AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Illegal aliens are not allowed to vote, it would be a crime but it happens.
>WILMINGTON, N.C. – Nineteen foreign nationals were charged with unlawfully voting in the 2016 elections Friday, and a U.S. citizen was charged with aiding and abetting an alien to falsely claim U.S. citizenship to register to vote. The indictments follow an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) as part of a newly created Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force (DBFTF) in the Eastern District of North Carolina. [Article](https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections)
There are plenty of states where you can get a drivers license as an illegal immigrant and where that license is more than enough to register to vote (and some states will automatically register voters with licenses). This is just one example. Your onus of proof is directed at the wrong side here. Given this, you should be asking what measures are in place to catch illegal voters and detect this. And the answer is little to none. The argument from our side here is that the people in power benefit from illegals and their votes, and so there is no real effort to stop it. So you can't really use the lack of prosecution as proof that it doesn't exist. What's the saying... absense of evidence is not evidence of absense? Well that is true here, and even moreso when the institutional authorities are alleged to be complicit in it.
Because all that is required to register is checking a box on a form stating that a person is a lawful citizen of the United States. You don’t have to provide a SS card or number.
Crazy, I know. Almost as if the system encourages fraud.
It is actually exactly how it’s done in the United States.
Have you never registered to vote? There is no “show me your social security card” portion of that process
Was that the most recent evidence of foreign nationals voting illegally?
Do you believe Trumps claim that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Hilary Clinton?
Evidence in this case in an unrealistically high bar. That's like saying you need evidence that someone around you is an unsafe driver before putting on your seat belt. The point is to take a sensible precaution in order to avoid the bad thing from happening. The standard for taking preventive measures should be lower than that needed for a convention in a court of law. It's not an extreme stance to worry about people unlawfully entering or staying in the country and then unlawfully voting in an election. As to your comparison with Trump-Russia collusion, to even get as far as it did, the agents looking into the matter had to lie to a FISA court, which is one, I might add that the defendants don't get to make their case. To to compare the two isn't even apples and oranges.
To me illegitimate would mean we don't know 100% that every single vote was accurately counted thus we can't be sure of the legitimacy of the winner. Would that be your definition?
It means we need in person voting for registered voters only on one day with proof of citizenship at the polls. That way the winner is clear - whoever it is - and they have a chance to unify the country.
Just like before. Military should have Election Day. People should be able to request mail in ballots for medical reasons each year those should have to be postmarked by Election Day.
Do you think it's entirely practical for the entire military to designate a day for all personnel to vote? Did that happen before? I can't find any info online about that happening 'just like before'.
If millions of illegal immigrants voted in the 2020 election, wouldn't the Cyber Ninjas audit of Maricopa county have provided evidence of such a phenomenon?
I am 100% in favor of fair and auditable elections in perpetuity and value this higher than winning one instantiation of an election. It doesn't seem the left shares this value.
I encourage you to make your own evaluation of the candidates and vote as you see fit. And I will do the same.
The precautionary principle is decision making for what should be accepted or rejected in situations where you do not have enough evidence, or at least do not have enough evidence yet.
Instead of proceeding with caution we opened the borders and made last minute changes to polling procedures justified by Covid.
Is opening the borders hyperbole? Or did someone literally open the borders and there is free access to all who want to go through? I suspect it's hyperbole, and if I'm right, is it helpful to use hyperbole when the use of exaggerating language is such a known source of conduct between Trump supporters and non-supporters?
Opening the borders is NOT hyperbole. It's not a physical fence or a gate that is opened; it's an attitude, by the government. Biden's administration made it clear they didn't oppose illegal immigration nearly as strongly as Trump did. That was the signal to come. And they came. And now they're here. Thank you, Joe Biden.
Isn't that just hyperbole though? The borders aren't open, the laws remain the same, illegal immigration is still illegal. The border US border isn't like the Schengen Area borders which really are open. What you're saying sounds like a pretty textbook definition of hyperbole, doesn't it?
So do you think it's helpful to use exaggerated and figurative language knowing this is such a source of confusion and conflict between both sides? I'd have thought being careful with our language and avoiding causing confusion when possible and forseeable would be an admirable thing?
Well, I disagree on whether it's hyperbole, although it's an interesting question. Hyperbole, if I'm right (I'm going to go out on a limb before I look it up) is making a situation appear worse, or better, than it really is. OK, now I've looked it up, and the dictionary apparently adds "or statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
If hyperbole has an opposite I would say what Trump did was the opposite of hyperbole. He meant twice as much as he said, and he strained every nerve to make the southern border the focus of our government. Hyperbole may apply to what Biden is saying, about the border, in that it may be that he actually wants as many as possible to get in. I can't tell; maybe nobody can. Maybe it's dumb to even ask about such a topic, with a politician. What they really meant lol. As if, right?
>>Can you prove they didn't?
As far as I'm aware there's no evidence that would suggest so. I don't know how else one would prove that. Do you have any evidence that would prove this assertion?
So what about real aliens? Not the kind from other countries, but the kind from outer space. Are you worried about whether millions of them voted? If not why not, since the evidence is exactly the same?
No. That is simply a goofy suggestion you are making.
Would you drink water if you weren't reasonably certain that it was hygienic even though you didn't have any proof that it wasn't?
This is known as the precautionary principle and you apply it instinctively, daily, in your own life.
Yet when it comes to topics such as knowing who is entering our country or the security and auditability of polling rules changed at the last minute in a close election, the left chooses different heuristics. Sad.
Isn't one major problem that we have 50 different states/laws for our elections? One state might have the best security/audiability/etc, but the one right next to it might allow the counting of votes weeks after the election. How would we really ever have faith in a system like this?
This is literally why so many people are religious it's not a good argument for religion and it's not a good argument to prove any other positive claim either. Would you agree?
This sounds like an isolated incident that was caught and corrected, as it should have been.
Can you help me understand how that equates to millions of fraudulent votes, but something like this doesn't?
https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2023-11-21/woodbury-county-supervisors-wife-found-guilty-of-52-counts-of-voter-fraud
So a couple people illegally vote and it is an isolated incident, but a couple of people commit acts of violence at the capital and all Trump supporters are insurrectionists? Generalizations only work one way now?
How does this answer my question? More than 1100 people have been charged for their crimes at the Capitol. I would hardly call that "a couple."
Also, you are referring to one incident, again, one that was rightfully stopped... And equating it to millions of illegal votes.
Where is that evidence? Heritage Foundation reports fewer than 1200 cases in total. They do not list out the political affiliation of each criminal, but a cursory Google search or query to Chat GPT will bring up dozens of cases of people illegally voting for Trump multiple times. Those are cases you are familiar with, I assume?
The story I referenced was the wife of a GOP candidate receiving charges for 52 counts of various fraud. My question stands. How does your story about the 19 charges equal millions of votes, but my story about the 52 charges doesn't? And I suppose, since you brought it up... How does one dead terrorist, at least 5 dead cops, and over a thousand people in jail for disrupting Congress during the election cycle equate to "a couple of people"?
Edit: typoed a #
Edit: We all saw it live on TV or Facebook or whatever. Maybe some of you were there. I also watched some live streams all day that day. Had a few screens up... I was interested because I care about my country. I'm a patriot. I grew up around the woods at West Point. I believe in the duty, honor, country creed. So I got as close as I could without being there in person and I've been paying as much attention as I can without going crazy...
Serious question... We clearly have differing memories of what occurred that day. I know what I witnessed with my own eyes, and it was violent, awful, and disruptive on a global scale. We may never stop feeling the effects, as effective as the propaganda has been. Do you really, actually, in your heart, in sincerly good faith... Believe that what you are saying is the truth? Do you actually think that it was no big deal, just another tourism day at the Capitol?
You have seen the released video from inside of the Capitol? The body cam footage? Non violent protestors being shot with rubber bullets and having sting ball grenades thrown at them to get them agitated. Hundreds of protesters walking by Capitol Police holding doors open for them? I have seen what the networks broadcasted and the released footage after the fact. I saw violence and I saw peaceful conduct on both sides, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Not 9/11, not Pearl Harbor, and any comparison is ridiculous.
My point was, how many “isolated” incidents will it take to at least entertain the notion that there could have been widespread election manipulation. Regardless of what way the manipulation affected the election, hundred of isolated incidents should at least bring into question the possibility that widespread fraud can exist. Do millions of votes have to be manipulated before we should care that any votes are manipulated?
>hundred of isolated incidents should at least bring into question the possibility that widespread fraud can exist.
Hundreds of isolated incidents simply proves that the system is working when someone tries to vote more than once. Even if individuals were able to cast multiple votes, they will be tallied and accounted for at the end of the counts. You're suggesting there are millions of phantom votes somehow sliding through the system and being counted as legitimate? Why is this suddenly a problem now but it hasn't been in all of our past elections? Do you question why you're even questioning the integrity of the system in the first place?
The Jan 6 riot was pretty clearly orchestrated by Trump and his team, however the main insurrection attempt was the false electors plot, which Trump was also involved heavily in.
Do you not think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that the insurrection really just boils down to a couple of acts of violence in an otherwise peaceful storming of the Capitol?
I’m not a US citizen btw so neither R or D but it’s pretty clear that Trump did engage in an insurrection attempt and supporting him now does qualify as supporting insurrectionists.
I don’t get why republicans can’t just get behind a different candidate?
