It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump pledges "major investigation into voter fraud"

page: 20
68
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
My first clue was, I now live in Idaho and theres no way that 1/3 of our WHOLE population was illegal voters


And, BTW, that number means 1/3 of people who attempted to register to vote in Idaho were REJECTED because the SS# they offered could not be verified.


No its NOT what that means......

Those numbers wouldnt even add up correctly......our population voting age is 851,720, theres no way HALF that turned out illegal or rejected by your graph numbers.....

Youre reading it wrong
edit on 1/25/2017 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

But, but ...even people from his own party don't see any, y'know, evidence (i know Trumpsters hate that word) of fraud.

Even during the recount debacle, 'The Man's' lawyers said so themselves :




The filing notes that both Michigan's Republican governor and the White House articulated confidence in the results of the election. The former refers solely to Michigan, of course, but the latter citation by Trump's lawyers argues that there was no evidence of Russian interference at the national level.





In the Pennsylvania filing, the lawyers are more careful to constrain their dismissal of the idea of voter fraud to the state. "On what basis does Stein seek to disenfranchise the voters of the Keystone state? None really," it reads. "There is no evidence -- or even any allegation -- that any tampering with Pennsylvania's voting systems actually occurred."


One more for fun (with a Tweet from 'The Man', to boot !)




Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2016

In none of those three states is there actually evidence of rampant voter fraud. In all three, the secretaries of state have offered the same assurances as did Cortes that no impropriety occurred. (To wit: California, New Hampshire and Virginia.)


Source


Is Drumph flip-flopping, going down with a dose of Alzheimer's or having fun for #s 'n' giggles ?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It certainly does point to people trying to register that are not eligible/could not be found on record.

I did a quick check on the data that you linked.

Since the conventions there have been 1.018m non matches across the 40 states that operate the system.
The lowest match rates were CA, GA, NV, OH



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
When I was a liitle girl about 57 years ago someone told me this:

You know dead people get to vote in Chicago?

How can that be?

Somebody else votes for them.

It's not just Chicago anymore.

If we don't fix this system now, we will never be a govt "BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE" again.

BTW Trump was concerned about this before the election.

This is worth a listen because the pew research will shock you.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Your link didn't work for me.

I know the argument as to why voter ID supposedly is racist. My argument is how many people won't be able to vote because of it.

Because we have had investigation after investigation on the matter, and everyone seems to think that it is a huge deal to have even a small amount of people not be able to vote because they can't get ID.

Yet everyone admits that voter fraud takes place, the just don't think that it is widespread enough to be a big deal.

So my question is why all of the investigations into voter ID hurting a very small amount of voters, but not voter fraud hurting voters?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly




This data represents the results of the 4-digit match performed using our HAVV system. We operate HAVV as required by HAVA.


You posted that data, with California SPECIFICALLY highlighted to say thats how many people illegally voted or were illegally registered......

Thats not what the graph or the data on that shows......


No, I did not.

I said that's how many voter registrations were REJECTED in California because the SS# they offered did not match what is on record with SS.

Geez. Go back and reread what I wrote.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly




This data represents the results of the 4-digit match performed using our HAVV system. We operate HAVV as required by HAVA.


You posted that data, with California SPECIFICALLY highlighted to say thats how many people illegally voted or were illegally registered......

Thats not what the graph or the data on that shows......


You assume that many in this large number would only try once and desist, nor as mentioned that even if this is any indication that even a small fraction did not provide the nonrequired info they'd be invalidly let through the system, and would be significant numbers.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
My first clue was, I now live in Idaho and theres no way that 1/3 of our WHOLE population was illegal voters


And, BTW, that number means 1/3 of people who attempted to register to vote in Idaho were REJECTED because the SS# they offered could not be verified.


No its NOT what that means......

Those numbers wouldnt even add up correctly......our population voting age is 851,720, theres no way HALF that turned out illegal by your graph.....

Youre reading it wrong


No, you are reading the graph wrong. There is a link in that post from MME that explains it all.
The numbers on the chart are the number of new voter registrations attempted to be matched via HAVV since 2011.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
My first clue was, I now live in Idaho and theres no way that 1/3 of our WHOLE population was illegal voters


And, BTW, that number means 1/3 of people who attempted to register to vote in Idaho were REJECTED because the SS# they offered could not be verified.


No its NOT what that means......

Those numbers wouldnt even add up correctly......our population voting age is 851,720, theres no way HALF that turned out illegal by your graph.....

Youre reading it wrong


You're reading everything wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you, but those 'non-matches' do, in fact, represent REJECTED applications to register to vote.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears
weren't some of the voting machine anomalies, those found to have inconsistent tallies, inconsistent in a prohillary manner?

Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts[more votes than voters in favor of hillary]

If similar happened in other states, it might explain hillary's lack of commitment towards the recount efforts.


I think the lid is going to be blown right off this.

It's great to see.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
My first clue was, I now live in Idaho and theres no way that 1/3 of our WHOLE population was illegal voters


And, BTW, that number means 1/3 of people who attempted to register to vote in Idaho were REJECTED because the SS# they offered could not be verified.


No its NOT what that means......

Those numbers wouldnt even add up correctly......our population voting age is 851,720, theres no way HALF that turned out illegal by your graph.....

