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: 29
68
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
The guy is not mentally right and not fit to be the president. 3-5 million illegal votes where you have states that are runned by right wingers who make difficult to vote. C'mon man.


Well a state runned by a right winger that wants to have proper ID? Hmm the Kenyan TOLD them to vote.

California alone will reveal massive fraud, and most states that do not require ID there will be fraud.

You see this is not new for the Democrats, sure both have done it but one is much better at it.

There is a reason the Democrats moto is vote early and vote often..

Just a bit of history for you snowflakes. JFK barely won against Nixon and you know what? Enough dead people in Chicago alone voted for JFK that if corrected could have made the national results much different.

Your commentary is as the Brits say 'pure bollocks'

Damn snowflakes.




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

US voting:

Voters have to register, usually at a local government registrar's office, but some states allow organizations or even just citizens to provide the paperwork. Legally, there is to be no collusion toward choosing party affiliation, but this is difficult to enforce on individuals who assist in registration in obscure areas.

Voters are assigned a polling station based on where they live. In my case, it's a little country store a couple miles away, with the church next door as a backup.

In some states, voters must present ID. In others they simply sign their names.

Primaries only: in my state, you are asked to declare which party primary you vote in when you enter. I understand in others, only those who registered as a party affiliation get to vote in primaries.

All elections are conducted by the state of residence, under broad Federal guidelines. I know Alabama, but other states may run things differently. Trump's investigation will be based on adherence to those broad guidelines.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



I apologize, this could be fake news. I got it from another thread here and propagated it.


I really appreciated your post, D8Tee! It is refreshing in this day and age to find online someone who is willing to admit to being in error and apologize. I give you my Diogenes Award! You are honest not just with yourself but with others.

We live in an age with perhaps TMI to assemble and analyze quickly. Plus, we depend on others to be honest with information, but in reality much information is merely passed on without giving it much thought.

With regards!



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Report Says Millions of Non-Citizens Could Have Voted for President in 2008 Read more: www.thepoliticalinsider.com...


Experts in elections studies carried out a study from 2014, which looked at data from the 2008 presidential elections. And the numbers are staggering. As Newsmax reports, as many as 2.8 million non-citizens voted in that election, according to the study from Old Dominion University


Findings from the study:

“We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections,” co-author Jesse Richman wrote.

Based on those findings, the same experts found that more than 800,000 non-citizens voted in the 2016 election, Richman told the conservative site The Daily Signal. my bold

President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday claimed in a tweet that he would have won the popular vote if not for the “millions of people who voted illegally.”


This 800,000 doesn't include dead voters, those who cast their ballot more than once, votes not tabulated, ballot stuffing and votes tampered with electronically.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I would have had no problem voting twice in the last election.

My father passed a couple years ago and i could have voted under his name in one precinct and drove 6 miles and voted under my name in my precinct.
There is no ID needed in Calif and many could vote under friend no longer in the state. the dead and felons in prison if they know there voter ID address and name.
People in Calif and the government in Calif know this and the voter roles are information that is public.

In Calif The dead are not removed from the voter roles and felons are not ether because it would cause major problems with people with the same names.
Just adding the requirement for someone to give there SS# when they vote would stop a lot of this.
Its easy to run a SS# and match it with the name and death and felony records and know if some one is voting illegally and you do not even have to have the SS card with you when you vote.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: desert


I really appreciated your post, D8Tee



“To make mistakes or be wrong is human. To admit those mistakes shows you have the ability to learn, and are growing wiser.”
― Donald L. Hicks,

I'm here to learn, and I like to dig deep into subjects. I try to remain non partisan and keep an open mind. I notice a tendency of people to defend their position in the face of overwhelming evidence, that would not site well with me. It's important to be shown one is wrong, just as important as it is to be right. Thanks for noticing, and thanks for asking about the source of that article and allowing me to revisit what I had initially thought was genuine.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Seems Trump knew exactly what he was talking about this time. Not sure if this info has been posted yet.


Trump Advisers, Daughter Registered to Vote in 2 States

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (VIVIAN SALAMA)
January 26, 2017, 4:23 PM CST January 26, 2017, 4:33 PM CST

Washington (AP) -- President Donald Trump's sweeping preview of his plans to investigate voter fraud in the United States includes those registered in more than one state.

A number of people closest to the president fall into that category, including his Treasury Secretary nominee, Steve Mnuchin, Trump's son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner, as well as his younger daughter, Tiffany Trump.

The president tweeted on Wednesday that he 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)," he said.

"Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!"




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
...
What about 2018? 2020? 2022? 2024?

That's what this investigation is about: the future, not the past.

TheRedneck


Yep, agree with you. We found probable cause in the wikileaks and other evidence showing the DNC promoting and doing illegal and fraudulent actions to affect the election. Of course, the left responded to this evidences by falsely claiming without presenting any proof: "but the Russians hacked us"... To me their reaction shows wikileaks is right and they are afraid of what could be found. Let's hope the investigation finds something before the DNC erases all their wrongdoing.


edit on 26-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's not just the DNC. I want the RNC investigated as well. I'm not willing to just assume anyone is clean.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
Is he going to order an investigation into the Russian involvement in the elections? Or is he only going to order investigations that benefit him, or cater to his ego?