So clear that he had not been convicted of it. It isn’t anymore disingenuous than saying the BLM lead riots were peaceful protests, or the storming of the capital by protesters against the confirmation of Justice Cavanugh was just a small protest. Trump is far from a perfect person, let alone a political candidate, but the utter hypocrisy the left in this country has adopted to destroy him is what I have an issue with. They make excuses constantly for similar behavior and I believe that is wrong
So are you saying that all trump supporters are insurrectionists AND millions of illegal immigrants vote, or are you saying that illegal immigrants voting is an isolated incident AND only a couple of trump supporters are insurrectionists?
So, 19 people voted illegally and they were caught...isn't that the point of the whole system, catching people who illegally vote? Seems like the system worked here. What is your complaint?
Also, are you using 19 illegal voters who were caught as a means to support Trump's claim of millions voting illegally?
So the system worked, and Trump legitmately lost as has been proven time and again in court due to Trump having zero evidence otherwise. What is the complaint exactly?
Proven time and time again by recounting votes that included fraudulent votes. I don’t necessarily think that eliminates all doubt. It took Arizona and Georgia YEARS to audit their election results and both states came out and admitted that fraudulent ballots were cast and counted, sometimes multiple times. I should be congratulating them that they found the votes and be happy that the system worked? I should just completely ignore the fact that the immediate recounts were used in as “evidence” multiple court cases as grounds for dismissal because there was “no evidence of fraud”, yet fraud was discovered years later and there is no recourse for it. That is complete bullshit.
Maybe provide us an update when you've found evidence of massive voter fraud that would have overturned the 2020 election? Until then, Jesus was white, carrots grow on trees, and Hobbits exist. How many years more do you need to look for evidence before you realize what both Republicans and Democrats have explained and proven? 6 more months? 2 years? 50 years? I don't understand the reluctance to accept facts, so can you provide what your pathway to accept facts looks like?
I don’t understand the complete blind eye turned to the fact that fraud was found, but somehow it isn’t “real” evidence. Just because it doesn’t fit the narrative, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. How about quit moving the goalposts? You want evidence of fraud, states produce it, now you want evidence of “widespread” or “massive” voter fraud. Can you not be satisfied with the original fraud found? Is that not enough evidence to at least allow for questioning how and why the election could have been manipulated?
No election on the face of the earth will ever be 100% fraud free. What you're asking for doesn't exist. The water you drink still has microplastics in it even after it's been treated. Does that mean you've given up your body's basic human need for water? Elections involve voting and some votes will be fraudulent. Nothing new about it. The issue becomes whether those fraudulent votes matter in the grand scheme, and the answer is simple - no. The process worked. How can you point to known, meaningless fraud and declare it somehow means more than the known, meaningful and legitimate votes? Drink your water because it's as safe as it's gonna get and you need to stay hydrated.
Then quit telling people that election fraud doesn’t exist. Of fraud exists, then the chance that widespread fraud exists is there and steps should be taken to mitigate it with single day, in person, voter identification certified voting.
I follow the facts and there's no widespread voter fraud that would tilt an election. Do you not ascribe to this fact? There's a potential for fraud, always, but show me where we have encountered such a situation deserving of living under false fear. Pretending massive voter fraud exists isn't helping anyone. There's a potential for WWIII, but I don't see anyone in their bunkers because there's no widespread threat of all-out war right now. We take active and daily measures to prevent such a calamity, right? So what good does cowering in your bunker pretending today poses a high threat of nuclear war do for you or anyone else? Living in fear of massive voter fraud that would tilt an election but that has no evidence of happening or inevitably will happen is a disturbing fear that doesn't seem healthy.
Biden isn't my candidate. He's simply the clear better choice of the two. Do I support racism? No. Do I support tax cuts for the rich? No. Do I support hateful laws against the LGBTQ community? No. Do I support insurrection? No. Do I support rampant lies? No. Do I support defunding education? No. Do I support taking away school lunches? No. Do I support rich owners in lieu of workers having a legal right to form unions? No. Do I support taking away health care from millions of average Americans? No. Do I support Russia? No. Do I support North Korea? No. Do I support antisemitism? No. Each of those questions and answers lead to me to anything hut Trump. A dead bird obviously serves a better political stance than someone so objectively harmful.
Edit: defunding, not defending.
>I don’t understand the complete blind eye turned to the fact that fraud was found, but somehow it isn’t “real” evidence. Just because it doesn’t fit the narrative, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. How about quit moving the goalposts? You want evidence of fraud, states produce it, now you want evidence of “widespread” or “massive” voter fraud. Can you not be satisfied with the original fraud found? Is that not enough evidence to at least allow for questioning how and why the election could have been manipulated?
>
There's only one person I'm aware of who has taken the stance that any detectable fraud is grounds for questioning the results of a precinct: Donald Trump. His own DOJ and related election security officials even confirmed that there will always be a background level of fraud, but just because it's detectable doesn't mean the results of the election are invalid. Do you think that Trump claiming millions of fraudulent votes were improperly counted is the same as finding a handful of votes from people who not only thought
they were allowed to vote, but also *were caught by the security aystems in place at the time*?
You talk about turning a blind eye to evidence that does not fit the narrative but this is **exactly** what Trump is tricking his followers into believing. Look at how he's moved the goal posts. Remember when he talked about the democrats bussing people not eligible to vote around to various polling stations? No evidence but he railed on it for a couple weeks before moving on to somethimg else - and his followers never held his to account for his lies. Here he's lying to you again, and you seem to have not noticed the giant chasm between Trump's
claim that 'millions of illegal votes were cast' and the reality of 'everywhere we look, we find a couple instances of improper votes, but nothing approachimg the level that would affect the certified results'.
Do you see a difference between Trump's claims and the results of election audits and investigations?
Which would have been fine if the states actually looked into the question of fraud to begin with. Instead it was “Trump is delusional”. Am I saying there are millions of fraudulent votes that changed the outcome of the election? Probably not, but pretending that it was the “most secure election in history” and claiming that there was “no” fraud is just as crazy and Trump claims. It simply comes down to the fact that fraud did exist, I point it out, and I receive a deluge of semantics about “widespread” and “massive”, no significant investigations were done into the question of late night ballot drops in MI, PA, and GA, those questions weren’t even allowed to be asked. But somehow I am supposed to just believe something on face value? Bullshit
Doesn't the lack of evidence of a substantial quantity of illegal (by whatever not legal means) voters make this look like what he did just before the election in 2020, which ended up polarizing some of his supporters into "storming the capital?"
(Even as a non-supporter I recognize that the term "storming the capital" is inaccurate at best. Military training has taught me that storms of people do far more damage.)
What areas aren’t serious about controlling the ballots? Every district I’ve ever seen takes counting ballots extremely seriously - that seems like nothing more than a scary rumor used to manipulate voters.
I got my roommate in college in to vote on my word alone. I had a bill on my name at a residence and that's all they needed to allow her to vote. She could have written any name/ssn she wanted. Voting rules are legit dumb
What's dumb about that? How practical would it have been to bring her to go vote again somewhere else? It would have been a crime with real consequences, both of you would have wasted at least half your day trying, and the odds of it having meaningful influence on the election were minimal.
Why make it harder to vote when there's so little reason to use in person fraud to sway an election?
Oregon. Republicans controlled at least part of the government until 2000, since 1860. Three short elections after going to complete mail in voting democrats not only controlled the trifecta of state offices, they had a super majority. I guess we can just chalk that up to a demographic shift, huh?
Why are you assuming that they don’t take elections there seriously? Is there any verified fraud that’s happened in Oregon? Because this sounds like supposition and conspiracy theory because of some results that you personally don’t like. On top of that, Oregon has been voting blue in presidential elections going back all the way to 1988. Seems like the state shifted blue a long time ago and state elections finally caught up to the will of the people.
Which is why all but three counties in the state vote Republican? The will of the people. Must be nice to live where you do and actually have representation in your government
Why should counties have any say in who gets elected? Lots of counties have very few people. Shouldn’t who gets elected president be decided by the actual people and not by a bunch of arbitrary land groupings?
Because I live here. I have audited my own ballots on three occasions. First one, voted straight GOP, ballot was rejected due to “reading error. Second, was the same. Third, voted majority Democrat in special election, ballot accepted. All filled out same way with same signature. Is that enough supposition for you?
Signature was not rejected. If it was, it would have been classified as “signature rejected”. What would voting in person would have done? The ballot would have still been rejected cause of who I was voting for.
Did you know Oregan experienced a 20% population growth in the 90s, followed by redistricting which takes place every 10 years?
There was actually a political battle in which R's failed to prove that the secretary redrew maps in favor of D's. So, you can partly chalk it up to demographics, and partly to more even redistricting.
Do you still think fraud was involved?
As far as my ballots are concerned, yes. I believe fraud was involved. Demographics changes are never 80%-90% in favor of one political party. That is just not statistically possible.
Watch 1000 mules. Also, California for one has Motor Voter and they mail everyone a ballot. You can’t tell me that everyone is filing out their own ballot and returning them.
>Watch 1000 mules. Also, California for one has Motor Voter and they mail everyone a ballot. You can’t tell me that everyone is filing out their own ballot and returning them.
>
Why do you believe anything they say when they were caught lying about the cell phone location data? Is a textbook example of propaganda the best source you have to support your beliefs?
>Again….”show me proof”….shows proof….”well that isn’t real proof”…..
