Clinton potentially recieved 35,000 - 800,000 illegal votes according to study - Polidicks

A slightly better title so the thread'll be less derailed by it.

[QUOTE=benwaddi;51734966]Remind me again, who raised millions of dollars on the back of "Russia hacked the votes"?[/QUOTE] Jill "people have real questions about vaccines" Stein Does this mean that (despite the admissions above) fake news creators didn't target fake news at conservatives because they knew conservatives were more likely to share it? Nope. Thanks for sharing

[QUOTE=Sonador;51734936]And 62.8 million non-humans voted for Trump, so I suppose we're even. :v:[/QUOTE] I want to note, that exactly this additude was one of the reasons he won.

[QUOTE=benwaddi;51734966]Remind me again, who raised millions of dollars on the back of "Russia hacked the votes"?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure, could you cite those exact words said by the supposed person who said them?

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;51734985]I want to note, that exactly this additude was one of the reasons he won.[/QUOTE] No it wasn't

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;51734985]I want to note, that exactly this additude was one of the reasons he won.[/QUOTE] To avoid another argument: no, Trump didn't win, Clinton lost because she was a shite campaigner and the Democrats didn't vote for her. Trump didn't receive more votes than previous Republican candidates. In any other country in the world he wouldn't have won. But he won thanks to the Electoral College because Clinton's vote collapsed due to her being a shit candidate, and shite campaigner, and peddling a terrible message nobody wanted to vote for.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51734930] While it's not relevant to the kind of fraud alleged here, it's worth pointing out that we don't [I]have[/I] voter IDs. In most states, to vote you don't need [I]any[/I] ID, and the idea of requiring any sort of identification to vote is considered politically contentious. Our entire electoral system is very low-tech and not particularly secure, and there are numerous steps along the way where fraud can occur. Ignoring that reality is putting partisan politics before integrity.[/QUOTE] You don't need an ID but you do need differing layers of verification when you register, such as a social security number, drivers license number, or having your birth certificate on file. I imagine voter ID laws would be less politically contentious if they didn't disproportionately affect demographics that tend to vote blue or if the Republicans could make a case that voter fraud is widespread. Which leads me to wondering why in all these years of back and forth regarding ID laws no one has ever referenced the 2014 report from this guy about the 2008 election. If it reveals proof that tens of thousands of people voted illegally I would imagine we would have had voter ID laws in most states by 2016.

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;51734985]I want to note, that exactly this additude was one of the reasons he won.[/QUOTE] :rolleyes: It was a joke, and I assure you it's not. I'm taking the piss out of how easily lied to you had to be to believe him and vote for him. The reasons he actually won are outlined up further in this thread than I could ever hope to. He didn't play to the intelligent audience, he played to the bible belt, farmers, and hard labor group, which is almost completely silent in modern communication and social media but incredible in number, and it worked. The vocal crowd that supports Trump are just the tip of the iceberg when it came to people voting for him.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51734996]To avoid another argument: no, Trump didn't win, Clinton lost because she was a shite campaigner and the Democrats didn't vote for her. Trump didn't receive more votes than previous Republican candidates. In any other country in the world he wouldn't have won. But he won thanks to the Electoral College because Clinton's vote collapsed due to her being a shit candidate, and shite campaigner, and peddling a terrible message nobody wanted to vote for.[/QUOTE] Should've said "become president". But the reason is valid, as I wasn't even following the whole election debacle until Sanders resigned, but I heard the message "Vote for dems or you're subhuman nazi trash" almost everywhere.

I do not want to start an argument, but I want to know something because I am ignorant. Are illegal citizen's votes valid? If they are, why are they valid? Why should somebody, who illegally arrived to a country, have a say in what the country's future should be? If they are LEGAL citizens, fine, that's fair, they earn their right to vote. But if you have no wish to respect the country's laws and customs, you should not be entitled to its citizen rights and privileges either. You respect the country, the country will respect you. Get papers, THEN vote.

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;51735008]Should've said "become president". But the reason is valid, as I wasn't even following the whole election debacle until Sanders resigned, but I heard the message "Vote for dems or you're subhuman nazi trash" almost everywhere.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say "Subhuman Nazi Trash," but I would say, "Unread and gullible." Really, if you think megaphone social media groups count for the majority of voters in either party, you should get out a little more.