Youre reading it wrong


Do the population tallies count illegals? I'd assume they'd be prone to avoid any survey or census request. And being undocumented, their exact numbers might be unknown. Though I've not looked into it.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly




This data represents the results of the 4-digit match performed using our HAVV system. We operate HAVV as required by HAVA.


You posted that data, with California SPECIFICALLY highlighted to say thats how many people illegally voted or were illegally registered......

Thats not what the graph or the data on that shows......


No, I did not.

I said that's how many voter registrations were REJECTED in California because the SS# they offered did not match what is on record with SS.

Geez. Go back and reread what I wrote.


I read what you wrote and judging by the numbers in IDAHO FROM THAT GRAPH you're misinterpreting what that graph says because the numbers simply don't compute

If our voting block is only around 800k people assuming that EVERY SINGLE ONE VOTES OR IS REGISTERED, the way you are interpreting it , is that HALF of that that tried to register was rejected

Again you're reading it wrong

It's really simple



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly




This data represents the results of the 4-digit match performed using our HAVV system. We operate HAVV as required by HAVA.


You posted that data, with California SPECIFICALLY highlighted to say thats how many people illegally voted or were illegally registered......

Thats not what the graph or the data on that shows......


No, I did not.

I said that's how many voter registrations were REJECTED in California because the SS# they offered did not match what is on record with SS.

Geez. Go back and reread what I wrote.


I read what you wrote and judging by the numbers in IDAHO FROM THAT GRAPH you're misinterpreting what that graph says because the numbers simply don't compute

If our voting block is only around 800k people assuming that EVERY SINGLE ONE VOTES OR IS REGISTERED, the way you are interpreting it , is that HALF of that that tried to register was rejected

Again you're reading it wrong

It's really simple


What the hell is wrong with you?
The IDAHO numbers on the chart represent 315,951 records sent to HAVV to be processed as new registrations since Jan 2011.
It is NOT rejections and it is NOT a single year.
What is so hard to understand?????

edit on 25/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly




This data represents the results of the 4-digit match performed using our HAVV system. We operate HAVV as required by HAVA.


You posted that data, with California SPECIFICALLY highlighted to say thats how many people illegally voted or were illegally registered......

Thats not what the graph or the data on that shows......


No, I did not.

I said that's how many voter registrations were REJECTED in California because the SS# they offered did not match what is on record with SS.

Geez. Go back and reread what I wrote.


I read what you wrote and judging by the numbers in IDAHO FROM THAT GRAPH you're misinterpreting what that graph says because the numbers simply don't compute

If our voting block is only around 800k people assuming that EVERY SINGLE ONE VOTES OR IS REGISTERED, the way you are interpreting it , is that HALF of that that tried to register was rejected

Again you're reading it wrong

It's really simple


Yes, it is astounding. And true, none-the-less.

If you think this data means...uh...well, just something else that must be more believable to you, please do quote the alternate explanation you found here:

Link



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to Annee



I see it as protecting the weight of the votes cast by millions of eligible voters. Watering down votes with illegal votes is disenfranchisement, too.


I didn't write that, but I certainly agree with .



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Indigo5

I know the argument as to why voter ID supposedly is racist. My argument is how many people won't be able to vote because of it.



In various court cases across the states judges have agreed that in each state it represents in the hundreds of thousands of votes.

Nationwide in the millions..



Yet everyone admits that voter fraud takes place, the just don't think that it is widespread enough to be a big deal.



TWO...Two warranted, prosecuted cases of Voter Fraud this past election...One guy in TX and one woman in FL...and both voted multiple times for Donald Trump.

HERE READ THIS CAREFULLY HOW NC GOP WENT ABOUT IT VIA EARLY VOTING RESTRICTIONS


In July, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down HB 589, going out of its way to note the racist nature of the law.

The state’s general assembly had “requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” wrote the court.

And then, “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

www.thedailybeast.com...

Wisconsin


"The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities," U.S. District Judge James Peterson wrote.

"To put it bluntly, Wisconsin's strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease."

www.jsonline.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I wonder at what point in this investigation Trump will bring up the fact that Steve Bannon is registered to vote in New York and Florida.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254


I wonder at what point in this investigation Trump will bring up the fact that Steve Bannon is registered to vote in New York and Florida.


I SEE YOUR TROLL ADVISOR INVOVLED IN VOTER FRAUD...

AND RAISE YOU ONE TREASURY SECERETARY!!

BREAKING NOW..

Trump cabinet nominee Steven Mnuchin is also registered to vote in two states
www.cnn.com...

Trumps Tweet


"I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedure," the president wrote in a pair of consecutive tweets.


So he shouldn't have to "investigate" much to round up his Chief Advisor Bannon and his Treasury Secretary!!
edit on 25-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

What the hell is the matter w you? That's exactly what I'm saying.

The POSTER that posted this claims it was rejections


Read MOTHERMAYEYEs posts

They seem to think that's exactly what it is....

Agreed it's not hard to understand

edit on 1/25/2017 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: UKTruth

What the hell is the matter w you? That's exactly what I'm saying.

The POSTER that posted this claims it was rejections



Yes, if a non-match comes back and the person cannot correct the deficiency, the registration is REJECTED.

ETA: Are you saying that non-matches are accepted? Jesus, if that were true we really are in a sh!t-ton of trouble.
edit on 25-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join