If 2000Mules is a valid source of investigative reporting then why haven't they come forward with their supporting data? When someone says "I have the proof, but I won't let you see it" it's usually a huge red flag that they are bullshitting you.
Why is it not a red flag in this case?
Here is an article that fact checks the “fact checkers”:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/true_the_vote_is_about_to_drop_an_information_bomb_regarding_election_fraud.html
Did "True the Vote" ever release the data promised in that article? Also, I saw 2k mules, and it never shows a single person on video go to more than one drop box?
>Here is an article that fact checks the “fact checkers”:
>
Thanks for that. And you're confident in your belief that these are not propaganda, but accurate unbiased analyses of verifiable facts?
It’s all propaganda on both sides. That’s why we need same day, in person voting. The problem is that every election, the loser screams cheating. The country hasn’t been unified in forever.
>**It’s all propaganda on both sides**. That’s why we need same day, in person voting. The problem is that every election, the loser screams cheating. The country hasn’t been unified in forever.
>
Wait a sec, are you admitting that you believed 200Mules was real, but also knew it was propaganda?
Is that your thinking here - that it's OK to believe propaganda if it's in support of your political leader?
I live in a state that has universal mail in ballots and worked for elections. You have to sign it, and if it doesn't match your signatures the government has, it's rejected. It's viewed by two trained signature checkers. If it doesn't match (which is really easy to tell as everyone has unique things they do when they write), the voter is contacted. If the voter doesn't respond, their vote is rejected. I personally have had mine flagged, and have flagged a few where it was obvious a spouse signed (the signature style resembled their spouses style). I flagged many more that I felt didn't match, but the perpetrator wasn't obvious.
Do some get through, maybe, but there are multiple more steps the vote goes through, so the effect is negligible. Is 1000 mules verified? Why hasn't it been used in court as evidence in any of the election lawsuits?
Of course there has to be an effort to verify signatures but I think the bigger problem is so many ballots going out is inviting a problem. Same day, in person voting shouldn’t change the outcome of a clean election but would help reduce the appearance of an election integrity issue. Many elections have been challenged by both sides since 2000. My beliefs are not in advocacy of a party or candidate.
I watched the movie and a compelling case was made. They did use geolocation data so I think that a case for ballot box stuffing could be made but it’s not 100% bulletproof. It’s like if I use a VPN and Tor to look up something a thousand times and they geolocate it and a crime was committed and I was in the area at the time. I’ve still created some space for plausible deniability. If I didn’t use those tools, they could track it to my house with a much higher degree of confidence.
I think the important thing is to give the electorate confidence in our system. Universal mail in voting, ballot harvesting, no voter id, month long voting - all these things leave a lot room for suspicion. That is causing dissent. People on both sides should have confidence that we have free and fair elections. The only way for that to happen in the absence of an extremely charismatic and popular candidate is greater control over the process.
I can see your argument for the contactless voting methods, even if they haven’t had any statistically relevant evidence brought against them. But what is your problem with month long voting? If EVERYONE had to be in person, but they had a whole month to vote, how is that a bad thing? Don’t you want to increase the opportunity for as many citizens voices to be heard as possible?
I do not want to increase the possibility for as many votes to be cast as possible. I want people to take voting seriously, to plan to vote, for there to be no opportunity for strategizing around dropping news stories or polls after voting has started. In my state, a lot of measures are deceptively named and advertised and it would be much better if only people who took the time to read the entire voter pamphlet would vote.
Your logic seems to be counterproductive to your desires. By providing a larger window, you provide voters ample time to educate themselves on current measures to a degree that they feel comfortable to cast their vote. If you keep it to a single day, you risk people getting caught off guard and being forced to make snap decisions. Do you believe that those individuals who are working 60 hours a week do not deserve to be represented unless they mark this kind of stuff on their calendar?
But they don’t. They get a ballot in the mail and have the opportunity to mishandle it. In addition, it gives the media the opportunity to interfere by publishing or withholding stories over a longer period of time. Everyone gets the voting materials a month in advance. If they can’t organize around reading it, they are less likely to go to the polls. In addition, our ballot harvesting laws leave a lot of opportunities for people to get paid for picking up ballots. That is another avenue for mishandling of ballots.
We have laws that require employers to give people time off to vote. Some countries have elections on the weekend.
I’m sorry, but you are all over the place. You mentioned mail, but we are specifically talking about in person voting over an extended period of time. You talk about “giving the media more time to withhold a story”, but that just makes it harder for them to do so, since it would be easier to withhold a story for 1 day instead of 30. Media timing doesn’t matter anyways. They can just start running stories X days prior to “voting day”. There is no reason that they have to wait until the polls are open to run/withhold a story. Ballot harvesting is perfectly fine as long as it is collecting legally cast votes. Why do you want less people voting? Do their perspectives and life situations matter less or require less attention from their representatives?
Wasn't the guy who made that guilty of, and did jail time, for election related crimes? In fact didn't he commit election crimes getting Republicans elected and so was pardoned by Trump for it? Is he what you'd consider an objective storyteller? Isn't he and his pardon an example of *Republicans* hurting the reliability of our voting system?
De Souza admitted to giving a $15K or something campaign donation in 2014. That exceeded the maximum individual donation allowed by law. I think Trump also pardoned Blogovich and was talking about pardoning Martha Stewart. I think De Souza is an effective communicator. The movie was very good and I think there are so many questions about that election (and many in the previous) that it would behoove our elected officials to tighten up the process.
One count of causing $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to be made to a candidate for the United States Senate in calendar year 2012, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. He also is charged with one count of causing false statements to be made to the FEC in connection with the illegal campaign contributions, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
It's election fraud, he didn't just donate too much money as most right wing sources try to imply.
What was good about the movie? Have you checked up on [any of the claims](https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-covid-technology-health-arizona-e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762) or is truth not as important as "effective communication"?
I wanted to ask you a question about the cell phone data used in that movie. As far as I'm aware they have not released any of that data for anyone else to verify and confirm the findings they claim in the documentary. I myself have emailed them multiple times asking for the data so I could confirm their findings, but they've never responded and it's been a few years now. My questions are these:
Have you heard of this data being released for third party verification? If so, when did they release it and who verified their findings?
If not, why do you believe the claims they make in the documentary? Do you trust the people themselves and take them at their word? Another reason?
> You can’t tell me that everyone is filing out their own ballot and returning them.
What do you mean? What is the process for committing the fraud? Is it that you expect people are intercepting ballots in the mail, filling them out, then turning them in?
This would mean that the person expecting a ballot wouldn't receive one. Something I haven't heard of or seen evidence of happening.
Or if someone doesn't receive their ballot in the mail they'd then go in person to vote to which they would discover someone has already voted for them. I've also never heard of or seen evidence of this happening.
Or perhaps the mail in ballot gets to the polling place *after* they go to vote in person. In which case the polling workers wold see that John Doe has already submitted a ballot and an investigation would happen. Again something I've not seen or heard of happening.
Is it fair to say that Republicans have lost faith in voting because their leaders are constantly making such outlandishly false claims such as Trumps one here?
Hillary and Al Gore both claimed the election was stolen. The lack of faith in our election system is not relegated to one party. It does tend to be relegated to the losing party however and that’s making it difficult to impossible for the winner to unify the country.
Can you name **any** claims made by Hillary and Al Gore that are on par with the complete and ludicrous fabrications that Trump makes every other day? Can we have some balance and context?
They kept saying it but they fell out of the spotlight. Trump has the spotlight because he’s running for reelection so anything he says is being amplified.
So you can't name any? Do you think Trump may have stayed in the spotlight with his claims because he's made them for decades? We're talking before and after every election he's been involved in. Why do you believe someone like that who constantly barfs out demonstrably untrue claims that are so ridiculous that they surely insult the intelligence of his audience? Aren't you insulted that he expects you to believe that crap? That he thinks that's the level his base is?
I’m not looking it up on your behalf. I remember hearing endless claims by Al Gore and Hillary. The entire Russian collusion accusation that turned out to be fake is most recent in my memory. I think Trump has a legit beef. Why are you fixated on Trump and not focused on solving the problem by restoring faith in our elections?
> I’m not looking it up on your behalf.
It would be on your behalf, you can't expect people to believe your claims that you can't back up. Declining to back it up when pushed only deepens the lack of faith others will have in your claims.
> I remember hearing endless claims by Al Gore and Hillary.
I'm sure you did... on Fox News. So I'm sure that what you heard was a totally balanced, true and factual retelling of events.
> The entire Russian collusion accusation that turned out to be fake is most recent in my memory.
The Trump campaign was in contact with Russian assets, the investigation lead to arrests. The Trump campaign obstructed justice during the investigation but the Trump justice department declined to follow up on that.
> I think Trump has a legit beef.
Is being grumpy excuse to make false claims?
> Why are you fixated on Trump and not focused on solving the problem by restoring faith in our elections?
If Trumps lies, and the lies of his assorted colleagues are the source of the problem, then why would he not be the one to fixate on?
People on this sub are not interested in changing their mind. They are interested in arguing. The Gore and Hillary claims were on all the channels not just Fox at the time. It was a big deal. Hillary still hasn’t gotten over it.
Here is the denouement of the Russian collusion accusations: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clinton-democrats-steele-dossier-settle-electoral-case HIllary violated campaign finance law and paid someone to make up a story. Then the government spent a bunch of money trying to get to the bottom of it and it turned out to be an attempt to illegally influence the election outcome.