[QUOTE=Nitro836;51735013]I do not want to start an argument, but I want to know something because I am ignorant. Are illegal citizen's votes valid? If they are, why are they valid? Why should somebody, who illegally arrived to a country, have a say in what the country's future should be? If they are LEGAL citizens, fine, that's fair, they earn their right to vote. But if you have no wish to respect the country's laws and customs, you should not be entitled to its citizen rights and privileges either. You respect the country, the country will respect you.[/QUOTE] They're usually invalid, and they have no reason to be. [editline]27th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sonador;51735014]I wouldn't say "Subhuman Nazi Trash," but I would say, "Unread and gullible." Really, if you think megaphone social media groups count for the majority of voters in either party, you should get out a little more.[/QUOTE] That's you. Others are living in their bubble, not realising that if they call their opponent "Obango-sucking libtard" or "russian trumpet cuck" people might take this at heart, and go to their opponents. I know a lot of people who were turned off by how Democratic party dealt with Sanders and went to Trump, a lot of people who decided that "grab em by pussy" is way too offensive and went to vote for Clinton... And arguement about vocal minority is almost never considered when discussing Trump supporters. Dunno why.

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;51735008]Should've said "become president". But the reason is valid, as I wasn't even following the whole election debacle until Sanders resigned, but I heard the message "Vote for dems or you're subhuman nazi trash" almost everywhere.[/QUOTE] There were certainly extreme buttheads everywhere... online. But the internet for the vast majority of people did not influence their vote. The whole SJW thing did not influence people's vote. I firmly believe Trump became president and Clinton lost on the economic message. It was the only effective message Trump had - despite being shown that he had no plan multiple times and that he was fairly ignorant of what it took to run a national economy. But because he promised something different and it sounded semi-hopeful, and because he could sell it, people voted for it. Clinton always presented herself as the next four years of Obama - when she should have presented herself as someone who took on Sanders' policies and been more progressive. Nobody wanted to vote for someone claiming to be the next four years of Obama if they weren't Obama, and despite the fact that he lost, it was clear that the grassroots passion for the Democrats came from those who wanted Sanders to get the nomination. Add to the fact that there is evidence out there that Clinton simply did not campaign, and we have ended up here. EDIT: we're getting off-topic though.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51734930]It asserts that hundreds of thousands of ineligible people voted in the 2008 election. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the same thing probably happened this election and is worth investigating, even if it didn't actually change the outcome of the election. Liberals have been saying for months that there is no fraud in the electoral system, and point to the handful of prosecutions over the last two decades as proof that it's a non-issue. But even if this article isn't making any specific claims about 2016, the fact that there's statistical evidence of rampant voter fraud in 2008 should be serious cause for concern in light of reduced confidence in our electoral process. And while it may not have made a difference in this election, plenty of our elections have been close enough that somewhere up to a [I]million[/I] extra votes for one party could swing the result. It absolutely is moving the goalposts to go from 'voter fraud isn't real' to 'well it didn't make a difference anyways' to 'well the paper was about 2008 so who knows what happened in 2016', even if OP's headline is bullshit. If there's evidence that the 2008 election involved a significant number of ineligible voters, that's reason enough to investigate voting procedures.[/QUOTE] I don't think this study should just be dismissed, but I also think it's worth taking into account that at 339 noncitizen respondents in 2008 (from a survey [I]not[/I] designed to actually survey noncitizens, as far as I can tell), the 95% confidence interval is about as large as the percentage who claimed to be registered to vote (6.4%) - and apparently, in the way the question was phrased, not necessarily in the US. Doing a study to figure out to what degree noncitizens actually vote is probably a worthwhile investment, but it seems to me that this study where you in 2010 have results half the size of the confidence interval, can't really say much beyond "noncitizens are voting to some degree". Also honestly I don't get how it's even possible for noncitizens to vote. How do you register in the US?

