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.

 

11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens.

page: 3
68
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

The post I replied to is linked. Your post was very short. If you can't figure out the context I am fairly certain you can't provide an answer either.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Like what?

So you personally have no problem with the president collecting voters history?

I bet if Obama did it the end of the world would be near.

Or maybe you believe trumps gimmicks?

Like he is going after illegal immigrants?

Even though he could get them by the thousand at poultry plants and shut down the employers cheating all those taxes.


It seems apparent that almost every state has substanially inaccurate voting rolls that they are not taking care of.

Are you ok with this?

As far as voting history, I fully admit I would need to look into Trumps teams plan in more detail.

I do not think that individual voting histry should be examined, but I see no problem with leaving off names and looking at the data, or making sure those that voted were legal.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Uh I never said is was one side.

However their are significantly more cases of Republicans currently.

Like I said fraud is bipartisan.

The immigration problem is bipartisan

Judicial watch is a conservative organisation.

They paint conservative pictures not neutral.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Like what?

So you personally have no problem with the president collecting voters history?

I bet if Obama did it the end of the world would be near.

Or maybe you believe trumps gimmicks?

Like he is going after illegal immigrants?

Even though he could get them by the thousand at poultry plants and shut down the employers cheating all those taxes.


It seems apparent that almost every state has substanially inaccurate voting rolls that they are not taking care of.

Are you ok with this?

As far as voting history, I fully admit I would need to look into Trumps teams plan in more detail.

I do not think that individual voting histry should be examined, but I see no problem with leaving off names and looking at the data, or making sure those that voted were legal.


Yikes so your arguing something your not aware of?

Have you ever heard don't let a good tragedy go to waste?

Politicians lobe to make things look like something good while doing something sinister.

Like ask for your name, address, voting history, party affiliation and make a federal database of it. Harmless right?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Voting is anonymous.

The federal government under no condition is supposed to compile lists of voting history attached to names and addresses.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

First let's look at your sources: As my Mamma always told me, "First, consider the source".


Zero Hedge is a bat# insane Austrian school finance blog run by two pseudonymous founders who post articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after the character from Fight Club.Wikipedia's W.svg It's essentially apocalypse porn. It has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions.[citation NOT needed]

rationalwiki.org...


Judicial Watch, Inc., at www.judicialwatch.org, describes itself as "a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law."[1] It was initiated near the beginning of the Clinton Administration in 1994 and asserts that its role is "to serve as an ethical and legal 'watchdog' over our government, legal, and judicial systems to promote a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life."

Judicial Watch is an "associate" member of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country.[2]

www.sourcewatch.org...

Then there is the ongoing voting disenfranchisement campaign run by the republicans for decades:

From the 'horse's' mouth:




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Like what?

So you personally have no problem with the president collecting voters history?

I bet if Obama did it the end of the world would be near.

Or maybe you believe trumps gimmicks?

Like he is going after illegal immigrants?

Even though he could get them by the thousand at poultry plants and shut down the employers cheating all those taxes.


It seems apparent that almost every state has substanially inaccurate voting rolls that they are not taking care of.

Are you ok with this?

As far as voting history, I fully admit I would need to look into Trumps teams plan in more detail.

I do not think that individual voting histry should be examined, but I see no problem with leaving off names and looking at the data, or making sure those that voted were legal.


Yikes so your arguing something your not aware of?

Have you ever heard don't let a good tragedy go to waste?

Politicians lobe to make things look like something good while doing something sinister.

Like ask for your name, address, voting history, party affiliation and make a federal database of it. Harmless right?


Well first off, all states are already required to keep all of that information. So I assume you feel this is unconsitutional and harmful too?

And by voting history, I don't think they mean who you voted for, but which elections you voted in.


Under federal law, each state must maintain a central file of registered voters. States collect different amounts of information on voters. While the files are technically public records, states usually charge fees to individuals or entities who want to access them. Political campaigns and parties typically use these files to compile their massive voter lists.


www.washingtonpost.com... ter-in-america/?utm_term=.c87fe6d7baf8

So these records are public records, but the states refuse to compile them for the commission?

It seems as if your claims were a bit hyperbolic.

So again, why are these states refusing to cooperate if they have nothing to hide?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Yeah. People MOVE. And their INFO doesn't always get purged right away.

It's pretty normal...



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

are they fighting it though, or are they saying that the gov't, at least initially was asking for more information than their state laws would allow??



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Just a reminder...

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Like what?

So you personally have no problem with the president collecting voters history?

I bet if Obama did it the end of the world would be near.

Or maybe you believe trumps gimmicks?

Like he is going after illegal immigrants?

Even though he could get them by the thousand at poultry plants and shut down the employers cheating all those taxes.


It seems apparent that almost every state has substanially inaccurate voting rolls that they are not taking care of.

Are you ok with this?

As far as voting history, I fully admit I would need to look into Trumps teams plan in more detail.

I do not think that individual voting histry should be examined, but I see no problem with leaving off names and looking at the data, or making sure those that voted were legal.