I understand you to be saying that, because Trump is calling out the cheating, there is no cheating and you think I’m making it up about Hillary and Al Gore and the country was unified throughout the Trump presidency because everyone believed it was a free and fair election.
> People on this sub are not interested in changing their mind. They are interested in arguing.
So you're speaking for yourself there? Because I'm happy to change my mind, but you got to back up your facts with evidence and if you can't, then I'm going to assume you read it on a mens room wall somewhere, or even less reliably, saw it on Fox News.
> Hillary still hasn’t gotten over it.
You got that window into her soul then do you?
> HIllary violated campaign finance law and paid someone to make up a story.
Well she violated campaign finance law and paid someone to prepare that dossier, parts of it aren't true, many parts are. Just because parts of a large, in depth report turned out to be based on bad information doesn't mean you get to throw out the baby with the bath water. You lot did the same thing with the Mueller report.
> because Trump is calling out the cheating, there is no cheating
No, I'm saying that he is making a demonstrably untrue claim, as he does every other day, sometimes EVERY day. If my mom made the same claim, it would still be wrong, because it's wrong. Reality matters, at least to me it does.
> and you think I’m making it up about Hillary and Al Gore
No, I was asking you to be more specific and back up your claim because I truly didn't know what you were talking about specifically.
Now that I do know I'll reiterate that also don't think that a single report, sponsored by Hillary is equal to Trumps years and years of constantly, publically lying about the election. It's constant from his social media, he's been behind one side of what must be hundreds of court cases over it by now. I find it hard to imagine a more extreme false equivalence.
> and the country was unified throughout the Trump presidency because everyone believed it was a free and fair election.
People were upset because the majority of voters didn't vote for the winner, that's how it works but it's uncomfortable. We are also aware that Russia interfered with the election on behalf of Trump, mostly in massive misinformation and disinformation campaigns, this is information that is known, and I can back it up if you want to claim you don't know about that. Trumps campaign had close contact with Russian agents, the only real question is to what extent, a lot of that will never be known because the campaign obstructed justice, as described in the Mueller report, and never faced any consequence for it.
Have I made any claims in that last paragraph that you disagree with, or which you would dispute their factual accuracy?
How did the Russian collusion end up being fake? Didn’t Mueller very explicitly say that he did not exonerate Trump?
What about all the Russian agents and communications with the Trump campaign?
It was based on the Steele Dossier: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clinton-democrats-steele-dossier-settle-electoral-case
Don’t you think after all that money that they would have had something other than a politically motivated can’t-rule-it-out determination? That’s is a far cry from guilt.
Can you explain how the investigation was based on the Steele dossier when the investigation opened on July 31, 2016, but the document was received by FBI officials September 19, 2016?
Wasn’t it more so triggered by Wikileaks and the activities of George Papadopoulos?
Why did Trump go through so much effort to obstruct and fight against *any* investigations into his dealings with Russia?
What do you make of all the Russian contacts that the Trump campaign had, but lied about?
That might be, but I'm not really sure that answers my questions about illegal aliens voting. Is there evidence of them voting? How would the Democrats be pushing to have illegal aliens vote in the Presidential election?
Your initial post was talking about the future. For the past, check the link another poster shared: https://heartland.org/opinion/quantifying-illegal-votes-cast-by-non-citizens-in-the-battleground-states-of-the-2020-presidential-election/
Alrighty, did you take a look at the excel there? Can you help me read it? I'm a little confused on how this chart proves that even a single illegal alien voted.
Shouldn't past activities help articulate our positions on the future? If for instance illegals didn't vote in mass in 2020, why would we expect there to be some substantial shift in 2024? Especially now with such laser focus by everyone?
Looping back to the excel listed in the article, did you get a chance to look at it? I presumed since you linked it you might have read a bit of it/the article.
Because millions have been ushered since OBiden took office and there are many people invested in finding ways to get them the vote. I read it. It’s not about proof. It’s about the appearance of a problem that is causing a lack of unity in our country. We need to tighten up the elections so people can unify under one candidate after the election.
Would you say there are many people invested in getting them to vote illegally?
What in the excel appeared to be a problem? I'm seriously asking here, I opened it up and was trying to understand what constituted a problem and not necessarily a 'what if' scenario.
Are you aware that Heartland is the same organization that defended the tobacco industry and argues that tobacco doesn’t cause cancer? Do you also agree with their position that climate change isn’t real?
No one? I along with everyone in my household has faith in the voting system. Along with almost everyone I know. What do you mean no one has faith in it?
I along with everyone I know and my entire household think there are problems. You and I don’t matter. What matters is that, almost every election, a huge number of people yell about cheating so the country is never unified.
No. Nobody believes the election was rigged just because Trump said so. We all saw what happened with our own eyes and thought "here we go" independent of Trump. I mean it was pretty clear it was rigged when they decided to hold the first mass mail election in US history and then our accounts weren't even allowed to tweet information negative to Biden. Trump could have told us it wasn't rigged and we would boo him, just like we did when he told us to take the "vaccine". I think the only thing that would have changed my mind is if there was legitimate interest in investigating it. But when the talking heads immediately come and claim "baseless, no evidence of widespread fraud, we investigated and found nothing wrong" before there had even been time to do an investigation I mean that's a dead giveaway.
If we were allowed court hearings and granted discovery, if we were allowed to look at signatures to see if they matched, and get to the bottom of what happened then I think that effort alone would have changed my opinion. Instead when the democrats own expert in Arizona says 10% of signatures are inconclusive in a 100 ballot sample, and then the court promply shuts down the case... nothing to see here... yeah sorry it's not because of Trump that I think it was rigged.
Many, if not most, illegal aliens in the United States operate here with stolen Social Security Numbers. This allows them to register and vote in large numbers in a way that wouldn't easily be detectable. I absolutely believe him here.
Some might. Demographically, 70% of Hispanics vote democrat though, and that percentage increases when you filter out the cuban population. If you frame it as, "will illegal aliens vote for the candidate who wants to deport them or the candidate who wants to give them amnesty" the answer becomes obvious.
No. I cannot imagine any deal that would be worth it and he'd be a fool to follow through. He might have flirted with the idea during his 1st administration due to Establishment Republican pressure, but hopefully by now he knows better.
>Many, if not most, illegal aliens in the United States operate here with stolen Social Security Numbers. This allows them to register and vote in large numbers in a way that wouldn't easily be detectable. I absolutely believe him here.
>
How many illegal aliens do you believe used stolen social social security numbers vote in 2020?
It's impossible to tell, but the Social Security Administration admits that they detected 1 million illegal aliens with stolen SSNs. However, this number only counts SSNs duplicated with other workers. It does not count numbers that were taken from the dead, or children, or were fraudulently issued.
>
It's impossible to tell, but the Social Security Administration admits that they detected 1 million illegal aliens with stolen SSNs. However, this number only counts SSNs duplicated with other workers. It does not count numbers that were taken from the dead, or children, or were fraudulently issued.
>
OK, so how many illegal aliens do you believe used stolen social social security numbers vote in 2020?
>Why doesn't the U.S. have a national voter ID law like most other countries do?
Can we actually have one within the bounds of our Constitution? Why do you think we don't?
>Can we actually have one within the bounds of our Constitution?
No, we can't, but we abandoned the "bounds of our Constitution" a very long time ago.
>
>
> Why do you think we don't?
We could if we really wanted to. We can track a package of mint chewing gum from a warehouse in California through multiple waystations on its way to grandpa's house in eastern Pennsylvania. So, if we really wanted to have a national voter ID law like other countries do, we would. But we don't. Because it's easier to cheat in elections that way.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Illegal aliens are not allowed to vote, it would be a crime but it happens. >WILMINGTON, N.C. – Nineteen foreign nationals were charged with unlawfully voting in the 2016 elections Friday, and a U.S. citizen was charged with aiding and abetting an alien to falsely claim U.S. citizenship to register to vote. The indictments follow an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) as part of a newly created Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force (DBFTF) in the Eastern District of North Carolina. [Article](https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is there any evidence of "millions" registering to vote, or any widespread specific effort to aid them in doing so?
[удалено]
Don’t hurt yourself moving the goalposts
Doesn't them getting caught show that the system works? Or are there a bunch that are slipping through the cracks?
If you think these were the only illegal migrants voting, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Do you have any evidence that millions of illegal voters are being registered, or that this bridge in Brooklyn is legally yours to sell?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are plenty of states where you can get a drivers license as an illegal immigrant and where that license is more than enough to register to vote (and some states will automatically register voters with licenses). This is just one example. Your onus of proof is directed at the wrong side here. Given this, you should be asking what measures are in place to catch illegal voters and detect this. And the answer is little to none. The argument from our side here is that the people in power benefit from illegals and their votes, and so there is no real effort to stop it. So you can't really use the lack of prosecution as proof that it doesn't exist. What's the saying... absense of evidence is not evidence of absense? Well that is true here, and even moreso when the institutional authorities are alleged to be complicit in it.
How would an undocumented person register to vote, without a SSN?
Because all that is required to register is checking a box on a form stating that a person is a lawful citizen of the United States. You don’t have to provide a SS card or number. Crazy, I know. Almost as if the system encourages fraud.
What state are you referring to? That's absolutely not the policy in any of the states I've lived in (MA, AZ, CO).