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;51735008]Should've said "become president". But the reason is valid, as I wasn't even following the whole election debacle until Sanders resigned, but I heard the message "Vote for dems or you're subhuman nazi trash" almost everywhere.[/QUOTE] I must admit Clinton made a mistake running a negative campaign; that deplorables thing, while funny and sort of true was a huge mistake. It made her seem spiteful, made people like you think her message was "vote for me or you're bad", it gave Trump ammo to say "look at her she hates you" and it gave Trump supporters months of meme material. She made herself the bad guy with that I feel. She should have run something positive (like Obama did with change) the "I'm with her" thing was rubbish. She wasn't inspiring, even (while I disagree with identity politics) her "first woman pres" thing was shit because she doesn't seem like a woman, she seems like a robot who's speeches and interactions are carefully scripted by some group of experts sat round a table watching the world through security cameras. She did get more votes though and should have been made President, I believe she would have been better than Trump and if I was American I would have reluctantly voted for her.

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;51735015]That's you. Others are living in their bubble, not realising that if they call their opponent "Obango-sucking libtard" or "russian trumpet cuck" people might take this at heart, and go to their opponents. I know a lot of people who were turned off by how Democratic party dealt with Sanders and went to Trump, a lot of people who decided that "grab em by pussy" is way too offensive and went to vote for Clinton... And arguement about vocal minority is almost never considered when discussing Trump supporters. Dunno why.[/QUOTE] In my experience, most people seem to have lost the ability to grasp the concept of a vocal minority. In fact, I see most people have lost the ability to judge an individual on their actions instead of their affiliation. I don't dislike Trump nor wish his office be revoked because he's a conservative, a republican, right-wing, or anything of the sort. I dislike him and wish he be impeached because he's a liar, a failure, impunitively offensive, and all-around a bad person. And that was before he concreted my opinion by doing things like silencing the NPS and attempting to gut the EPA. He is not a person that deserves to be the face of the United States based upon his actions and character alone, not counting his affiliations or other peoples' opinions of his affiliations. How can a person look at his last week in office and not see that he's paving the way for his big industry special interests? If that's not at least an unacceptable appearance of impropriety, I don't know what is.

[QUOTE=Sonador;51735037]In my experience, most people seem to have lost the ability to grasp the concept of a vocal minority. In fact, I see most people have lost the ability to judge an individual on their actions instead of their affiliation. I don't dislike Trump nor wish his office be revoked because he's a conservative, a republican, right-wing, or anything of the sort. I dislike him and wish he be impeached because he's a liar, a failure, impunitively offensive, and all-around a bad person. And that was before he concreted my opinion by doing things like silencing the NPS and attempting to gut the EPA. How can a person look at his last week in office and not see that he's paving the way for his big industry special interests? If that's not at least an unacceptable appearance of impropriety, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, that's the point. 2016 wat the year of election of lesser evil. If USA people (and electors) decided that Clinton is less worthy - then so be it. The only chance is to somehow get Sanders in there, and don't let pieces of Democratic party slow him down. And yeah, we're moving off the topic a bit too much.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51735026]I don't think this study should just be dismissed, but I also think it's worth taking into account that at 339 noncitizen respondents in 2008 (from a survey [I]not[/I] designed to actually survey noncitizens, as far as I can tell), the 95% confidence interval is about as large as the percentage who claimed to be registered to vote (6.4%) - and apparently, in the way the question was phrased, not necessarily in the US. Doing a study to figure out to what degree noncitizens actually vote is probably a worthwhile investment, but it seems to me that this study where you in 2010 have results half the size of the confidence interval, can't really say much beyond "noncitizens are voting to some degree".[/QUOTE] I agree with you, but for the US government to unanimously agree 'noncitizens are voting to some degree' would be a huge step. The idea that election fraud is not an issue, not even worth investigating further, is the Democratic party line. That bothers me. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51735026]Also honestly I don't get how it's even possible for noncitizens to vote. How do you register in the US?[/QUOTE] Generally you simply provide name, address, and a unique identifier like social security number to your local government. However, this has not always been the case, and many people have their voter registration grandfathered in as the laws change. There's also the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It requires that, when someone applies for a driver's license, they be given the opportunity to register to vote. In most states, the applicant just needs to check a box certifying that they are a US citizen, and then they're automatically registered. Since there's no citizenship requirement for a driver's license, it's easy to defraud. There are a few other minor causes but those are the big two.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51735083]I agree with you, but for the US government to unanimously agree 'noncitizens are voting to some degree' would be a huge step. The idea that election fraud is not an issue, not even worth investigating further, is the Democratic party line. That bothers me. Generally you simply provide name, address, and a unique identifier like social security number to your local government. However, this has not always been the case, and many people have their voter registration grandfathered in as the laws change. There's also the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It requires that, when someone applies for a driver's license, they be given the opportunity to register to vote. In most states, the applicant just needs to check a box certifying that they are a US citizen, and then they're automatically registered. Since there's no citizenship requirement for a driver's license, it's easy to defraud. There are a few other minor causes but those are the big two.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I can't disagree with plugging holes. I don't know for certain whether Denmark's system is much better when it comes to fraud (though I'd assume so), but here every citizen is simply mailed a personal ballot (or well, strictly speaking it's a piece of paper that makes you eligible to receive a ballot at the voting place). I suppose someone else could still simply vote for you if you gave them your ballot, but I can't really think of any other way to defraud the system. Seems weird to me that you have to register to vote in the first place, to be honest.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51735110]Can someone explain to me why are voter IDs considered voter suppression even though almost every single country on earth does it?[/QUOTE] It's not, but it's a flawed argument that side took up to garner more votes. In theory, it [I]could[/I] suppress votes out of sloth, false fears of deportation, or officials misusing the process to make it deliberately difficult, but that's an extremely contrived idea.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51735110]Can someone explain to me why are voter IDs considered voter suppression even though almost every single country on earth does it?[/QUOTE] Racism of low expectations.

