Election deniers

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ChiGoose]

37 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

You are literally arguing that a mayoral race of Bridgeport Cat had more fraud than the presidential race? You have to stop calling people bad faith when you are simply so ignorant. 

https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/bridgeport-absentee-ballots-geter-pataky-ganim-19531555.php

 

As I said, with hundreds of millions of ballots being cast, it is impossible to eliminate all fraud. However, the rate of voter fraud is so astronomically low that it cannot tip a presidential election. It just can't. Now matter how much people want to think 2020 was rigged, it wasn't. You can point to an instance where people are being prosecuted for mishandling ballots (but notably, not impersonating voters), but the evidence is still overwhelmingly against you.

 

PBS: Exhaustive fact check finds little evidence of voter fraud, but 2020’s ‘Big Lie’ lives on

"AP Reporters went looking for cases of voter fraud in six states that Trump has challenged, and they found fewer than 475 potential instances out of more than 25 million votes cast, a number that would not have come close to changing the outcome."

 

475 is the number of *potential* instances (meaning the actual number is likely lower) and is just 0.0019% of the votes studies

 

Brennan Center: Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth

• The [The Truth About Voter Fraud] report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”
• A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.
• Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another in 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000–2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012–2016.
• Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a longtime proponent of voter suppression efforts, argued before state lawmakers that his office needed special power to prosecute voter fraud, because he knew of 100 such cases in his state. After being granted these powers, he has brought six such cases, of which only four have been successful. The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.000017 percent fraud rate.
• A specialized United States Department of Justice unit formed with the goal of finding instances of federal election fraud examined the 2002 and 2004 federal elections, and were able to prove that 0.00000013 percent of ballots cast were fraudulent. There was no evidence that any of these incidents involved in-person impersonation fraud. Over a five year period, they found “no concerted effort to tilt the election.”
• In 2012, Florida Governor Rick Scott initiated an effort to remove non-citizen registrants from the state’s rolls. The state’s list of 182,000 alleged non-citizen registrants quickly dwindled to 198. Even this amended list contained many false positives, such as a WWII veteran born in Brooklyn. In the end, only 85 non-citizen registrants were identified and only one was convicted of fraud, out of a total of 12 million registered voters.
• In Iowa, a multi-year investigation into fraud led to just 27 prosecutions out of 1.6 million ballots cast. In 2014 the state issued a report on the investigation citing only six prosecutions.

 

Columbia University Study

• At the federal level, records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. The available state-level evidence of voter fraud, culled from interviews, reviews of newspaper coverage and court proceedings, while not definitive, is also negligible.
• Most voter fraud allegations turn out to be something other than fraud. A review of news stories over a recent two year period found that reports of voter fraud were most often limited to local races and individual acts and fell into three categories: unsubstantiated or false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.

[Orlando Buffalo]

26 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

As I said, with hundreds of millions of ballots being cast, it is impossible to eliminate all fraud. However, the rate of voter fraud is so astronomically low that it cannot tip a presidential election. It just can't. Now matter how much people want to think 2020 was rigged, it wasn't. You can point to an instance where people are being prosecuted for mishandling ballots (but notably, not impersonating voters), but the evidence is still overwhelmingly against you.

 

PBS: Exhaustive fact check finds little evidence of voter fraud, but 2020’s ‘Big Lie’ lives on

"AP Reporters went looking for cases of voter fraud in six states that Trump has challenged, and they found fewer than 475 potential instances out of more than 25 million votes cast, a number that would not have come close to changing the outcome."

 

475 is the number of *potential* instances (meaning the actual number is likely lower) and is just 0.0019% of the votes studies

 