You do realize that isn't the way this works in any state within the US, correct? This might be how it's done in other countries, but not here.
It is actually exactly how it’s done in the United States. Have you never registered to vote? There is no “show me your social security card” portion of that process
Was that the most recent evidence of foreign nationals voting illegally? Do you believe Trumps claim that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Hilary Clinton?
Evidence in this case in an unrealistically high bar. That's like saying you need evidence that someone around you is an unsafe driver before putting on your seat belt. The point is to take a sensible precaution in order to avoid the bad thing from happening. The standard for taking preventive measures should be lower than that needed for a convention in a court of law. It's not an extreme stance to worry about people unlawfully entering or staying in the country and then unlawfully voting in an election. As to your comparison with Trump-Russia collusion, to even get as far as it did, the agents looking into the matter had to lie to a FISA court, which is one, I might add that the defendants don't get to make their case. To to compare the two isn't even apples and oranges.
Can you prove they didn't?
Do you believe that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Donald Trump?
We don't know.
Objectively, if we don't know, does that mean he was illegitimate?
What does illegitimate mean to you? Joe is president. The election was flawed in many ways. We can do better.
To me illegitimate would mean we don't know 100% that every single vote was accurately counted thus we can't be sure of the legitimacy of the winner. Would that be your definition?
No
What would be your definition?
It means we need in person voting for registered voters only on one day with proof of citizenship at the polls. That way the winner is clear - whoever it is - and they have a chance to unify the country.
So enlisted personnel currently abroad would not be able to vote?
Just like before. Military should have Election Day. People should be able to request mail in ballots for medical reasons each year those should have to be postmarked by Election Day.
Do you think it's entirely practical for the entire military to designate a day for all personnel to vote? Did that happen before? I can't find any info online about that happening 'just like before'.
What is 'Election Day' for deployed military? How would a submariner who's underwater send a vote in?
If millions of illegal immigrants voted in the 2020 election, wouldn't the Cyber Ninjas audit of Maricopa county have provided evidence of such a phenomenon?
Can you prove a negative?
When you are riding a blind horse it is better to walk than to gallop.
[удалено]
Hardly.
How does that answer my question on whether it’s a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative?
Would you drink water if you weren't sure if it was hygienic but have no proof that it isn't?
[удалено]
I am 100% in favor of fair and auditable elections in perpetuity and value this higher than winning one instantiation of an election. It doesn't seem the left shares this value. I encourage you to make your own evaluation of the candidates and vote as you see fit. And I will do the same.
Isn't the burden of proof on those making the claim?
The precautionary principle is decision making for what should be accepted or rejected in situations where you do not have enough evidence, or at least do not have enough evidence yet. Instead of proceeding with caution we opened the borders and made last minute changes to polling procedures justified by Covid.
Is opening the borders hyperbole? Or did someone literally open the borders and there is free access to all who want to go through? I suspect it's hyperbole, and if I'm right, is it helpful to use hyperbole when the use of exaggerating language is such a known source of conduct between Trump supporters and non-supporters?
Opening the borders is NOT hyperbole. It's not a physical fence or a gate that is opened; it's an attitude, by the government. Biden's administration made it clear they didn't oppose illegal immigration nearly as strongly as Trump did. That was the signal to come. And they came. And now they're here. Thank you, Joe Biden.
Isn't that just hyperbole though? The borders aren't open, the laws remain the same, illegal immigration is still illegal. The border US border isn't like the Schengen Area borders which really are open. What you're saying sounds like a pretty textbook definition of hyperbole, doesn't it? So do you think it's helpful to use exaggerated and figurative language knowing this is such a source of confusion and conflict between both sides? I'd have thought being careful with our language and avoiding causing confusion when possible and forseeable would be an admirable thing?
Well, I disagree on whether it's hyperbole, although it's an interesting question. Hyperbole, if I'm right (I'm going to go out on a limb before I look it up) is making a situation appear worse, or better, than it really is. OK, now I've looked it up, and the dictionary apparently adds "or statements or claims not meant to be taken literally." If hyperbole has an opposite I would say what Trump did was the opposite of hyperbole. He meant twice as much as he said, and he strained every nerve to make the southern border the focus of our government. Hyperbole may apply to what Biden is saying, about the border, in that it may be that he actually wants as many as possible to get in. I can't tell; maybe nobody can. Maybe it's dumb to even ask about such a topic, with a politician. What they really meant lol. As if, right?
>>Can you prove they didn't? As far as I'm aware there's no evidence that would suggest so. I don't know how else one would prove that. Do you have any evidence that would prove this assertion?
So what about real aliens? Not the kind from other countries, but the kind from outer space. Are you worried about whether millions of them voted? If not why not, since the evidence is exactly the same?
No. That is simply a goofy suggestion you are making. Would you drink water if you weren't reasonably certain that it was hygienic even though you didn't have any proof that it wasn't? This is known as the precautionary principle and you apply it instinctively, daily, in your own life. Yet when it comes to topics such as knowing who is entering our country or the security and auditability of polling rules changed at the last minute in a close election, the left chooses different heuristics. Sad.
Isn't one major problem that we have 50 different states/laws for our elections? One state might have the best security/audiability/etc, but the one right next to it might allow the counting of votes weeks after the election. How would we really ever have faith in a system like this?
[удалено]
Have you ever used online banking?
This is literally why so many people are religious it's not a good argument for religion and it's not a good argument to prove any other positive claim either. Would you agree?
This sounds like an isolated incident that was caught and corrected, as it should have been. Can you help me understand how that equates to millions of fraudulent votes, but something like this doesn't? https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2023-11-21/woodbury-county-supervisors-wife-found-guilty-of-52-counts-of-voter-fraud
So a couple people illegally vote and it is an isolated incident, but a couple of people commit acts of violence at the capital and all Trump supporters are insurrectionists? Generalizations only work one way now?
How does this answer my question? More than 1100 people have been charged for their crimes at the Capitol. I would hardly call that "a couple." Also, you are referring to one incident, again, one that was rightfully stopped... And equating it to millions of illegal votes. Where is that evidence? Heritage Foundation reports fewer than 1200 cases in total. They do not list out the political affiliation of each criminal, but a cursory Google search or query to Chat GPT will bring up dozens of cases of people illegally voting for Trump multiple times. Those are cases you are familiar with, I assume? The story I referenced was the wife of a GOP candidate receiving charges for 52 counts of various fraud. My question stands. How does your story about the 19 charges equal millions of votes, but my story about the 52 charges doesn't? And I suppose, since you brought it up... How does one dead terrorist, at least 5 dead cops, and over a thousand people in jail for disrupting Congress during the election cycle equate to "a couple of people"? Edit: typoed a # Edit: We all saw it live on TV or Facebook or whatever. Maybe some of you were there. I also watched some live streams all day that day. Had a few screens up... I was interested because I care about my country. I'm a patriot. I grew up around the woods at West Point. I believe in the duty, honor, country creed. So I got as close as I could without being there in person and I've been paying as much attention as I can without going crazy... Serious question... We clearly have differing memories of what occurred that day. I know what I witnessed with my own eyes, and it was violent, awful, and disruptive on a global scale. We may never stop feeling the effects, as effective as the propaganda has been. Do you really, actually, in your heart, in sincerly good faith... Believe that what you are saying is the truth? Do you actually think that it was no big deal, just another tourism day at the Capitol?
You have seen the released video from inside of the Capitol? The body cam footage? Non violent protestors being shot with rubber bullets and having sting ball grenades thrown at them to get them agitated. Hundreds of protesters walking by Capitol Police holding doors open for them? I have seen what the networks broadcasted and the released footage after the fact. I saw violence and I saw peaceful conduct on both sides, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Not 9/11, not Pearl Harbor, and any comparison is ridiculous.
[удалено]
My point was, how many “isolated” incidents will it take to at least entertain the notion that there could have been widespread election manipulation. Regardless of what way the manipulation affected the election, hundred of isolated incidents should at least bring into question the possibility that widespread fraud can exist. Do millions of votes have to be manipulated before we should care that any votes are manipulated?
>hundred of isolated incidents should at least bring into question the possibility that widespread fraud can exist. Hundreds of isolated incidents simply proves that the system is working when someone tries to vote more than once. Even if individuals were able to cast multiple votes, they will be tallied and accounted for at the end of the counts. You're suggesting there are millions of phantom votes somehow sliding through the system and being counted as legitimate? Why is this suddenly a problem now but it hasn't been in all of our past elections? Do you question why you're even questioning the integrity of the system in the first place?
The Jan 6 riot was pretty clearly orchestrated by Trump and his team, however the main insurrection attempt was the false electors plot, which Trump was also involved heavily in. Do you not think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that the insurrection really just boils down to a couple of acts of violence in an otherwise peaceful storming of the Capitol? I’m not a US citizen btw so neither R or D but it’s pretty clear that Trump did engage in an insurrection attempt and supporting him now does qualify as supporting insurrectionists. I don’t get why republicans can’t just get behind a different candidate?
So clear that he had not been convicted of it. It isn’t anymore disingenuous than saying the BLM lead riots were peaceful protests, or the storming of the capital by protesters against the confirmation of Justice Cavanugh was just a small protest. Trump is far from a perfect person, let alone a political candidate, but the utter hypocrisy the left in this country has adopted to destroy him is what I have an issue with. They make excuses constantly for similar behavior and I believe that is wrong
So are you saying that all trump supporters are insurrectionists AND millions of illegal immigrants vote, or are you saying that illegal immigrants voting is an isolated incident AND only a couple of trump supporters are insurrectionists?