Just curious...


You mean the conspiracy that they might have influenced the media through wikileaks?

How about the vatican involvement, the saudi oligarch involvement, the mexican oligarch involvement, the american oligarch involvement? OR how about Hillary getting questions in advance, and basically having the entire MSM in her pockets demonizing trump 24-7 and extolling her virtues and how she was going to win.

There's one candidate, who even blackboxvoting suspects tried to steal the election, and had even papers printed showing her the winner. Trump's win was so large and overwhelming, taking many who voted for Obama to his side, that even though some machines were pumping more votes for hillary than voters, even though obama was nebulous when asked if illegals should try to vote, even though all that Trump won.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: Bone75
It's so funny watching Democrats take an interest in government spending all of a sudden.


Lackluster partisan blabber. What's more interesting is that conservatives are all of a sudden no longer conservative when it comes to government spending.

How are you feeling about that wall that Trump now wants to start building with taxpayer money (Trumps estimate of 8 billion is 3 times lower than other estimates)... hmmmm, wasn't Mexico gonna pay for that?


We spend far more into the military, either it is true that illegals are a net cost to our economy and are funneling funds to mexico, or they're a net gain. If they're a net loss they could easily be in the billions or tens of billions. Someone should do a study, if it hasn't been done, to see whether they benefit or harm america.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears


OR how about Hillary getting questions in advance

Was this story reported in the Main Stream Media?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Sillyolme

57% approval rating doesn't seem too bad, not bad at all.

Nobody cares what the regressive extremist left thinks anymore. You're ideology lost you the congress, the presidency and soon the supreme court.

The protests that dwarfed the inauguration over the weekend beg to differ.


Do show pics, of a crowd anything close to the size of the one at the inauguration. We are all waiting.


We all know the massive events for Trump, and how basically everywhere Hillary got less votes than Obama, many who voted for Obama voted for Trump, in addition to independents and republicans.

Just look at one of the many Hillary events, substantially less than half of a very small building filled. Google for empty christian church hillary



originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Puppylove

You first fellow keyboard warrior.


Why? I could care less about this investigation and stated it was a waste of tax money from the beginning. I don't care about expanding its scope.


So if you couldn't care less, just wait for the results.
Then you will know one way or the other.

There is no tax payer money being 'wasted' as this is a genuine issue that citizens care about.

No. It is an issue that Trump cares about, so his supporters care about it.


So, his supporters aren't citizens?? Most of the country shows as red for voting, which is a lot of Trump supporters. meaning a lot of citizens who are, in fact, concerned about voter fraud. I have been concerned about voter fraud since 1996. Tell me again why I shouldn't be? You claim that there is no massive fraud; tell us how, exactly, you know this to be true? What we actually know is that there is a LOT of fraud, in every election, and thus a massive investigation is not only needed, but is long overdue. Anyone not benefiting fro fraud would welcome this.

Tell me how you know there IS massive voter fraud. The onus is on the one making the claim. I can't prove a negative. Sorry it doesn't work that way. The reason there is no massive voter fraud is because I am defaulting to null hypothesis. YOU produce the evidence of your claim.


Trump gained in the recounts, and some places had to be barred from recounts due to more votes than voters for hillary coming from the machines.


originally posted by: desert
a reply to: D8Tee



vacationing Canadians would be able to vote if they simply claimed to be citizens without ID


In California, no. You would first have had to have registered. To register, you need your California driver's license or California identification card number, the last four digits of your social security number and your date of birth. Registration is done ahead of time. Then you must go to the polling place assigned to you, where the poll workers look up your name in the log, then if your name appears, you sign and get your ballot. You must sign exactly as registered.

There is one exception for showing ID at a polling place, being a first time voter who registered by mail, when you need your California drivers license or identification card.


Wasn't mothermayeye earlier in this thread, I think suggesting that there is a process where you can register without providing driver's license nor ss#? iirc.

edit on 27-1-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
If there is no voter fraud, then democrats should welcome this investigation, it will prove their innocence! The fact that Dems are so against the investigation would seem to indicate they have something to hide.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Xenogears


OR how about Hillary getting questions in advance

Was this story reported in the Main Stream Media?


It appeared in the wikileaks, iirc. And I hear one of those involved with giving the questions resigned from the press.link
edit on 27-1-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Do show pics, of a crowd anything close to the size of the one at the inauguration. We are all waiting.

Not sure how I can show comparison pictures of protests occurring across the country (and globe) compared to one low attendance inauguration. I'll give you this link instead, though I'm sure you'll tell me it is fake news.
Half a million people show up for Women's March on Washington as others flock to sister marches across globe

The massive rally, with double the 250,000 attendees at Trump’s Friday inaugural, packed the route of a planned march on the White House so densely that there was no room to stage the walk.


