White House Claims Massive Voter Fraud

[sarge]

I expect it is very common for people to move without "unregistering" and end up being registered in two places. Not much of a "gotcha" at all. More of an issue if someone actually voted in multiple places; that would be a pretty deliberate and illegal act.

Well, if it were limited to just people moving an re-registering, that's one thing.

BUT

We will never know the extent of the problem without an investigation, and people who move are just a part of the equation. I suspect that double voting is comparatively significant among college students who become politically active once they start college voting in both the State they call home and the one in which they are attending college---that's certainly plausible. To the extent to which this demographic skews Democrat, I can see why Democrats might not want to delve too deeply there. The other demographic is affluent Baby Boomers with retirement homes, beach houses, summer cabins and the like, as well as the very rich who have homes in multiple states. Politically active people in that demographic might abuse thier priveleges as well. Then there are the people who are dead who can still vote in states that don't require an ID to vote, unless the vote absentee.

BTW;

There's a new study out that says at least 800,000 illegal aliens voted in the last election.

So, in a nation of 330 million people, we might expect to add maybe tens of thousands of college students, politically active retirees, affluent baby boomers, and dead people that could bring the total up to nearly a million.

Of course, that means Donald Trump was off by a million and a half, so you'd have that to hang on to.

[GregD]

I can, and do, say that certain human beings or even groups are "deserving censure or contempt" without at the same time depriving them " of human qualities, personality, or spirit". Since I don't want to spend hours arguing about the meaning of words, I will try and let you have the last word on this.

For me there is a critical distinction between "hating the sin" and "hating the sinner". The latter, in my world view, diminishes the value inherent in a human and in that way is dehumanizing. I'm not sure how that compares with your world view.

In my experience if one gets too emotionally wound up hating the sin that hatred far too easily spills over into hating the sinner.

I'm fairly confident that my world view has a much different criteria for identifying "sinful" behavior than your world view. That is a big deal; can we manage to live together productively or not? My primary interest in these discussions is to explore this question.

Again, re: Trump's lies, I don't care.

At this point that strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position.

[GregD]

Invaders are what La Rasa are calling for.

That may be true. I don't know. I didn't read the link.

Invaders are what the illegals are doing.

If you are claiming that all, most, or anything more than an insignificant fraction of "illegals" are acting in a manner consistent with "invaders", then please show the evidence. If that includes casting illegal votes, then show the voting records that demonstrate the extent of those votes; if it actually happened it is in that data and that data would be conclusive. To the extent that not every single "illegal" is acting in a manner consistent with "invaders", the term "illegal alien invaders" is slanderous and dehumanizing.

[GregD]

BTW;

There's a new study out that says at least 800,000 illegal aliens voted in the last election.

And like medical studies which can't seem to figure out what is good for you and what is not, a single study is not conclusive. Unlike medical studies it is practical to perform a definitive analysis on this question. So lobby your congressman and senator to spend YOUR tax money doing it because you think it is a worthwhile thing to do. If you do that, I will too.

But yes, characterizing as "3 to 5 million" a number that is at most 1.5 million is still a lie. If Trump had characterized the situation the way you did I would not only have no objection, I would agree with him. But he didn't.


And just to get it out there: Yes, I suspect Russians, including Putin probably did try to influence the election. Yes, I think Comey interfered with the election. But I hold Hillary and the DNC completely responsible for loosing the election to the likes of Trump. You will hear no whining about the Electoral College from me. Trump won. He's the Prez fair and square. Not everything you say about Hillary and the DNC is wrong.

[sarge]

BTW;

There's a new study out that says at least 800,000 illegal aliens voted in the last election.

And like medical studies which can't seem to figure out what is good for you and what is not, a single study is not conclusive. Unlike medical studies it is practical to perform a definitive analysis on this question. So lobby your congressman and senator to spend YOUR tax money doing it because you think it is a worthwhile thing to do. If you do that, I will too.