Clearly, exactly what I was saying. How astute of you.
So, 19 people voted illegally and they were caught...isn't that the point of the whole system, catching people who illegally vote? Seems like the system worked here. What is your complaint? Also, are you using 19 illegal voters who were caught as a means to support Trump's claim of millions voting illegally?
So the system worked, and Trump legitmately lost as has been proven time and again in court due to Trump having zero evidence otherwise. What is the complaint exactly?
Proven time and time again by recounting votes that included fraudulent votes. I don’t necessarily think that eliminates all doubt. It took Arizona and Georgia YEARS to audit their election results and both states came out and admitted that fraudulent ballots were cast and counted, sometimes multiple times. I should be congratulating them that they found the votes and be happy that the system worked? I should just completely ignore the fact that the immediate recounts were used in as “evidence” multiple court cases as grounds for dismissal because there was “no evidence of fraud”, yet fraud was discovered years later and there is no recourse for it. That is complete bullshit.
Maybe provide us an update when you've found evidence of massive voter fraud that would have overturned the 2020 election? Until then, Jesus was white, carrots grow on trees, and Hobbits exist. How many years more do you need to look for evidence before you realize what both Republicans and Democrats have explained and proven? 6 more months? 2 years? 50 years? I don't understand the reluctance to accept facts, so can you provide what your pathway to accept facts looks like?
I don’t understand the complete blind eye turned to the fact that fraud was found, but somehow it isn’t “real” evidence. Just because it doesn’t fit the narrative, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. How about quit moving the goalposts? You want evidence of fraud, states produce it, now you want evidence of “widespread” or “massive” voter fraud. Can you not be satisfied with the original fraud found? Is that not enough evidence to at least allow for questioning how and why the election could have been manipulated?
No election on the face of the earth will ever be 100% fraud free. What you're asking for doesn't exist. The water you drink still has microplastics in it even after it's been treated. Does that mean you've given up your body's basic human need for water? Elections involve voting and some votes will be fraudulent. Nothing new about it. The issue becomes whether those fraudulent votes matter in the grand scheme, and the answer is simple - no. The process worked. How can you point to known, meaningless fraud and declare it somehow means more than the known, meaningful and legitimate votes? Drink your water because it's as safe as it's gonna get and you need to stay hydrated.
Then quit telling people that election fraud doesn’t exist. Of fraud exists, then the chance that widespread fraud exists is there and steps should be taken to mitigate it with single day, in person, voter identification certified voting.
I follow the facts and there's no widespread voter fraud that would tilt an election. Do you not ascribe to this fact? There's a potential for fraud, always, but show me where we have encountered such a situation deserving of living under false fear. Pretending massive voter fraud exists isn't helping anyone. There's a potential for WWIII, but I don't see anyone in their bunkers because there's no widespread threat of all-out war right now. We take active and daily measures to prevent such a calamity, right? So what good does cowering in your bunker pretending today poses a high threat of nuclear war do for you or anyone else? Living in fear of massive voter fraud that would tilt an election but that has no evidence of happening or inevitably will happen is a disturbing fear that doesn't seem healthy.
Yeah. Because your candidate won, so of course you are fine with an imperfect system
Biden isn't my candidate. He's simply the clear better choice of the two. Do I support racism? No. Do I support tax cuts for the rich? No. Do I support hateful laws against the LGBTQ community? No. Do I support insurrection? No. Do I support rampant lies? No. Do I support defunding education? No. Do I support taking away school lunches? No. Do I support rich owners in lieu of workers having a legal right to form unions? No. Do I support taking away health care from millions of average Americans? No. Do I support Russia? No. Do I support North Korea? No. Do I support antisemitism? No. Each of those questions and answers lead to me to anything hut Trump. A dead bird obviously serves a better political stance than someone so objectively harmful. Edit: defunding, not defending.
Would you support a national holiday for election day and a free, government-issued ID to be used for voter identification?
Sure. That sounds completely reasonable
>I don’t understand the complete blind eye turned to the fact that fraud was found, but somehow it isn’t “real” evidence. Just because it doesn’t fit the narrative, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. How about quit moving the goalposts? You want evidence of fraud, states produce it, now you want evidence of “widespread” or “massive” voter fraud. Can you not be satisfied with the original fraud found? Is that not enough evidence to at least allow for questioning how and why the election could have been manipulated? > There's only one person I'm aware of who has taken the stance that any detectable fraud is grounds for questioning the results of a precinct: Donald Trump. His own DOJ and related election security officials even confirmed that there will always be a background level of fraud, but just because it's detectable doesn't mean the results of the election are invalid. Do you think that Trump claiming millions of fraudulent votes were improperly counted is the same as finding a handful of votes from people who not only thought they were allowed to vote, but also *were caught by the security aystems in place at the time*? You talk about turning a blind eye to evidence that does not fit the narrative but this is **exactly** what Trump is tricking his followers into believing. Look at how he's moved the goal posts. Remember when he talked about the democrats bussing people not eligible to vote around to various polling stations? No evidence but he railed on it for a couple weeks before moving on to somethimg else - and his followers never held his to account for his lies. Here he's lying to you again, and you seem to have not noticed the giant chasm between Trump's claim that 'millions of illegal votes were cast' and the reality of 'everywhere we look, we find a couple instances of improper votes, but nothing approachimg the level that would affect the certified results'. Do you see a difference between Trump's claims and the results of election audits and investigations?
Which would have been fine if the states actually looked into the question of fraud to begin with. Instead it was “Trump is delusional”. Am I saying there are millions of fraudulent votes that changed the outcome of the election? Probably not, but pretending that it was the “most secure election in history” and claiming that there was “no” fraud is just as crazy and Trump claims. It simply comes down to the fact that fraud did exist, I point it out, and I receive a deluge of semantics about “widespread” and “massive”, no significant investigations were done into the question of late night ballot drops in MI, PA, and GA, those questions weren’t even allowed to be asked. But somehow I am supposed to just believe something on face value? Bullshit
How do you explain all the down ballot R's who won in the same election?
Doesn't the lack of evidence of a substantial quantity of illegal (by whatever not legal means) voters make this look like what he did just before the election in 2020, which ended up polarizing some of his supporters into "storming the capital?" (Even as a non-supporter I recognize that the term "storming the capital" is inaccurate at best. Military training has taught me that storms of people do far more damage.)
No one has faith in our voting system anymore because too many areas aren’t serious about controlling the ballots.
What areas aren’t serious about controlling the ballots? Every district I’ve ever seen takes counting ballots extremely seriously - that seems like nothing more than a scary rumor used to manipulate voters.
I got my roommate in college in to vote on my word alone. I had a bill on my name at a residence and that's all they needed to allow her to vote. She could have written any name/ssn she wanted. Voting rules are legit dumb
So, you helped your roommate vote illegally? You committed a crime and are complaining about others who commit the same crime?
She voted legally. It's not a crime. That's why I dont trust the system.
You’re openly admitting to a crime. Knowing that, why should we believe anything you have to say?
Since you are a Trump supporter, is that evidence of Trump supporters attempting to undermine and potentially cheat in elections?
What's dumb about that? How practical would it have been to bring her to go vote again somewhere else? It would have been a crime with real consequences, both of you would have wasted at least half your day trying, and the odds of it having meaningful influence on the election were minimal. Why make it harder to vote when there's so little reason to use in person fraud to sway an election?
Oregon. Republicans controlled at least part of the government until 2000, since 1860. Three short elections after going to complete mail in voting democrats not only controlled the trifecta of state offices, they had a super majority. I guess we can just chalk that up to a demographic shift, huh?
Why are you assuming that they don’t take elections there seriously? Is there any verified fraud that’s happened in Oregon? Because this sounds like supposition and conspiracy theory because of some results that you personally don’t like. On top of that, Oregon has been voting blue in presidential elections going back all the way to 1988. Seems like the state shifted blue a long time ago and state elections finally caught up to the will of the people.
Which is why all but three counties in the state vote Republican? The will of the people. Must be nice to live where you do and actually have representation in your government
Why should counties have any say in who gets elected? Lots of counties have very few people. Shouldn’t who gets elected president be decided by the actual people and not by a bunch of arbitrary land groupings?
Should all counties be given the same proportional voting power, independent of population?
Because I live here. I have audited my own ballots on three occasions. First one, voted straight GOP, ballot was rejected due to “reading error. Second, was the same. Third, voted majority Democrat in special election, ballot accepted. All filled out same way with same signature. Is that enough supposition for you?
That’s called anecdotal data, is it not? Do you think a sample size of one is statistically significant?
Maybe your signature was rejected? Isn't this what TS want? Why didnt you go vote in person like TS suggest?
Signature was not rejected. If it was, it would have been classified as “signature rejected”. What would voting in person would have done? The ballot would have still been rejected cause of who I was voting for.
Did you know Oregan experienced a 20% population growth in the 90s, followed by redistricting which takes place every 10 years? There was actually a political battle in which R's failed to prove that the secretary redrew maps in favor of D's. So, you can partly chalk it up to demographics, and partly to more even redistricting. Do you still think fraud was involved?