Police in Los Angeles estimated a crowd of 500,000 as well at their march for women’s rights. The Chicago march was canceled after a larger than expected crowd of more than 150,000. Globally, there were demonstrations in Paris, London and Mexico City.


Removed video, and no shots to show the crowd, in relation to the same size we saw at the inauguration. Nothing at all to back the claim of "half a million". Plus, the CNN pics alone showed MASSIVE numbers at the inauguration, far more than they initially tried to claim, by showing photos from hours before the event. And, who cares about protests elsewhere in the world? Claiming a large number, and NOT showing pics, shows me someone is fudging the numbers. The CNN interactive photo, on the other hand, shows the truth, as does video coverage of the event, and the huge crowd, as far back as the Monument and farther, and spilling into side streets as well. Look at this, and tell me that's a "poor turnout" -

link to interactive



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Puppylove

You first fellow keyboard warrior.


Why? I could care less about this investigation and stated it was a waste of tax money from the beginning. I don't care about expanding its scope.


So if you couldn't care less, just wait for the results.
Then you will know one way or the other.

There is no tax payer money being 'wasted' as this is a genuine issue that citizens care about.

No. It is an issue that Trump cares about, so his supporters care about it.


So, his supporters aren't citizens?? Most of the country shows as red for voting, which is a lot of Trump supporters. meaning a lot of citizens who are, in fact, concerned about voter fraud. I have been concerned about voter fraud since 1996. Tell me again why I shouldn't be? You claim that there is no massive fraud; tell us how, exactly, you know this to be true? What we actually know is that there is a LOT of fraud, in every election, and thus a massive investigation is not only needed, but is long overdue. Anyone not benefiting fro fraud would welcome this.

Tell me how you know there IS massive voter fraud. The onus is on the one making the claim. I can't prove a negative. Sorry it doesn't work that way. The reason there is no massive voter fraud is because I am defaulting to null hypothesis. YOU produce the evidence of your claim.


So, you have nothing?? You claim massive voter fraud doesn't exist. When asked how you KNOW this is true, you say it's not up to you to prove anything. Nice dodge there.

Here's a hint; the point of the investigation is to find out how much fraud there actually is. We know there is some. We don't know how much. Hence, an investigation!!

And, yes, there is reason to believe it's massive -

On Trial: There is Evidence to Back (At Least Some of) Trump’s Illegal Voting Claims


A trio of well-regarded scholars used scientifically approved methods to study the question of non-citizen voting in federal elections. The result of their study published in one of the best-regarded peer-review political science journals, Electoral Studies. The evidence from their study suggested upwards of 10% of non-citizens voted in 2008; given the issues implicated in this election, a higher number would be a reasonable inference for a jury to conclude. Given the increase in non-citizen members of the population, the same study’s conclusions would project out to millions of illegal votes from non-citizen voters in this election.


Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote

As stated, more than enough reason to have a real, nationwide investigation into the issue!!



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Do show pics, of a crowd anything close to the size of the one at the inauguration. We are all waiting.

Not sure how I can show comparison pictures of protests occurring across the country (and globe) compared to one low attendance inauguration. I'll give you this link instead, though I'm sure you'll tell me it is fake news.
Half a million people show up for Women's March on Washington as others flock to sister marches across globe

The massive rally, with double the 250,000 attendees at Trump’s Friday inaugural, packed the route of a planned march on the White House so densely that there was no room to stage the walk.


Police in Los Angeles estimated a crowd of 500,000 as well at their march for women’s rights. The Chicago march was canceled after a larger than expected crowd of more than 150,000. Globally, there were demonstrations in Paris, London and Mexico City.


Removed video, and no shots to show the crowd, in relation to the same size we saw at the inauguration. Nothing at all to back the claim of "half a million". Plus, the CNN pics alone showed MASSIVE numbers at the inauguration, far more than they initially tried to claim, by showing photos from hours before the event. And, who cares about protests elsewhere in the world? Claiming a large number, and NOT showing pics, shows me someone is fudging the numbers. The CNN interactive photo, on the other hand, shows the truth, as does video coverage of the event, and the huge crowd, as far back as the Monument and farther, and spilling into side streets as well. Look at this, and tell me that's a "poor turnout" -

link to interactive




I think that the key words you're looking for are "compared with Obama's first inauguration' and then 'compared with the women's March."
You want a better idea of crowd numbers? Here you go.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Get over it Trump. You lost the popular vote by a huge margin. The majority of the people don't want you as President. Just get over it and move on.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
Get over it Trump. You lost the popular vote by a huge margin. The majority of the people don't want you as President. Just get over it and move on.

Trump's approval rating is now at 59% according to Rasmussen's daily tracking poll.
www.westernjournalism.com...


Looks like only idiots are eating up the liberal propaganda - even the overall RCP average now has more people approving than disapproving..

edit on 27/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join