Brennan Center: Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth

• The [The Truth About Voter Fraud] report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”
• A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.
• Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another in 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000–2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012–2016.
• Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a longtime proponent of voter suppression efforts, argued before state lawmakers that his office needed special power to prosecute voter fraud, because he knew of 100 such cases in his state. After being granted these powers, he has brought six such cases, of which only four have been successful. The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.000017 percent fraud rate.
• A specialized United States Department of Justice unit formed with the goal of finding instances of federal election fraud examined the 2002 and 2004 federal elections, and were able to prove that 0.00000013 percent of ballots cast were fraudulent. There was no evidence that any of these incidents involved in-person impersonation fraud. Over a five year period, they found “no concerted effort to tilt the election.”
• In 2012, Florida Governor Rick Scott initiated an effort to remove non-citizen registrants from the state’s rolls. The state’s list of 182,000 alleged non-citizen registrants quickly dwindled to 198. Even this amended list contained many false positives, such as a WWII veteran born in Brooklyn. In the end, only 85 non-citizen registrants were identified and only one was convicted of fraud, out of a total of 12 million registered voters.
• In Iowa, a multi-year investigation into fraud led to just 27 prosecutions out of 1.6 million ballots cast. In 2014 the state issued a report on the investigation citing only six prosecutions.

 

Columbia University Study

• At the federal level, records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. The available state-level evidence of voter fraud, culled from interviews, reviews of newspaper coverage and court proceedings, while not definitive, is also negligible.
• Most voter fraud allegations turn out to be something other than fraud. A review of news stories over a recent two year period found that reports of voter fraud were most often limited to local races and individual acts and fell into three categories: unsubstantiated or false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.

As I have stated already, and you seem adamant to prove my point, you believe the mayor race in Bridgeport had more fraud then the whole of the US presidential election. You sound like the English teacher who told me when I was  lamenting the problems with cheating on homework that no one cheated on her homework, until I sent her a message that she had two kids using chatgpt on her work in my my class. 

[JFKjr]

30 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

As I said, with hundreds of millions of ballots being cast, it is impossible to eliminate all fraud. However, the rate of voter fraud is so astronomically low that it cannot tip a presidential election. It just can't.

 

You're about to find out how wrong you are (just as you were about the election).

 

And I'm here for it!

[ChiGoose]

40 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

As I have stated already, and you seem adamant to prove my point, you believe the mayor race in Bridgeport had more fraud then the whole of the US presidential election. You sound like the English teacher who told me when I was  lamenting the problems with cheating on homework that no one cheated on her homework, until I sent her a message that she had two kids using chatgpt on her work in my my class. 

 

I am adamant in the point that voter fraud is so rare and so statistically insignificant, that it did not impact the 2020 election. That's supported by every study and analysis conducted on voter fraud.

 

In response, you point to an example of people who did not impersonate other voters to change votes. Instead, they are charged with collecting ballots filled out by the actual voters in a state in which that is not illegal, as well as other unsavory actions that do not amount to the in-person voter fraud that gets bandied about here. They did not go to a polling place and pretend to be another voter. They did not steal ballots and fill them out. They were present when others were filling out ballots, which is definitely bad, but from the story you posted, the voters themselves were the ones filling out the ballots.

 

39 minutes ago, JFKjr said:

 

You're about to find out how wrong you are (just as you were about the election).

 

And I'm here for it!

 

I was wrong in saying that the election was going to be close? Trump's going to win by about 2% of the popular vote and it looks like it'll end up being about 150,000-250,000 votes across a handful of states that will have decided the electoral college in an election with at least 145,000,000 votes. 

 

Seems like expecting a close election was correct to me...

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

The idea that 2024 was stolen is as stupid as the idea that 2020 was stolen is as stupid as the idea that 2016 was stolen. 
 

Plenty of stupid to go around. 

I would not put it past any party, or key members of any party, to attempt to defraud the country in any election.  Power corrupts, etc. 

 

However, absent clear and convincing evidence, the President is the President.  I do believe that it worked so well in 2016, we were guaranteed to see it in 2020. 

[Orlando Buffalo]

43 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I am adamant in the point that voter fraud is so rare and so statistically insignificant, that it did not impact the 2020 election. That's supported by every study and analysis conducted on voter fraud.

 

In response, you point to an example of people who did not impersonate other voters to change votes. Instead, they are charged with collecting ballots filled out by the actual voters in a state in which that is not illegal, as well as other unsavory actions that do not amount to the in-person voter fraud that gets bandied about here. They did not go to a polling place and pretend to be another voter. They did not steal ballots and fill them out. They were present when others were filling out ballots, which is definitely bad, but from the story you posted, the voters themselves were the ones filling out the ballots.