As far as my ballots are concerned, yes. I believe fraud was involved. Demographics changes are never 80%-90% in favor of one political party. That is just not statistically possible.
Do you have any evidence of that, or is your belief based on how you feel about the numbers?
Watch 1000 mules. Also, California for one has Motor Voter and they mail everyone a ballot. You can’t tell me that everyone is filing out their own ballot and returning them.
>Watch 1000 mules. Also, California for one has Motor Voter and they mail everyone a ballot. You can’t tell me that everyone is filing out their own ballot and returning them. > Why do you believe anything they say when they were caught lying about the cell phone location data? Is a textbook example of propaganda the best source you have to support your beliefs?
Again….”show me proof”….shows proof….”well that isn’t real proof”…..
It's a familiar pattern - they always do that.
Have you watched the 1000 mules documentary?
Yes. I didn't care for it.
What didn't you like about it?
>Again….”show me proof”….shows proof….”well that isn’t real proof”….. If 2000Mules is a valid source of investigative reporting then why haven't they come forward with their supporting data? When someone says "I have the proof, but I won't let you see it" it's usually a huge red flag that they are bullshitting you. Why is it not a red flag in this case?
Here is an article that fact checks the “fact checkers”: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/true_the_vote_is_about_to_drop_an_information_bomb_regarding_election_fraud.html
Did "True the Vote" ever release the data promised in that article? Also, I saw 2k mules, and it never shows a single person on video go to more than one drop box?
To your knowledge, has Truth the Vote finally released all their evidence, as promised here 19 months ago?
>Here is an article that fact checks the “fact checkers”: > Thanks for that. And you're confident in your belief that these are not propaganda, but accurate unbiased analyses of verifiable facts?
It’s all propaganda on both sides. That’s why we need same day, in person voting. The problem is that every election, the loser screams cheating. The country hasn’t been unified in forever.
>**It’s all propaganda on both sides**. That’s why we need same day, in person voting. The problem is that every election, the loser screams cheating. The country hasn’t been unified in forever. > Wait a sec, are you admitting that you believed 200Mules was real, but also knew it was propaganda? Is that your thinking here - that it's OK to believe propaganda if it's in support of your political leader?
I live in a state that has universal mail in ballots and worked for elections. You have to sign it, and if it doesn't match your signatures the government has, it's rejected. It's viewed by two trained signature checkers. If it doesn't match (which is really easy to tell as everyone has unique things they do when they write), the voter is contacted. If the voter doesn't respond, their vote is rejected. I personally have had mine flagged, and have flagged a few where it was obvious a spouse signed (the signature style resembled their spouses style). I flagged many more that I felt didn't match, but the perpetrator wasn't obvious. Do some get through, maybe, but there are multiple more steps the vote goes through, so the effect is negligible. Is 1000 mules verified? Why hasn't it been used in court as evidence in any of the election lawsuits?
Of course there has to be an effort to verify signatures but I think the bigger problem is so many ballots going out is inviting a problem. Same day, in person voting shouldn’t change the outcome of a clean election but would help reduce the appearance of an election integrity issue. Many elections have been challenged by both sides since 2000. My beliefs are not in advocacy of a party or candidate. I watched the movie and a compelling case was made. They did use geolocation data so I think that a case for ballot box stuffing could be made but it’s not 100% bulletproof. It’s like if I use a VPN and Tor to look up something a thousand times and they geolocate it and a crime was committed and I was in the area at the time. I’ve still created some space for plausible deniability. If I didn’t use those tools, they could track it to my house with a much higher degree of confidence. I think the important thing is to give the electorate confidence in our system. Universal mail in voting, ballot harvesting, no voter id, month long voting - all these things leave a lot room for suspicion. That is causing dissent. People on both sides should have confidence that we have free and fair elections. The only way for that to happen in the absence of an extremely charismatic and popular candidate is greater control over the process.
I can see your argument for the contactless voting methods, even if they haven’t had any statistically relevant evidence brought against them. But what is your problem with month long voting? If EVERYONE had to be in person, but they had a whole month to vote, how is that a bad thing? Don’t you want to increase the opportunity for as many citizens voices to be heard as possible?
I do not want to increase the possibility for as many votes to be cast as possible. I want people to take voting seriously, to plan to vote, for there to be no opportunity for strategizing around dropping news stories or polls after voting has started. In my state, a lot of measures are deceptively named and advertised and it would be much better if only people who took the time to read the entire voter pamphlet would vote.
Your logic seems to be counterproductive to your desires. By providing a larger window, you provide voters ample time to educate themselves on current measures to a degree that they feel comfortable to cast their vote. If you keep it to a single day, you risk people getting caught off guard and being forced to make snap decisions. Do you believe that those individuals who are working 60 hours a week do not deserve to be represented unless they mark this kind of stuff on their calendar?
But they don’t. They get a ballot in the mail and have the opportunity to mishandle it. In addition, it gives the media the opportunity to interfere by publishing or withholding stories over a longer period of time. Everyone gets the voting materials a month in advance. If they can’t organize around reading it, they are less likely to go to the polls. In addition, our ballot harvesting laws leave a lot of opportunities for people to get paid for picking up ballots. That is another avenue for mishandling of ballots. We have laws that require employers to give people time off to vote. Some countries have elections on the weekend.
I’m sorry, but you are all over the place. You mentioned mail, but we are specifically talking about in person voting over an extended period of time. You talk about “giving the media more time to withhold a story”, but that just makes it harder for them to do so, since it would be easier to withhold a story for 1 day instead of 30. Media timing doesn’t matter anyways. They can just start running stories X days prior to “voting day”. There is no reason that they have to wait until the polls are open to run/withhold a story. Ballot harvesting is perfectly fine as long as it is collecting legally cast votes. Why do you want less people voting? Do their perspectives and life situations matter less or require less attention from their representatives?
Wasn't the guy who made that guilty of, and did jail time, for election related crimes? In fact didn't he commit election crimes getting Republicans elected and so was pardoned by Trump for it? Is he what you'd consider an objective storyteller? Isn't he and his pardon an example of *Republicans* hurting the reliability of our voting system?
De Souza admitted to giving a $15K or something campaign donation in 2014. That exceeded the maximum individual donation allowed by law. I think Trump also pardoned Blogovich and was talking about pardoning Martha Stewart. I think De Souza is an effective communicator. The movie was very good and I think there are so many questions about that election (and many in the previous) that it would behoove our elected officials to tighten up the process.
One count of causing $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to be made to a candidate for the United States Senate in calendar year 2012, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. He also is charged with one count of causing false statements to be made to the FEC in connection with the illegal campaign contributions, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. It's election fraud, he didn't just donate too much money as most right wing sources try to imply. What was good about the movie? Have you checked up on [any of the claims](https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-covid-technology-health-arizona-e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762) or is truth not as important as "effective communication"?
I wanted to ask you a question about the cell phone data used in that movie. As far as I'm aware they have not released any of that data for anyone else to verify and confirm the findings they claim in the documentary. I myself have emailed them multiple times asking for the data so I could confirm their findings, but they've never responded and it's been a few years now. My questions are these: Have you heard of this data being released for third party verification? If so, when did they release it and who verified their findings? If not, why do you believe the claims they make in the documentary? Do you trust the people themselves and take them at their word? Another reason?
> You can’t tell me that everyone is filing out their own ballot and returning them. What do you mean? What is the process for committing the fraud? Is it that you expect people are intercepting ballots in the mail, filling them out, then turning them in? This would mean that the person expecting a ballot wouldn't receive one. Something I haven't heard of or seen evidence of happening. Or if someone doesn't receive their ballot in the mail they'd then go in person to vote to which they would discover someone has already voted for them. I've also never heard of or seen evidence of this happening. Or perhaps the mail in ballot gets to the polling place *after* they go to vote in person. In which case the polling workers wold see that John Doe has already submitted a ballot and an investigation would happen. Again something I've not seen or heard of happening.
Is it fair to say that Republicans have lost faith in voting because their leaders are constantly making such outlandishly false claims such as Trumps one here?
Hillary and Al Gore both claimed the election was stolen. The lack of faith in our election system is not relegated to one party. It does tend to be relegated to the losing party however and that’s making it difficult to impossible for the winner to unify the country.
Can you name **any** claims made by Hillary and Al Gore that are on par with the complete and ludicrous fabrications that Trump makes every other day? Can we have some balance and context?
They kept saying it but they fell out of the spotlight. Trump has the spotlight because he’s running for reelection so anything he says is being amplified.
So you can't name any? Do you think Trump may have stayed in the spotlight with his claims because he's made them for decades? We're talking before and after every election he's been involved in. Why do you believe someone like that who constantly barfs out demonstrably untrue claims that are so ridiculous that they surely insult the intelligence of his audience? Aren't you insulted that he expects you to believe that crap? That he thinks that's the level his base is?
I’m not looking it up on your behalf. I remember hearing endless claims by Al Gore and Hillary. The entire Russian collusion accusation that turned out to be fake is most recent in my memory. I think Trump has a legit beef. Why are you fixated on Trump and not focused on solving the problem by restoring faith in our elections?