Yikes so your arguing something your not aware of?

Have you ever heard don't let a good tragedy go to waste?

Politicians lobe to make things look like something good while doing something sinister.

Like ask for your name, address, voting history, party affiliation and make a federal database of it. Harmless right?


Well first off, all states are already required to keep all of that information. So I assume you feel this is unconsitutional and harmful too?

And by voting history, I don't think they mean who you voted for, but which elections you voted in.


Under federal law, each state must maintain a central file of registered voters. States collect different amounts of information on voters. While the files are technically public records, states usually charge fees to individuals or entities who want to access them. Political campaigns and parties typically use these files to compile their massive voter lists.


www.washingtonpost.com... ter-in-america/?utm_term=.c87fe6d7baf8

So these records are public records, but the states refuse to compile them for the commission?

It seems as if your claims were a bit hyperbolic.

So again, why are these states refusing to cooperate if they have nothing to hide?




Why don't you show me where I can find your address, voting history, social, and party affiliate.

The states, vs federal government is an entirely different debate.

If it's all public record trump didn't have to ask the states for anything correct?

So his entire commission would be a sham (which I believe it is for other reasons)


edit on 7-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Like what?

So you personally have no problem with the president collecting voters history?

I bet if Obama did it the end of the world would be near.

Or maybe you believe trumps gimmicks?

Like he is going after illegal immigrants?

Even though he could get them by the thousand at poultry plants and shut down the employers cheating all those taxes.


It seems apparent that almost every state has substanially inaccurate voting rolls that they are not taking care of.

Are you ok with this?

As far as voting history, I fully admit I would need to look into Trumps teams plan in more detail.

I do not think that individual voting histry should be examined, but I see no problem with leaving off names and looking at the data, or making sure those that voted were legal.


Yikes so your arguing something your not aware of?

Have you ever heard don't let a good tragedy go to waste?

Politicians lobe to make things look like something good while doing something sinister.

Like ask for your name, address, voting history, party affiliation and make a federal database of it. Harmless right?


Well first off, all states are already required to keep all of that information. So I assume you feel this is unconsitutional and harmful too?

And by voting history, I don't think they mean who you voted for, but which elections you voted in.


Under federal law, each state must maintain a central file of registered voters. States collect different amounts of information on voters. While the files are technically public records, states usually charge fees to individuals or entities who want to access them. Political campaigns and parties typically use these files to compile their massive voter lists.


www.washingtonpost.com... ter-in-america/?utm_term=.c87fe6d7baf8

So these records are public records, but the states refuse to compile them for the commission?

It seems as if your claims were a bit hyperbolic.

So again, why are these states refusing to cooperate if they have nothing to hide?




Why don't you show me where I can find your address, voting history, social, and party affiliate.

The states, vs federal government is an entirely different debate.

If it's all public record trump didn't have to ask the states for anything correct?

So his entire commission would be a sham (which I believe it is for other reasons)

The link says that political groups get the info all of the time, but they have to pay for it.

I think the fact that the states won't hand it over to the federal government but they will to political groups that want to pay for it is even more troubling.

Oh, and I still you still haven't commented on the voter rolls that are horribly inaccurate.

How long must 144% more people be registered than can vote before the fedral government is allowed to do something?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The article does not say you can get the info I asked you at all. Your having an entirely off base debate.

Again find me in your article where it says the states provide the info requested.

It doesn't exist. Which is why the states have said no. There is no where in any state you can get all the info he requested. Particularly the association of the person, their location, voting history and social as a packet of who voted for who, where they live, and the social connected to the name.

I don't trust judicial watch since they are a partisan organization so I haven't personally analyzed the data they used.

Eta the slow and steady erosion of rights is a bipartisan effort. So pretending it isn't and your team are telling good guys doesn't help anyone. The entire purpose of judicial watch is to promote propaganda user the guise of information.

Any of the information he can get publicly is available already to him. In which case this is propaganda he can use to talk about something we already know.

Did those people registered vote? Did more people vote than lI've in the county?

Did those people die that year?

PropaGanda and gimmicks.
edit on 7-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

The article does not say you can get the info I asked you at all. Your having an entirely off base debate.

Again find me in your article where it says the states provide the info requested.

It doesn't exist. Which is why the states have said no. There is no where in any state you can get all the info he requested. Particularly the association of the person, their location, voting history and social as a packet of who voted for who, where they live, and the social connected to the name.

I don't trust judicial watch since they are a partisan organization so I haven't personally analyzed the data they used.

Eta the slow and steady erosion of rights is a bipartisan effort. So pretending it isn't and your team are telling good guys doesn't help anyone. The entire purpose of judicial watch is to promote propaganda user the guise of information.


No one is asking for who voted for who. Show me where that is being asked for.

Voting history merely means which elections they voted in.

Here is where the article says they are required to keep this info.