 

Your point is that while people where breaking the law to help get their candidate votes it doesn't really count because it it is not the specific version that is hardest to prove without voter ID, which you argue is racist. Once again when you use the term bad faith to only then admit your argument is only valid so long as you narrowly define the word, and then make it nearly impossible to prove that one version, it really makes you seem ignorant. 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

Your point is that while people where breaking the law to help get their candidate votes it doesn't really count because it it is not the specific version that is hardest to prove without voter ID, which you argue is racist. 

Well, now you’re just making stuff up. 
 

Also, when did I argue that voter ID was racist?

[Orlando Buffalo]

18 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Well, now you’re just making stuff up. 
 

Also, when did I argue that voter ID was racist?

I might be confusing you with another poster from the GA thread a few years back, so my question is then to you, why not require ID since it would limit fraud and show all us Republicans you don't need to cheat? 

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

4 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

I might be confusing you with another poster from the GA thread a few years back, so my question is then to you, why not require ID since it would limit fraud and show all us Republicans you don't need to cheat? 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/07/bipartisan-support-for-early-in-person-voting-voter-id-election-day-national-holiday/

 

18% of respondents do not think government issued photo ID should be required. That’s not many. Based on prior posts, chigoose is among the 18%. 

[ChiGoose]

31 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

I might be confusing you with another poster from the GA thread a few years back, so my question is then to you, why not require ID since it would limit fraud and show all us Republicans you don't need to cheat? 

In theory, I really don’t have an issue with an ID requirement. 
 

In practicality though, the ID laws are often crafted in ways to make it more challenging for certain groups to vote. 

I know it’s hard to believe at first, but millions of Americans do not currently have government issued photo IDs. Simply requiring such an ID today without addressing that gap or making it easier for people to obtain a qualifying ID is just needlessly disenfranchising people. 
 

Many of the ID laws pushed around by those making false claims of voter fraud limit the types of IDs that qualify to the exclusion of “undesired” voters. For instance, allowing a hunting license but not allowing a student ID from a state school. I believe Alabama passed a voter ID law and then subsequently closed a bunch of DMVs in predominantly black counties. 
 

When I look at the types of ID laws being pushed that make it harder for eligible citizens to vote, against the very insignificant amount of fraud, I’m going to stand on the side of the franchise. 
 

If widespread voter fraud was actually real, I might think differently. If there was a proposed law that required ID but made it very easy and free for eligible voters to obtain one (combined with a campaign to get people the IDs), I wouldn’t be up in arms against that. 
 

PS: if you want to talk about cheating, a lot of the people getting caught for in-person voter fraud are actually Republicans. 

[Orlando Buffalo]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

In theory, I really don’t have an issue with an ID requirement. 
 

In practicality though, the ID laws are often crafted in ways to make it more challenging for certain groups to vote. 

I know it’s hard to believe at first, but millions of Americans do not currently have government issued photo IDs. Simply requiring such an ID today without addressing that gap or making it easier for people to obtain a qualifying ID is just needlessly disenfranchising people. 
 

Many of the ID laws pushed around by those making false claims of voter fraud limit the types of IDs that qualify to the exclusion of “undesired” voters. For instance, allowing a hunting license but not allowing a student ID from a state school. I believe Alabama passed a voter ID law and then subsequently closed a bunch of DMVs in predominantly black counties. 
 

When I look at the types of ID laws being pushed that make it harder for eligible citizens to vote, against the very insignificant amount of fraud, I’m going to stand on the side of the franchise. 
 

If widespread voter fraud was actually real, I might think differently. If there was a proposed law that required ID but made it very easy and free for eligible voters to obtain one (combined with a campaign to get people the IDs), I wouldn’t be up in arms against that. 
 

PS: if you want to talk about cheating, a lot of the people getting caught for in-person voter fraud are actually Republicans. 

Your point is trying to find a reason to pretend that "certain groups" can't get ID. You also are arguing that until an  presidential election is stolen you don't want to discuss how to stop it. Finally you seem to think your argument that we are finding cheaters much more readily in ID states vs non ID states is a winning strategy because it is catching more Republicans is about the most partisan thing I can imagine. 