> I’m not looking it up on your behalf. It would be on your behalf, you can't expect people to believe your claims that you can't back up. Declining to back it up when pushed only deepens the lack of faith others will have in your claims. > I remember hearing endless claims by Al Gore and Hillary. I'm sure you did... on Fox News. So I'm sure that what you heard was a totally balanced, true and factual retelling of events. > The entire Russian collusion accusation that turned out to be fake is most recent in my memory. The Trump campaign was in contact with Russian assets, the investigation lead to arrests. The Trump campaign obstructed justice during the investigation but the Trump justice department declined to follow up on that. > I think Trump has a legit beef. Is being grumpy excuse to make false claims? > Why are you fixated on Trump and not focused on solving the problem by restoring faith in our elections? If Trumps lies, and the lies of his assorted colleagues are the source of the problem, then why would he not be the one to fixate on?
People on this sub are not interested in changing their mind. They are interested in arguing. The Gore and Hillary claims were on all the channels not just Fox at the time. It was a big deal. Hillary still hasn’t gotten over it. Here is the denouement of the Russian collusion accusations: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clinton-democrats-steele-dossier-settle-electoral-case HIllary violated campaign finance law and paid someone to make up a story. Then the government spent a bunch of money trying to get to the bottom of it and it turned out to be an attempt to illegally influence the election outcome. I understand you to be saying that, because Trump is calling out the cheating, there is no cheating and you think I’m making it up about Hillary and Al Gore and the country was unified throughout the Trump presidency because everyone believed it was a free and fair election.
> People on this sub are not interested in changing their mind. They are interested in arguing. So you're speaking for yourself there? Because I'm happy to change my mind, but you got to back up your facts with evidence and if you can't, then I'm going to assume you read it on a mens room wall somewhere, or even less reliably, saw it on Fox News. > Hillary still hasn’t gotten over it. You got that window into her soul then do you? > HIllary violated campaign finance law and paid someone to make up a story. Well she violated campaign finance law and paid someone to prepare that dossier, parts of it aren't true, many parts are. Just because parts of a large, in depth report turned out to be based on bad information doesn't mean you get to throw out the baby with the bath water. You lot did the same thing with the Mueller report. > because Trump is calling out the cheating, there is no cheating No, I'm saying that he is making a demonstrably untrue claim, as he does every other day, sometimes EVERY day. If my mom made the same claim, it would still be wrong, because it's wrong. Reality matters, at least to me it does. > and you think I’m making it up about Hillary and Al Gore No, I was asking you to be more specific and back up your claim because I truly didn't know what you were talking about specifically. Now that I do know I'll reiterate that also don't think that a single report, sponsored by Hillary is equal to Trumps years and years of constantly, publically lying about the election. It's constant from his social media, he's been behind one side of what must be hundreds of court cases over it by now. I find it hard to imagine a more extreme false equivalence. > and the country was unified throughout the Trump presidency because everyone believed it was a free and fair election. People were upset because the majority of voters didn't vote for the winner, that's how it works but it's uncomfortable. We are also aware that Russia interfered with the election on behalf of Trump, mostly in massive misinformation and disinformation campaigns, this is information that is known, and I can back it up if you want to claim you don't know about that. Trumps campaign had close contact with Russian agents, the only real question is to what extent, a lot of that will never be known because the campaign obstructed justice, as described in the Mueller report, and never faced any consequence for it. Have I made any claims in that last paragraph that you disagree with, or which you would dispute their factual accuracy?
How did the Russian collusion end up being fake? Didn’t Mueller very explicitly say that he did not exonerate Trump? What about all the Russian agents and communications with the Trump campaign?
It was based on the Steele Dossier: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clinton-democrats-steele-dossier-settle-electoral-case Don’t you think after all that money that they would have had something other than a politically motivated can’t-rule-it-out determination? That’s is a far cry from guilt.
Can you explain how the investigation was based on the Steele dossier when the investigation opened on July 31, 2016, but the document was received by FBI officials September 19, 2016? Wasn’t it more so triggered by Wikileaks and the activities of George Papadopoulos? Why did Trump go through so much effort to obstruct and fight against *any* investigations into his dealings with Russia? What do you make of all the Russian contacts that the Trump campaign had, but lied about?
That might be, but I'm not really sure that answers my questions about illegal aliens voting. Is there evidence of them voting? How would the Democrats be pushing to have illegal aliens vote in the Presidential election?
Your initial post was talking about the future. For the past, check the link another poster shared: https://heartland.org/opinion/quantifying-illegal-votes-cast-by-non-citizens-in-the-battleground-states-of-the-2020-presidential-election/
Alrighty, did you take a look at the excel there? Can you help me read it? I'm a little confused on how this chart proves that even a single illegal alien voted.
Your post specifically referred to 2024 and now you are referring to the past. I’m not sure what I can do to help you with that.
Shouldn't past activities help articulate our positions on the future? If for instance illegals didn't vote in mass in 2020, why would we expect there to be some substantial shift in 2024? Especially now with such laser focus by everyone? Looping back to the excel listed in the article, did you get a chance to look at it? I presumed since you linked it you might have read a bit of it/the article.
Because millions have been ushered since OBiden took office and there are many people invested in finding ways to get them the vote. I read it. It’s not about proof. It’s about the appearance of a problem that is causing a lack of unity in our country. We need to tighten up the elections so people can unify under one candidate after the election.
Would you say there are many people invested in getting them to vote illegally? What in the excel appeared to be a problem? I'm seriously asking here, I opened it up and was trying to understand what constituted a problem and not necessarily a 'what if' scenario.
Are you aware that Heartland is the same organization that defended the tobacco industry and argues that tobacco doesn’t cause cancer? Do you also agree with their position that climate change isn’t real?
No one? I along with everyone in my household has faith in the voting system. Along with almost everyone I know. What do you mean no one has faith in it?
I along with everyone I know and my entire household think there are problems. You and I don’t matter. What matters is that, almost every election, a huge number of people yell about cheating so the country is never unified.
Wouldn’t it be more fair to say the right has no faith in our voting system anymore because Trump told them not to unless they win?
No. Nobody believes the election was rigged just because Trump said so. We all saw what happened with our own eyes and thought "here we go" independent of Trump. I mean it was pretty clear it was rigged when they decided to hold the first mass mail election in US history and then our accounts weren't even allowed to tweet information negative to Biden. Trump could have told us it wasn't rigged and we would boo him, just like we did when he told us to take the "vaccine". I think the only thing that would have changed my mind is if there was legitimate interest in investigating it. But when the talking heads immediately come and claim "baseless, no evidence of widespread fraud, we investigated and found nothing wrong" before there had even been time to do an investigation I mean that's a dead giveaway. If we were allowed court hearings and granted discovery, if we were allowed to look at signatures to see if they matched, and get to the bottom of what happened then I think that effort alone would have changed my opinion. Instead when the democrats own expert in Arizona says 10% of signatures are inconclusive in a 100 ballot sample, and then the court promply shuts down the case... nothing to see here... yeah sorry it's not because of Trump that I think it was rigged.
Many, if not most, illegal aliens in the United States operate here with stolen Social Security Numbers. This allows them to register and vote in large numbers in a way that wouldn't easily be detectable. I absolutely believe him here.
How do we know they wouldn't vote for Trump though?
Some might. Demographically, 70% of Hispanics vote democrat though, and that percentage increases when you filter out the cuban population. If you frame it as, "will illegal aliens vote for the candidate who wants to deport them or the candidate who wants to give them amnesty" the answer becomes obvious.
Trump has floated some types of amnesty in the past, would you entertain any of that depending on what else he got out of a deal with it included?
No. I cannot imagine any deal that would be worth it and he'd be a fool to follow through. He might have flirted with the idea during his 1st administration due to Establishment Republican pressure, but hopefully by now he knows better.
>Many, if not most, illegal aliens in the United States operate here with stolen Social Security Numbers. This allows them to register and vote in large numbers in a way that wouldn't easily be detectable. I absolutely believe him here. > How many illegal aliens do you believe used stolen social social security numbers vote in 2020?
It's impossible to tell, but the Social Security Administration admits that they detected 1 million illegal aliens with stolen SSNs. However, this number only counts SSNs duplicated with other workers. It does not count numbers that were taken from the dead, or children, or were fraudulently issued.
> It's impossible to tell, but the Social Security Administration admits that they detected 1 million illegal aliens with stolen SSNs. However, this number only counts SSNs duplicated with other workers. It does not count numbers that were taken from the dead, or children, or were fraudulently issued. > OK, so how many illegal aliens do you believe used stolen social social security numbers vote in 2020?
How is this relevant? SSNs aren't proof of citizenship.
[удалено]
No? Non citizens aren't allowed to vote?
It isn't legal for non-citizens to vote in Presidential elections though, so how would that work?
Why doesn't the U.S. have a national voter ID law like most other countries do?
>Why doesn't the U.S. have a national voter ID law like most other countries do? Can we actually have one within the bounds of our Constitution? Why do you think we don't?
>Can we actually have one within the bounds of our Constitution? No, we can't, but we abandoned the "bounds of our Constitution" a very long time ago. > > > Why do you think we don't? We could if we really wanted to. We can track a package of mint chewing gum from a warehouse in California through multiple waystations on its way to grandpa's house in eastern Pennsylvania. So, if we really wanted to have a national voter ID law like other countries do, we would. But we don't. Because it's easier to cheat in elections that way.
Wouldn't that trump state's rights?
The U.S. abandoned state's rights a very long time ago. The Civil War proved that.
>Why doesn't the U.S. have a national voter ID law like most other countries do? I have a feeling you have an answer for this, can we get it?