Under federal law, each state must maintain a central file of registered voters. States collect different amounts of information on voters. While the files are technically public records, states usually charge fees to individuals or entities who want to access them. Political campaigns and parties typically use these files to compile their massive voter lists.


www.washingtonpost.com... ter-in-america/?utm_term=.b5f67171077b

Now I am not saying you are wrong, but I have yet to see any of the states disagreeing saying they won't comply because they don't keep those records.

If you have that info I would be more thaan happy to read it if you link it.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If he asking for info already available. This is a gimmick. Do you not see this?

He doesn't have to ask for anything if it's already there.

Which parts are what states rejecting and why?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

If he asking for info already available. This is a gimmick. Do you not see this?

He doesn't have to ask for anything if it's already there.

Which parts are what states rejecting and why?



Now wait a minute. You accused me of not knowing the issue, and now you seem to be saying you don't know why the states are rejecting it.

The states are all required by federal law to keep at least a portion of the info being requested.

From what I have seen, states are refusing because they say that giving that info could lead to voter suppression. I have not seen them say they don't have that info.

Its publicly available if you pay for it, meaning that it exists. However, its not like on a bulletin board at the library or something, the state still has to leave you look at it, and they are telling the election fraud commission no.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I am asking to get you to look at it.

It's propaganda.

Like nearly everything he does.

Republicans control what 38 states?

70 percent of legislatures across the nation.

The blame game is getting old. I used to vote republican but they have failed at execution countless times and only complain about problems.

So it's 3rd party for me I guess. At least I don't have to vote for a lie.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

my state uses my social security number as a verification that I am who I say I am in order to access my voter registration information online...
they have my social security number, but they will not give that information out in their public records.

one of the things that the fed gov't initially were asking for was social security number..
and to be honest....
it probably would be a vital piece of information if one was wondering if the tom doe living in virginia and registered there was the same as the tom doe living in california..

but since it's used as a means of indentification, it is not made publicly available!!
and it should stay that way!!!



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan



Link

Look at that data on California from the Social Security Administration/Help America Verify Voters (HAVV) website!

What does that 'non-matched' data mean?


What do these terms mean?

The following list describes the types of data in the HAVV dataset.

Total Transactions: The total number of verification requests made during the time period.
Unprocessed Transactions: The total number of verification requests that could not be processed because the data sent to us was invalid, (e.g., missing, not formatted correctly).
Total Matches: The total number of verification requests where there is at least one match in our records on the name, last four digits of the SSN and date of birth.
Total Non Matches: The total number of verification requests where there is no match in our records on the name, last four digits of the SSN or date of birth.
Multiple Matches Found – At least one alive and at least one deceased: The total number of verification requests where there are multiple matches on name, date of birth, and the last four digits of the SSN, and at least one of the number holders is alive and at least one of the number holders is deceased.
Single Match Found – Alive: The total number of verification requests where there is only one match in our records on name, last four digits of the SSN and date of birth, and the number holder is alive.
Single Match Found – Deceased: The total number of verification requests where there is only one match in our records on name, date of birth, and last four digits of the SSN, and the number holder is deceased.
Multiple Matches Found – All Alive: The total number of verification requests where there are multiple matches on name, date of birth, and last four digits of the SSN, and each match indicates the number holder is alive.
Multiple Match Found – All Deceased: The total number of verification requests where there are multiple matches on name, date of birth, and the last four digits of the SSN, and each match indicates the number holder is deceased.


This data is disturbing.

There is an OBVIOUS serious problem in California...and a few other states. If this is what the HAVV system actually caught, I wonder how many fraudulent/*cough* errant registrations would be caught if we tried to verify people who registered to vote by mail and opted to NOT provide a driver's license number or SS#...

...because, thanks to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), it is unlawful to deny a voter registration application because the registrant claims to have neither a driver's license number or SS#. And if someone who fraudulent registers to vote by mail -- without providing a driver's license number or SS# for verification purposes -- the voter registration card they receive in the mail serves as *acceptable* ID when they go to the polls and vote, in California!

Such a person is never even verified as an eligible voter, under the current system, AND they are provided adequate voter-ID SIMPLY FOR REGISTERING FRAUDULENTLY, by way of a voter ID card!

edit on 8/7/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grambler

my state uses my social security number as a verification that I am who I say I am in order to access my voter registration information online...



The HAVA mandates that voters who provide neither a SS# nor a state-issued ID#/DL# MUST be registered to vote in every state, regardless, and that in such cases, the state will assign a Voter ID# to the registrant.

It further leaves it up to the individual states to put a system in place to verify registrants who don't provide those numbers.

States like California, Florida...and many, many others take NO OTHER STEPS to verify registrants that do not provide a a SS# or a state-issued ID#/DL#.

They simply assign the voter ID# and unless some mail is returned as undeliverable to the address provided...there is no other system in place to verify those registrants.

And then most of the states accept the flimsiest of ID (a utility bill or voter ID card) at the polls or via mail-in ballot to vote...

...or they require no ID, at all, to vote.

'Cause racist and ageist.

Oh, yeah...and politicians never cheat and would never legislate a system vulnerable to cheating.



edit on 8/7/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
68
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join