[JFKjr]

How do these people without ID: 

 

drive cars (some don't drive)

get government benefits (some aren't on benefits)

get employment (do they fail to have either benefits or employment? hmm.)

buy a house (definitely not buying a house without ID)

rent a house or apartment (difficult to do without ID but maybe not impossible)

 

So let's say you're living with mom, can't drive and don't have any income. 

 

I guess that would be the scenario. And mom won't drive you to the government-issued ID place, and you don't have enough money for an uber.

 

It's an interesting subset of society. "Undocumented citizens."

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

Your point is trying to find a reason to pretend that "certain groups" can't get ID. You also are arguing that until an  presidential election is stolen you don't want to discuss how to stop it. Finally you seem to think your argument that we are finding cheaters much more readily in ID states vs non ID states is a winning strategy because it is catching more Republicans is about the most partisan thing I can imagine. 

No, my point is simply that I do not believe we should disenfranchise voters based on lies of widespread voter fraud. 
 

I also don’t know where the claim that “we are finding cheaters much more readily in ID states vs non ID states“ came from. Do you have any support for that idea? The example you provided is people in a non-ID state being caught. 
 

Finally, to actually steal a presidential election with the current voter laws would involve such an incredibly large conspiracy of agents across dozens of districts in a multitude of states, all with the voter information and signatures of tens or hundreds of thousands of voters who they are sure will not vote themselves that it is essentially impossible. Any such attempt would not only be doomed to fail but be discovered well in advance of being attempted. 

[wnyguy]

36 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

No, my point is simply that I do not believe we should disenfranchise voters based on lies of widespread voter fraud. 
 

I also don’t know where the claim that “we are finding cheaters much more readily in ID states vs non ID states“ came from. Do you have any support for that idea? The example you provided is people in a non-ID state being caught. 
 

Finally, to actually steal a presidential election with the current voter laws would involve such an incredibly large conspiracy of agents across dozens of districts in a multitude of states, all with the voter information and signatures of tens or hundreds of thousands of voters who they are sure will not vote themselves that it is essentially impossible. Any such attempt would not only be doomed to fail but be discovered well in advance of being attempted. 

Did you have to show ID when you voted?

[JFKjr]

52 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

No, my point is simply that I do not believe we should disenfranchise voters based on lies of widespread voter fraud. 
 

I also don’t know where the claim that “we are finding cheaters much more readily in ID states vs non ID states“ came from. Do you have any support for that idea? The example you provided is people in a non-ID state being caught. 
 

Finally, to actually steal a presidential election with the current voter laws would involve such an incredibly large conspiracy of agents across dozens of districts in a multitude of states, all with the voter information and signatures of tens or hundreds of thousands of voters who they are sure will not vote themselves that it is essentially impossible. Any such attempt would not only be doomed to fail but be discovered well in advance of being attempted. 

 

It's so precious that you think this.

[Wacka]

On 11/11/2024 at 2:54 AM, Tommy Callahan said:

 

Looks like she had to concentrate to get her two brain cells to meet each other to get those thoughts out.

Added: Just noticed her sweatshirt. Does she believe in ETs??

Edited Tuesday at 02:38 PM by Wacka

[Westside]

Just now, Wacka said:

Looks like she had to concentrate to get her two brain cells to meet each other to get those thoughts out.

She’s a typical leftist.

[Steve O]

On 11/11/2024 at 2:54 AM, Tommy Callahan said:

 

Someday she'll be kissing her kids with that mouth.

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

No, my point is simply that I do not believe we should disenfranchise voters based on lies of widespread voter fraud. 
 

I also don’t know where the claim that “we are finding cheaters much more readily in ID states vs non ID states“ came from. Do you have any support for that idea? The example you provided is people in a non-ID state being caught. 
 

Your standard is that I can't prove enough people voted to overturn the election and then present a totally vacuous dated argument. You sound like the idiots who said GA disenfranchised voters right before they had record turnout from the very people "disenfranchised". Everybody over the age of 18 has ID and you can not point to a single person who would actually be unable to vote who should. That is a bad faith argument.