meaningful facts enter the discussion, only polemic. And you won't see any facts enter into it, either. To do that, you'd have to keep accurate voter records and accurate immigration records, which won't happen as long as the Democrats can block any attempt to collect data on the grounds that accurate voter and immigration records are oppressive and racist (and we must therefore protect the sanctity of the right to vote by ensuring we have no means of telling whether or not that right's being abused.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 If Trump believes it then he should be calling for an immediate investigation. Otherwise it's just another distraction from the important and necessary investigations into the Trump campaign's connections to the Russian government and their possible collaberation in the hacking and release of DNC information, as well as Comey's subjective announcements of the Clinton investigation but not the Trump-Russia investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 To do that, you'd have to keep accurate voter records and accurate immigration records, which won't happen as long as the Democrats can block any attempt to collect data on the grounds that accurate voter and immigration records are oppressive and racist (and we must therefore protect the sanctity of the right to vote by ensuring we have no means of telling whether or not that right's being abused.) yeah i am uncomfortable with the no id thing, but didnt we fix that last cycle with an id campaign? the next question would be how viable is that form of id, which i dont know but i assume its not just garbage depending on whatever evidence i would see it may be fair to criticize the dems. but lets not pretend the republicans dont play their own disgusting tactics games to supress the minority vote. i know for sure its happening on the right, i wouldnt be surprised if its happening in a significant way on the left. i just havent seen it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts