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: 26
68
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

Voter ID laws will remain unfair to poor people (read: not just minorities) until the federal government issues mandatory id cards to everyone in the country for free. Until then, I will not support them. Too bad paranoid conspiracy theorists will never let that be realized.


I agree that an ID should be provided by the state if necessary.

However, do you have any evidence that the cost of an ID (around $30 usually) is stopping a substantial amount of people from voting? Can you link your source for that claim? I can link to many sources that show most people below the poverty line have access to things such as televisions, cell phones, computers and video games, so surely most people could afford the $30 for an ID.

If you don't have a source, why not resort to the null hypothesis?




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Are you trying to claim that one should pay $30 to be recognized as an American citizen? In any case. I said my piece on voter ID laws. I'm done with this topic now. If you don't like my opinion on it, too bad. This isn't the topic to discuss it anyways.
edit on 26-1-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ummm... I think you have the sequence backwards.

Suspicion --> Investigation --> Evidence --> Corrective measures --> Repeat investigation

or

Suspicion --> Investigation --> No Evidence --> End

Your way is like locking someone in prison, then checking to see if they committed a crime.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's just that there is no evidence to merit the suspicion part of your sequence. All previous lower level investigations turn up rare instances of voter fraud, so WHAT evidence exists to make me think that a larger scale investigation is needed that would overturn these smaller one? Is that more of a thorough answer for you?



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm all for free ID cards (they don't have to be federal IDs), but even those are argued by some to be unfair.

But you have to show ID when you register to vote, when you vote, or both, anyway. Or that's how the laws are supposed to work (the laws are full of loopholes though).

And when you obtain an ID or DL, at the DMV, you can register to vote (and in person with ID), too! Doesn't everyone want people to have a guaranteed opportunity to register to vote?

I wonder sometimes if discouraging people from registering to vote, in person with ID, is really what is behind the push to eliminate voter ID laws.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Something about chipping people and tracking. Ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm not the one opposed to such ideas.


Never heard that seriously linked to voter ID.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Frankly, I'd like to know just how many illegitimate votes were cast by non-citizens, multiple votes by one person, and votes by dead people.

Only the completely moronic or devious think it's okay not to require photo identification to vote.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
How about the evidence of former President Obama telling illegals to go ahead and vote.


a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Something about chipping people and tracking. Ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm not the one opposed to such ideas.


Never heard that seriously linked to voter ID.


We will never see a free federal ID because that would neuter the argument against voter ID laws.

And conspiracy theorists worried about chipping are definitely not responsible for free federal ID laws not happening. As if they would get their way on that or anything.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's just that there is no evidence to merit the suspicion part of your sequence. All previous lower level investigations turn up rare instances of voter fraud, so WHAT evidence exists to make me think that a larger scale investigation is needed that would overturn these smaller one? Is that more of a thorough answer for you?


There is ample information to cast suspicion on the election process.

Studies.
Voter Rolls.
Election results themselves broken down by state and county.
Video evidence of operatives actually claiming they are transporting people around to vote at multiple locations.
Testimony from computer experts claiming that voting machines can be easily hacked.
An an analysis of the software used in many voting machines to show the reporting package in that software enables the votes to be redistributed using a single change to an over riding percentage, facilitated by the underlying database using decimal instead of integer fields.

You may have decided that you don't believe any of it, but that is not important in the slightest.

Your President has decided that with the information he has, he is justified in forming a hypothesis that he wants to test, initially by gathering more facts from an investigation.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There's been several reports of anomalous voting results like the one in Detroit (more votes than voters). That is not definitely proven and thus is not evidence; it is suspicion. Suspicion does not require evidence... if it did, there was no evidence on the Russian hack thing until someone conducted an investigation, meaning there was no reason to investigate in the first place. If evidence were required to have suspicion, the police could not pull a suspected drug dealer over to investigate them, because he would have no evidence a crime was committed before investigating, and thus no suspicion to warrant the stop.

Methinks you confuse investigation with corrective action.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Since it is a part if voter fraud, I'll weigh in on voter ID laws.

I personally think we need to investigate how many people would be negatively affected by realistic voter ID requirements. There have been a "yuge" number of complaints about how expensive the fraud investigation would be; how expensive would it be to issue a new Federal ID system? I believe state IDs would be sufficient and more efficient, simply because they already exist.

If there is a push for a Federal ID, I recommend making Social Security cards laminated with some form of tamper-resistant verification (like photos). They are already required for getting a job, and issuing a flimsy piece of paper ID expecting it to last a lifetime is absolutely ludicrous.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Something about chipping people and tracking. Ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm not the one opposed to such ideas.


Never heard that seriously linked to voter ID.

Well I don't take many conspiracy theories seriously, so that means nothing to me. Let's just say these conversations used to occur regularly on ATS.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There's been several reports of anomalous voting results like the one in Detroit (more votes than voters). That is not definitely proven and thus is not evidence; it is suspicion. Suspicion does not require evidence... if it did, there was no evidence on the Russian hack thing until someone conducted an investigation, meaning there was no reason to investigate in the first place. If evidence were required to have suspicion, the police could not pull a suspected drug dealer over to investigate them, because he would have no evidence a crime was committed before investigating, and thus no suspicion to warrant the stop.

Methinks you confuse investigation with corrective action.

TheRedneck

That SUSPICION only warrants further investigation into Detroit, not the whole country. You are making egregious leap in logic to assume that anomalies in Detroit are expressive of the whole country.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Something about chipping people and tracking. Ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm not the one opposed to such ideas.


Never heard that seriously linked to voter ID.

Well I don't take many conspiracy theories seriously, so that means nothing to me. Let's just say these conversations used to occur regularly on ATS.


There is no theory yet. You claim to follow the scientific method, but you don't seem to understand it.
The theory comes later.
Right now, we have some observable facts and a hypothesis. Actually, Trump setting up an investigation means that he still wants more facts before framing his alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is there an appreciable difference between Detroit and all other areas? All voting districts in the country vote in similar ways, under the same Federal laws and guidelines. I fail to see the harm in expanding the investigation, even if Detroit were the only case with that level of suspicion.

But it is not the only area. There are widespread claims from California to Florida to Maine and everywhere in between. I am certain Alabama has some problems I would like to see cleared up. I just can't prove them without an investigation.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd be more willing to listen to your concerns if you could produce similar voting discrepancies in a random sampling of American towns/cities across the country. Instead you are just trying to dress up a sum-to-all logical fallacy.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Something about chipping people and tracking. Ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm not the one opposed to such ideas.


Never heard that seriously linked to voter ID.

Well I don't take many conspiracy theories seriously, so that means nothing to me. Let's just say these conversations used to occur regularly on ATS.


There is no theory yet. You claim to follow the scientific method, but you don't seem to understand it.
The theory comes later.
Right now, we have some observable facts and a hypothesis. Actually, Trump setting up an investigation means that he still wants more facts before framing his alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis.

Are you high? I'm not calling something a scientific theory just because I called it a conspiracy theory.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Something about chipping people and tracking. Ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm not the one opposed to such ideas.


Never heard that seriously linked to voter ID.

Well I don't take many conspiracy theories seriously, so that means nothing to me. Let's just say these conversations used to occur regularly on ATS.


There is no theory yet. You claim to follow the scientific method, but you don't seem to understand it.
The theory comes later.
Right now, we have some observable facts and a hypothesis. Actually, Trump setting up an investigation means that he still wants more facts before framing his alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis.

Are you high? I'm not calling something a scientific theory just because I called it a conspiracy theory.


You are the one who said you follow the scientific method.
I don't know why you are talking about 'conspiracy theories'. It's a silly term and has no place in the thought process of someone who follows the scientific method.

I have followed your misunderstanding of the scientific method through this thread, so I thought I would offer you some education on the subject.

Observable facts that are required to form a hypothesis are not conspiracy theories.
Evidence is not required to form an alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis.

If you truly follow the scientific method in your approach then you can have no complaints about an investigation.

edit on 26/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Something about chipping people and tracking. Ask the conspiracy theorists. I'm not the one opposed to such ideas.


Never heard that seriously linked to voter ID.

Well I don't take many conspiracy theories seriously, so that means nothing to me. Let's just say these conversations used to occur regularly on ATS.


There is no theory yet. You claim to follow the scientific method, but you don't seem to understand it.
The theory comes later.
Right now, we have some observable facts and a hypothesis. Actually, Trump setting up an investigation means that he still wants more facts before framing his alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis.

Are you high? I'm not calling something a scientific theory just because I called it a conspiracy theory.


You are the one who said you follow the scientific method.
I take it you abandoned it then when discussing 'conspiracy theories'.

I have followed you misunderstanding of the scientific method through this thread, so I thought I would offer you some education on the subject.

*eyeroll* You're just being a jackass right now. Just stop. You know DAMN well that I don't make that mistake and are just trying to stir #. This is why I always end up ignoring you. I tire of the childish passive aggressiveness rather quickly. I'm sure it won't be long before I'm ignoring you again.




top topics



 
68
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join