Author Topic: The Third Debate  (Read 78521 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #200 on: November 29, 2016, 06:39:22 AM »
The issue there will be some false positives or difficult to locate voters. Or just the ones that died after legitimately voting.

Hard to find voters would be the homeless in the case of Colorado, or persons who moved after voting.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #201 on: November 29, 2016, 09:50:09 AM »
" The recount passion is pretty much bald faced hypocrisy"

I disagree. There's a difference between saying I want a recount based on observed irregularities, and saying, "if I lose the upcoming election it will be because you cheated" without evidence.  And the millions of illegal voters defense stinks.

I think you missed my point.  Take a look back on the boards, or go back in the news.  The left has been beating the drum that voter/election fraud is a myth that doesn't and can't occur.  To back track and say, well maybe it did (because we lost) is hypocrisy.  The most charitable interpretation I can give it is that they've had a come to the light moment. 

I restate my point, we have no realistic means to detect voter fraud.  Certain voices pretend it doesn't exist and systematically resist any attempts to implement them. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #202 on: November 29, 2016, 09:56:22 AM »
If there's no evidence, how do you know it happens?

That's such an insidious question.  There are people caught engaging in election fraud in every single cycle.  Yet you imply it doesn't exist. 

The only question is the scale of the voter fraud that occurs.  To gauge that we'd need an effective plan to detect voter fraud.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #203 on: November 29, 2016, 10:14:22 AM »
Previous attempts, including by the Bush administration, have found no evidence of significant voter fraud.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #204 on: November 29, 2016, 10:23:40 AM »
Maybe you could detail the rigor of "previous attempts" since you find them persuasive.  There has not been a single study that could have identified a voter with the vote cast, because of voter secrecy, which completely undermines the weight of the argument you are making (it may be an insolvable problem, but it completely undermines you anyway).

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #205 on: November 29, 2016, 10:25:20 AM »
Quote
I think you missed my point.  Take a look back on the boards, or go back in the news.  The left has been beating the drum that voter/election fraud is a myth that doesn't and can't occur.  To back track and say, well maybe it did (because we lost) is hypocrisy.  The most charitable interpretation I can give it is that they've had a come to the light moment. 
You're saying that Democrats can't change their position for a given instance, even if presented with evidence of possible fraud?  According to one source, 5000 votes in the total for Trump in Wisconsin have been erased after an initial review showed that there were no actual votes behind them.  I can't say if that is accurate or not, but it's an indicator that a closer look is warranted.  But whatever you or I might think, bear in mind that Trump himself came out yesterday and claimed that millions of votes were illegally cast.  Don't you want to know if he's right?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #206 on: November 29, 2016, 10:34:59 AM »
You're saying that Democrats can't change their position for a given instance, even if presented with evidence of possible fraud?  According to one source, 5000 votes in the total for Trump in Wisconsin have been erased after an initial review showed that there were no actual votes behind them.  I can't say if that is accurate or not, but it's an indicator that a closer look is warranted.  But whatever you or I might think, bear in mind that Trump himself came out yesterday and claimed that millions of votes were illegally cast.  Don't you want to know if he's right?

I have no more confidence in a recount than I do in an election with respect to voter fraud.  They favor warm body fraud,  a Democratic specialty, over computer fraud, which I sincerely hope is not a specialty of either party, but they do nothing to ensure that we really have a fair election, and they add in all new sources and opportunities to commit fraud.

Honestly, Democrats can change their position on voter fraud.  Admit it exists and give us some practical solutions to prevent it from occurring in the future, start naming them now.  My guess, is you don't care about stopping voter fraud past your specific desire to switch the results of this election, prove me wrong.  How about an end to electronic voting?  How about tighter controls on mail in voting?  How about voter ids?  How about uniform early voting laws and better controls on locations (to ensure they can be adequately monitored by both sides)?  How about agreeing to search and purge voter roles for dead and ineligible voters?  What are you suggesting?

