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 argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Oh, the actual numbers will be a lot higher!! I agree; if he says anything, he already knows he's going to be correct. Plus, there is plenty of data to support his claims.

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


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.


Nevada: Evidence of Illegal Alien Voter Fraud


Last week, I met with two immigrant noncitizens who are not eligible to vote, but who nonetheless are active registered voters for Tuesday’s election. They said they were signed up by Culinary Local 226. They speak and understand enough English to get by. But they don’t read English especially well. They say the Culinary official who registered them to vote didn’t tell them what they were signing and didn’t ask whether they were citizens. The immigrants said they trusted that the union official’s request was routine, thought nothing of it and went about their work. Then the election drew closer. Then the Culinary canvassers started seeking them out and ordering them to go vote. One of the immigrants was visited at home by a Culinary representative and said the operative made threats of deportation if no ballot was cast.


Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote


In our 2012 book on voter fraud, John Fund and I noted numerous cases of noncitizen registration and voting all over the country. Only a month ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals of the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the Justice Department held that a Peruvian citizen who illegally registered and voted in the 2006 congressional election could be deported for violating federal law. The only reason she was caught is because she applied for naturalization in 2007 and admitted in the INS interview that she had voted in an American election.



In 2014, a study released by three professors at Old Dominion University and George Mason University, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, estimated 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm congressional elections. Since 80 percent of noncitizens vote Democratic, according to the study, noncitizen participation could have “been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes [in North Carolina in 2008], and Congressional elections” such as the 2008 race in Minnesota in which Al Franken was elected to the U.S. Senate, giving “Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote” to pass Obamacare. The Old Dominion/George Mason study was sharply attacked by progressive critics, but the mounting evidence makes clear this is a real problem.


That's more than enough reason to order a full investigation, and that doesn't even include votes from dead people, people voting more than once, stolen absentee ballots, machine tampering, etc.




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The nonsense about ID somehow being discriminatory is simply BS, and frankly insulting to minorities. Proof? Here you go!




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Trump is not one to speak out of turn and he knows the answer to the question before it is asked.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Trump is not one to speak out of turn and he knows the answer to the question before it is asked.


That he does! The proof is there, and liberals know it; hence the panic over a full investigation!! It was fine for Gore, and fine for Stein, but when it's a Republican, suddenly, there is no proof.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Regardless of what the Trump admin thinks, regardless of what the stats in op suggest and regardless of what side of the political fence you sit on - I believe everyone on ATS would agree that non citizens voted in this and previous elections.

I also believe it would be a fair assumption to suggest, that this election would have polarized and motivated more non U.S citizens to cast illegal votes and vote democrat to protect their personal interests that any other Presidential election.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: oddnutz

Agreed, it was a mess of an election.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: oddnutz
Regardless of what the Trump admin thinks, regardless of what the stats in op suggest and regardless of what side of the political fence you sit on - I believe everyone on ATS would agree that non citizens voted in this and previous elections.

I also believe it would be a fair assumption to suggest, that this election would have polarized and motivated more non U.S citizens to cast illegal votes and vote democrat to protect their personal interests that any other Presidential election.


Far too much common sense.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Trump is not one to speak out of turn and he knows the answer to the question before it is asked.

So, he knew that Obama was born in the US before he went through all that birther nonsense?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Good question, and he knows more than he says.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Really? Seems he says everything that pops into his head.
He also makes stuff up.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: seasonal

Really? Seems he says everything that pops into his head.
He also makes stuff up.


That's a mighty impressive week 1 all the same.
Perhaps more Presidents should have said what they think.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. The OP and it's source appears to have been shown to be pure bunk and very few, if any, even want to address it. They just continue with the circle jerk.

I wonder what they would say of the source was CNN?

Maybe then they would actually do the research behind the story.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

To some it may seem both ways. When you now talk for a living, you are bound to get some things wrong.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah.
A bunch of EOs. Neat.
I though EOs were bad.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Let me know what sources pass your smell test, it will save time.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: introvert

Let me know what sources pass your smell test, it will save time.


Why don't you spend your time defending the OP and your source, instead of deflecting?

You've been called-out and it appears you are not up to the challenge.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: theantediluvian

The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. The OP and it's source appears to have been shown to be pure bunk and very few, if any, even want to address it. They just continue with the circle jerk.

I wonder what they would say of the source was CNN?

Maybe then they would actually do the research behind the story.


Actually the Harvard study does not debunk the 2014 study.
They describe the survey data collection process and the resurvey that they did.


We argue that the findings in the Richman et al. article can be entirely explained by measurement error. Specifically, survey respondents occasionally select the incorrect response to a question merely by accident.

In 2012, we re-interviewed 19,000 respondents who had originally taken the CCES survey in 2010. We asked about a respondent’s citizenship status in both 2010 and 2012. A very large fraction (99.25 percent) of respondents indicated that they were citizens in both waves of the survey. Only 85 respondents said they were non-citizens in both waves. But the remaining 56 respondents actually changed their response between 2010 and 2012 — including 20 who responded that they were citizens in 2010 but non-citizens in 2012, a highly unrealistic change.


Two things become immediately obvious.

1) Data collection error cuts both ways. It could actually be more. The fact they have assumed data collection error means a real results would be "effectively zero" is bunk.

2) The miss-classification numbers they present holds two problems. Firstly they have not gone back to the full sample. We do not know, as they don't say. how they selected the 19,000. You can read the full data set details in the 2014 study. Secondly, even then the fact that 85 respondents said they were non citizens in both samples AND 36 were not citizens in 2010 but were in 2012 (possible) still shows a significant issue. The sample sizes of non citizens in the 2014 report were also very low, obviously, as the majority of the sample size were citizens. The 2014 report adequately accounts for this in their statistical variance calculations.

3) They have not re-surveyed the 2008 data, which the 2014 report highlighted as the major issue (3-4 times more illegal voters than 2010).

The Harvard rebuttal does not debunk the 2014 report at all. It highlights a common problem with data collection that could mean the result is higher or lower. This is a particular issue for any survey where the target audience is a small percentage of the full sample. The fact that, for 2010, they reverified a minimum of 85 of the 140 or so illegal immigrants actually debunks their own conclusion of zero.


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



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes, I know what it says. There are obvious problems one may encounter when collecting data and the Harvard study highligted that.

The problem is, the number 800,000+ votes is an extrapolation made from a flawed study. Said so in the OP.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes, I know what it says. There are obvious problems one may encounter when collecting data and the Harvard study highligted that.

The problem is, the number 800,000+ votes is an extrapolation made from a flawed study. Said so in the OP.


Unless they have more, the Harvard study did not debunk the 2014 report.

All survey studies extrapolate to the full population. That is why we use statistical confidence levels and variances. Sample sizes do not need to be that high to get accurate reads within the statistical variance on the entire voting population. There is no debunking of the 800,000 either - at least not yet.

To use data collection inaccuracies, which will occur in all studies, is not a debunking of the study either.
The verification of the 85 records from the Harvard re-survey actually gives added weight that their could be an issue running into over a million votes in 2008.

Even more troubling in the Harvard summary is that they claim the 85 who were registered in both 10 ad 12 were not voters (only registered), yet the 2014 study clearly states that the 'did you vote' question was not well populated. The 2014 report actually validated the voter data (from those registered) via a separate source.

The most troubling of all with the Harvard report, though, is that their numbers for declared illegal immigrants do not even match the 2014 report numbers.
edit on 27/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

ITA - Any savvy business person and/or attorney knows that you never ask the question unless you already know the answer...Trump maybe many things, but a fool he is not.




top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join