But yes, characterizing as "3 to 5 million" a number that is at most 1.5 million is still a lie. If Trump had characterized the situation the way you did I would not only have no objection, I would agree with him. But he didn't.


And just to get it out there: Yes, I suspect Russians, including Putin probably did try to influence the election. Yes, I think Comey interfered with the election. But I hold Hillary and the DNC completely responsible for loosing the election to the likes of Trump. You will hear no whining about the Electoral College from me. Trump won. He's the Prez fair and square. Not everything you say about Hillary and the DNC is wrong.

So, you're on board with "about a million illegal votes cast"?

Does that mean you've changed your mind about there needing to be an investigation?

[GregD]

So, you're on board with "about a million illegal votes cast"?

I don't agree that there is adequate data to conclude that "about a million votes were cast". But if you suspect that might be the case, I'm on board with that. I don't myself have the data to say that is impossible. My impression is that those state representatives responsible for ensuring the integrity of the election in their state are not at all happy with the suggestion that maybe they didn't get the job done, but that is hardly conclusive evidence. Since it is practical to get conclusive evidence, by all means lets do that.

Does that mean you've changed your mind about there needing to be an investigation?

No. I've always been ready to agree with anyone that wants a nation wide evaluation of the integrity of the 2016 national election. Lets spend some of your tax money; and mine too.

[GregD]

Invaders are what La Rasa are calling for.

That may be true. I don't know. I didn't read the link.

Invaders are what the illegals are doing.

If you are claiming that all, most, or anything more than an insignificant fraction of "illegals" are acting in a manner consistent with "invaders", then please show the evidence. If that includes casting illegal votes, then show the voting records that demonstrate the extent of those votes; if it actually happened it is in that data and that data would be conclusive. To the extent that not every single "illegal" is acting in a manner consistent with "invaders", the term "illegal alien invaders" is slanderous and dehumanizing.

OK, now I've read your link. Did I miss the reference to La Rasa? I did not see any. I see no justification whatsoever for your use of "invaders".

My responses to Sarge and Bill thoroughly address your other comments. Given the opportunity to obtain conclusive evidence on a question, as is the case here, the only logical choice is to consider the question open until the conclusive evidence is actually obtained. Any other choice is deliberate ignorance.

[dirtwheels]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 222-1672r/

Groups like La Rasa have been calling for the invasion for a very long time. Hence the very accurate term illegal alien invaders. They are human, they want control of and power back in former mexican lands, they are on a mission and what patriot should fear calling them out?

Invaders are what La Rasa are calling for.

That may be true. I don't know. I didn't read the link.

Invaders are what the illegals are doing.

If you are claiming that all, most, or anything more than an insignificant fraction of "illegals" are acting in a manner consistent with "invaders", then please show the evidence. If that includes casting illegal votes, then show the voting records that demonstrate the extent of those votes; if it actually happened it is in that data and that data would be conclusive. To the extent that not every single "illegal" is acting in a manner consistent with "invaders", the term "illegal alien invaders" is slanderous and dehumanizing.

OK, now I've read your link. Did I miss the reference to La Rasa? I did not see any. I see no justification whatsoever for your use of "invaders".

My responses to Sarge and Bill thoroughly address your other comments. Given the opportunity to obtain conclusive evidence on a question, as is the case here, the only logical choice is to consider the question open until the conclusive evidence is actually obtained. Any other choice is deliberate ignorance.

[sarge]

I believe the second definition is the operative one in this instance. "Invasion" is not necessarily a military term and we use phrases like "invasion of privacy" without meaning the same thing as "the Normady Invasion"

in·va·sion
inˈvāZHən/Submit
noun
noun: invasion; plural noun: invasions
an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"the Allied invasion of Normandy"

synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover; More
antonyms: withdrawal

an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
"stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
synonyms: influx, inundation, flood, rush, torrent, deluge, avalanche, juggernaut
"an invasion of tourists"

an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
"random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
synonyms: violation, infringement, interruption, intrusion, encroachment, disturbance, disruption, breach
"an invasion of my privacy"
antonyms: respect

[sarge]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 222-1672r/

Groups like La Rasa have been calling for the invasion for a very long time. Hence the very accurate term illegal alien invaders. They are human, they want control of and power back in former mexican lands, they are on a mission and what patriot should fear calling them out?