[QUOTE=Sonador;51735123] [QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51735110]Can someone explain to me why are voter IDs considered voter suppression even though almost every single country on earth does it?[/QUOTE] It's not, but it's a flawed argument that side took up to garner more votes. In theory, it [I]could[/I] suppress votes out of sloth, false fears of deportation, or officials misusing the process to make it deliberately difficult, but that's an extremely contrived idea.[/QUOTE] Contrived perhaps but Alabama has been accused of doing it. [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/alabama-dmv-closures-voting-rights/[/url] In alabama valid photo id was required for voting and it just so happens that driving license offices were closed which apparently [quote]disproportionately constrains the ability of some residents to secure driving privileges, register personal and commercial vehicles, and obtain proper identification a critical requirement for access to essential activities such as opening a bank account and voting[/quote] Put simply someone thought that the black community had been specifically targetted with the closures to make it harder for them to vote. Investigation is ongoing as far as i can tell. Positive identification should be required though. Maybe the feds need to regulate it to ensure that people have reasonable access to acquiring that ID. If its a right to vote it ought to be a right to gain the means to vote. Is it even a right to vote?

-35 to 800 bajillion votes

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51735110]Can someone explain to me why are voter IDs considered voter suppression even though almost every single country on earth does it?[/QUOTE] The main argument, as far as I can tell, is that not all citizens have equal access to the means to obtain what is considered a valid form of photo ID under voter ID laws. When those laws would require you to somehow make your way to the DMV two towns over so you can get a photo ID done (if you can afford it), poor people get fucked over by it.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51735110]Can someone explain to me why are voter IDs considered voter suppression even though almost every single country on earth does it?[/QUOTE] When the republicans do it, it seems to disproportionately make it much harder for black people to [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/29/north-carolina-voter-id-law-struck-down"]vote[/URL]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51735266]When the republicans do it, it seems to disproportionately make it much harder for black people [url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/29/north-carolina-voter-id-law-struck-down]vote[/url][/QUOTE] I think you mean that in that one instance that happened. Statements like that polarize for no reason.

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51735279]I think you mean that in that one instance that happened. Statements like that polarize for no reason.[/QUOTE] Alabama would be the second instance. 2 out of 50 isn't great when you consider its potentially a party trying to suppress voters who might vote against it.

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51735279]I think you mean that in that one instance that happened. Statements like that polarize for no reason.[/QUOTE] But it's also happened in South Carolina, Texas, Alabama and Ohio, where the law was found to disproportionately minority and particularly black voters. Voter ID sounds good in theory but Republicans keep fucking it up.

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51735279]I think you mean that in that one instance that happened. Statements like that polarize for no reason.[/QUOTE] Really? Because I'm pretty sure there was evidence of it happening in like 5 states.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51735298]But it's also happened in South Carolina, Texas, Alabama and Ohio, where the law was found to disproportionately minority and particularly black voters. Voter ID sounds good in theory but Republicans keep fucking it up.[/QUOTE] might be good to source that from the get-go. I'm not a republican but seeing bad things attributed to an enormous group always strikes me as using an unnecessarily wide angle lens for issues.