Trump abolishes controversial commission studying voter fraud

  • Thread starter Thread starter niceatheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Boatswain2PA said:
I am for common sense gun laws. I think we already have a bunch of those (prohibited people, prohibited weapons, and background checks). Wanna add bump stocks…sure, that’s common sense too.
I’m also for common sense voter ID laws.
Just makes sense …
Click to expand...
One reason that common sense gun laws make sense is that we live in a country with a track record of vigilance against infringement of constitutions rights to guns.

We also live in country with an unfortunate ad ongoing track record of infringement of voting rights. This means that some approaches to voter ID are less sensible and more sinister than might meet the eye.
 
Nobody wants to disenfranchise a legitimate voter.

Yet many on the left don’t want to consider common sense voting laws such as requiring a valid ID.
 
From the first my state, PA, saw right through this and told the commission they could do like everyone else…pay for the information.

John
 
HCTC said:
Yes, that is a well reasoned opinion from a respected public policy institute. I’m curious what sort of “evidence” you had in mind.
Click to expand...
Evidence. Like, “they said in a statement…”

First, what the left claims to be voter "suppression " legislation is often just political demagoguery, as far as I’m concerned. The document, by making just this accusation, proves political bias, and not some objective observation.
Now, they’re welcome to their view, but it isn’t evidence.
 
Last edited:
Jig_Saw said:
This is good because it tells us that Trump did lose the popular vote despite the many, many claims to the contrary around here.
Click to expand...
He actually won the popular vote in 30 states.
But if we look at the national totals, more votes went to Clinton. None of this means there isn’t voter fraud going on.
Redirect Notice


Maybe having more votes cast than registered voters isn’t voter fraud. Maybe it is.
 
JonNC said:
Maybe having more votes cast than registered voters isn’t voter fraud. Maybe it is.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link.
I hope that your comment doesn’t refer to it.
The discrepancy in the Detroit precincts was not “having more votes cast than registered voters”, although this mistaken idea is seems hard to dispel.

The discrepancy entailed having a different number of votes than the number of voters that the poll workers had sign in. (And while the number of voters was higher in precinct, it was lower in others.)
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
Maybe having more votes cast than registered voters isn’t voter fraud. Maybe it is.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link.
I hope that your comment doesn’t refer to it.
The discrepancy in the Detroit precincts was not “having more votes cast than registered voters”, although this mistaken idea is seems hard to dispel.

The discrepancy entailed having a different number of votes than the number of voters that the poll workers had sign in. (And while the number of voters was higher in precinct, it was lower in others.)
Click to expand...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...han-voters-in-2016-gop-official-says.amp.html
The fact is there are vote discrepancies all the time. Is it voter fraud? Maybe not. Maybe.
Maybe it is simply errors. Maybe it is fraud.
In other words, to state that the existence of the committee is for nefarious reasons without evidence is itself demagoguery
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
These data often get ignored, particularly in large cities dominated by progressive politicians
Click to expand...
OR worse yet, the data is never collected, and the liberal/leftist areas fight against the collection of such data. That is why this commission was created (although they quickly went about it in the wrong way and ruined their chance of success).
 
Last edited:
Boatswain2PA said:
OR worse yet, the data is never collected, and the liberal/leftist areas fight against the collection of such data. That is why this commission was created (although they quickly went about it in the wrong way and ruined their chance of success).
Click to expand...
And, theoretically, the conservatives would have a very strong incentive to make sure there aren’t fraudulent votes from liberal/leftist areas, but we see little. There are poll watchers from both parties and many voting sites. Even the bluest states have significant Republican population and yet we hear little on this issue. So, sorry, I’m simply not buying there is a problem worthy of adding additional burdens to voting.
 
Jig_Saw said:
And, theoretically, the conservatives would have a very strong incentive to make sure there aren’t fraudulent votes from liberal/leftist areas, but we see little. There are poll watchers from both parties and many voting sites. Even the bluest states have significant Republican population and yet we hear little on this issue. So, sorry, I’m simply not buying there is a problem worthy of adding additional burdens to voting.
Click to expand...
Likewise libs to ensure no fraudulent votes from conservative areas.

Poll watchers can only follow the laws. If I show up and say my name is Eric Holder, they can’t make me prove it. That renders them ineffective in that regard, limiting them to just ensuring nobody is physically stuffing the ballots.

I agree we don’t need to implement excessive burdens on voters without overriding data of voter fraud, which we don’t have. However we DO have significant anecdotal evidence of voter fraud, and there is a SIGNIFICANT security lapse in many states that is easily fixed with virtually no burden on the voter: requiring voter ID verification.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
I agree we don’t need to implement excessive burdens on voters without overriding data of voter fraud, which we don’t have. However we DO have significant anecdotal evidence of voter fraud, and there is a SIGNIFICANT security lapse in many states that is easily fixed with virtually no burden on the voter: requiring voter ID verification.
Click to expand...
Fine. Then find a way to make such ID cheap or free for voters, so that state governments can’t use their bag of tricks (like shutting down DMV offices in minority-dominant areas). If you’re going to require voter ID, then that ID should come at absolutely no cost to the voter, otherwise it really does ultimately become, intentionally or otherwise, a voter suppression tactic.
 
Remember recently in the Roy Moore/Doug Jones vote, a Republcan made a claim that a City in Alabama had 5000 votes for Doug Jones in a City that has only 2000 residents. This was the number 1 on the “Secretary Of State of Alabama” list of fraudulent claims. the SOS stated that the City does not even exist. He reported that there were over 100 such claims where 60 of them had already been adjudicated and found to be false.

Draw your own conclusions about the honestly factor among Republicans.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top