That may be true. I don't know. I didn't read the link.


If you are claiming that all, most, or anything more than an insignificant fraction of "illegals" are acting in a manner consistent with "invaders", then please show the evidence. If that includes casting illegal votes, then show the voting records that demonstrate the extent of those votes; if it actually happened it is in that data and that data would be conclusive. To the extent that not every single "illegal" is acting in a manner consistent with "invaders", the term "illegal alien invaders" is slanderous and dehumanizing.

OK, now I've read your link. Did I miss the reference to La Rasa? I did not see any. I see no justification whatsoever for your use of "invaders".

My responses to Sarge and Bill thoroughly address your other comments. Given the opportunity to obtain conclusive evidence on a question, as is the case here, the only logical choice is to consider the question open until the conclusive evidence is actually obtained. Any other choice is deliberate ignorance.

I beleive that dirtwheels is referring to the La Raza Reconquista movement. Its a minority of Hispanics who's intent is a "reconquest" of the American Southwest. Here's the Wiki on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

Its not a new idea. In 1915 there were active para-military operations that stemmed out of the so called "Plan San Diego." Terrorist raids were made as far north as the King Ranch and regularly in the Lower Rio Grande valley where towns were sacked, trains derailed, bridges burned culminating in a raid on a US Army Signal Corps detachment at a place called Ojo de Agua just west of McAllen that was nearly wiped out before reinforcements arrived.

More here: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_t ... &psid=3692

[BillyBob66]

Ah, yes, good old La Raza(The Race). I think there exists at least some element of invasion in the military sense, just as there is bound to be among some immigrating Muslims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9 ... Statements

Off Topic

José Angel Gutiérrez, is an attorney and professor at the University of Texas at Arlington in the United States. He was a founding member of the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO) in San Antonio in 1967, and a founding member and past president of the Raza Unida Party, a Mexican-American third party movement that supported candidates for elective office in Texas, California, and other areas of the Southwestern and Midwestern United States........................................................

Controversial Statements

In an interview with In Search of Aztlán on August 8, 1999, Gutierrez stated, in response to claims that the concept of Aztlán supports the Reconquista of the American Southwest, that:

"We’re the only ethnic group in America that has been dismembered. We didn't migrate here or immigrate here voluntarily. The United States came to us in succeeding waves of invasions. We are a captive people, in a sense, a hostage people. It is our political destiny and our right to self-determination to want to have our homeland [back]. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. If they call us radicals or subversives or separatists, that’s their problem. This is our home, and this is our homeland, and we are entitled to it. We are the host. Everyone else is a guest."[1]

He further stated that:

"It is not our fault that whites don’t make babies, and blacks are not growing in sufficient numbers, and there’s no other groups with such a goal to put their homeland back together again. We do. Those numbers will make it possible. I believe that in the next few years, we will see an irredentists movement, beyond assimilation, beyond integration, beyond separatism, to putting Mexico back together as one. That's irridentism. One Mexico, one nation."[1]

In an interview with the Star-Telegram in October 2000, Gutierrez stated that many recent Mexican immigrants "want to recreate all of Mexico and join all of Mexico into one...even if it's just demographically... They are going to have political sovereignty over the Southwest and many parts of the Midwest." [2]

In a videotape made by the Immigration Watchdog Web site (as cited in the Washington Times), Gutierrez is quoted as saying:

"We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."[3]

In a subsequent interview, Gutierrez said there was "no viable" reconquista movement and blamed interest in the issue on closed-border groups and "right-wing blogs."[3]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFsHDbgs_Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B65pLsah3XE

[GregD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 222-1672r/

Groups like La Rasa have been calling for the invasion for a very long time. Hence the very accurate term illegal alien invaders. They are human, they want control of and power back in former mexican lands, they are on a mission and what patriot should fear calling them out?