And before you cite to finding 5k votes disallowed, how about you do research it.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #207 on: November 29, 2016, 10:41:31 AM »
Quote
Honestly, Democrats can change their position on voter fraud.  Admit it exists and give us some practical solutions to prevent it from occurring in the future, start naming them now.  My guess, is you don't care about stopping voter fraud past your specific desire to switch the results of this election, prove me wrong.  How about an end to electronic voting?  How about tighter controls on mail in voting?  How about voter ids?  How about uniform early voting laws and better controls on locations (to ensure they can be adequately monitored by both sides)?  How about agreeing to search and purge voter roles for dead and ineligible voters?  What are you suggesting?
Don't you think questioning vote totals in a close ballot is a good enough reason to do a recount?  I have several times argued in favor of tighter controls on the voting process, so I'm your ally on this.  That would reduce the already low likelihood of fraudently cast votes even further.  It's already close to a vanishingly small occurrence, but concerns raised by Trump about the election being rigged (reinforced by him yesterday) and by the government about possible Russian interference justify a closer look and a review/recount where there are questions in close states.  I hope you agree.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #208 on: November 29, 2016, 10:56:21 AM »
It's already close to a vanishingly small occurrence, but concerns raised by Trump about the election being rigged (reinforced by him yesterday) and by the government about possible Russian interference justify a closer look and a review/recount where there are questions in close states.  I hope you agree.

Wait, so now you're implying that the Russians materially abetted in American voter fraud, as well as leaking information prior to the election? If you're not implying this, then why even mention that in a statement regarding why there should be a recount?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #209 on: November 29, 2016, 10:58:03 AM »
Quote
And before you cite to finding 5k votes disallowed, how about you do research it.

Here's a second place I've seen the report, not a copycat of the first.  Votes going up I can see when ballots that were somehow missed were added into the total, but how can a large block of votes from a small area disappear?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #210 on: November 29, 2016, 11:01:06 AM »
It's already close to a vanishingly small occurrence, but concerns raised by Trump about the election being rigged (reinforced by him yesterday) and by the government about possible Russian interference justify a closer look and a review/recount where there are questions in close states.  I hope you agree.

Wait, so now you're implying that the Russians materially abetted in American voter fraud, as well as leaking information prior to the election? If you're not implying this, then why even mention that in a statement regarding why there should be a recount?
Read more closely.  I'm not alleging direct fraud by Russia, but Russian interference.  We don't know the extent of it yet.  I would assume that they did not hack into voting machines and didn't have Russian agents counting the votes in Wisconsin, but if people can be upset about a tiny amount of potential fraud (i.e., Republicans) that has never been proven, why can't others raise a concern about a possible manipulation of the vote, too?  Remember, the vote is rigged!  RIGGED!  MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS VOTED FOR HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Let's have a recount in close states to see if that really happened, eh?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #211 on: November 29, 2016, 11:16:13 AM »
I'm not alleging direct fraud by Russia, but Russian interference.

Ok. I just wanted to zero in on exactly what kind of paranoia I was observing.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #212 on: November 29, 2016, 11:17:59 AM »
Quote
With all the effort Republicans have put into voter fraud it is hard to believe someone wouldn't have conducted a study like this IF they really believed in voter impersonation type election fraud.  The fact that none of the state legislatures, think tanks, or conservative organizations have published this kind of data leads me to believe they don't believe they will find it or have done the studies and not published the results because they found no voter impersonation fraud.
That's because it's a tool used to get out the vote.  The other side is CHEATING!  You need to turn up to offset their evil plot!

This is the exact type of problem they do not want to, and will never solve.  They will propose something that has an obvious or blatant vote suppressing (side)effect for no reason other than to have the Democrats oppose it.  Then they can go on railing against how the corruption is entrenched and their voters must keep fighting the good fight.

When we have 101% voter turn out, then start to worry.   ::)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #213 on: November 29, 2016, 11:27:45 AM »
Quote
I think you missed my point.  Take a look back on the boards, or go back in the news.  The left has been beating the drum that voter/election fraud is a myth that doesn't and can't occur.  To back track and say, well maybe it did (because we lost) is hypocrisy.  The most charitable interpretation I can give it is that they've had a come to the light moment. 
While I hate to play devil's advocate on the recount efforts as I find it ridiculous...

There IS a distinction to be made that MAY move it out of the realm of hypocrisy.  Democrats dispute "massive voter fraud" (or even statistically significant minor voter fraud) existing in terms of someone voting twice or voting when they are not a citizen or sending in groups of mail in ballots for say the deceased.

They (Democrats) ARE as likely as the other side to mistrust that ballot count results are indeed lining up with votes cast.  Security concerns of digital input or readers is not a partisan issue necessarily.  Then there is mistrust of the human element involved. 

Then last there is just inability to accept that how the vote turned out.  I saw one blurb about a large volume of ballots cast without ANY presidential pick being made.  Stated as if it was evidence of reader error or sabotage... as if the idea that all options were so revolting to an informed voter they could indeed abstain instead of "the lesser evil".   ::)

What I'm getting at is requesting a recount (while stupid IMO) is not the same as believing that a massive attempt at flooding the processes with illegitimate ballots is compromising the whole system.