Based on the referenced information the term "illegal alien invaders" appears to be a blatant lie. The cited "leaders" of La Rasa include Charles Truxillo, born in Albuquerque, is clearly a US citizen, and José Ángel Gutiérrez, graduated from Crystal City High School in Crystal City, Texas in 1962, and an Army veteran, appears also to be a US citizen. Not alien and not illegal. And then there is the apparent vast majority of undocumented immigrants, aka "illegal aliens", which have no significant affiliation with La Rasa. The term is nonsense; it is in no way a reasonable approximation of reality. It is clearly being used to slander a group of people, accusing them of actions with absolutely no supporting evidence. It appears to be a blatant lie.

[BillyBob66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 222-1672r/

Groups like La Rasa have been calling for the invasion for a very long time. Hence the very accurate term illegal alien invaders. They are human, they want control of and power back in former mexican lands, they are on a mission and what patriot should fear calling them out?

Based on the referenced information the term "illegal alien invaders" appears to be a blatant lie. The cited "leaders" of La Rasa include Charles Truxillo, born in Albuquerque, is clearly a US citizen, and José Ángel Gutiérrez, graduated from Crystal City High School in Crystal City, Texas in 1962, and an Army veteran, appears also to be a US citizen. Not alien and not illegal. And then there is the apparent vast majority of undocumented immigrants, aka "illegal aliens", which have no significant affiliation with La Rasa. The term is nonsense; it is in no way a reasonable approximation of reality. It is clearly being used to slander a group of people, accusing them of actions with absolutely no supporting evidence. It appears to be a blatant lie.

You seem to be going off on wild goose chases. I certainly did not say these individuals were themselves "illegal alien invaders". Did someone else? I am saying that the organization which he founded and has been associated with is effectively a pro "illegal alien invaders" organization. La Raza/The Race! ( does not mean "The white race", except to point out who they want to get rid of) Some of it's members are no doubt either citizens or here legally. They, and others like them, have still been in favor of "illegal alien invaders". Often times in the military meaning of invasion, i.e. they have advocated for taking the south west USA back for Mexico. You do see all of those Mexican flags at so many demonstrations, don't you? Often being carried by folks who are giving the middle finger. But let me guess: that all means nothing.

[BillyBob66]

We have just posted the study done by a consortium of 28 universities claiming- based on those who would admit during a poll to being illegal- that close to a million illegal votes were cast for HRC. Then we all seem to have agreed that there would be nothing wrong with an investigation by the Feds to further look ito such allegations. This man from the NAACP appears to not know about the above study, or to not care if he does. I have called the Dems and such folks as this as the pro-voter fraud segment of the country, as they are always against ( most are. and the party officially is) voter ID. This guy, being interviewed by CNN, is also against anyone even looking into it. Gee, I wonder why?:
http://truthfeed.com/video-naacp-says-t ... ing/48989/

[BillyBob66]

To repeat from the quoted study:

Off Topic

But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence — that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting any investigation into fraud.

“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 — 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”..........................................................In the absence of detailed accounting, the only scientific way to make an estimate is by post-vote polling.

Mr. Richman relies on a one-of-a-kind poll: the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Every two years, a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov.

Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status: A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted.

Three professors at Old Dominion University — Mr. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest — took these answers, did further research and extrapolated that of a 19.4 million estimate of adult noncitizens, about 620,000 were illegally registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million.

And may I repeat one more time, those estimates are based on poll respondents who admitted they were illegal voters. Can I get a show of hands from anyone who thinks it is highly likely some illegal voters would not admit to being illegal?