12% of voters are illegal immigrants in Frederick County (Maryland)

Did you even read the articles??

Newsflash - This isn't the Soviet Union, Russia, or the Ukraine. Why you keep trying to compare those to the United States is beyond me.

 

12% of voters in Frederick County, Maryland arev illegal immigrants? How the hell foes this happen?

 

It's the new "alternative math," Ted - like "alternative facts." Stanislav said so -- He has TWO math degrees and lives here in Canada, so I have to believe him.

J.

Apparently, it's an attempt to make 0.11% look like 12%. Just like putting a VERY few chips in a HUGE bag, filling it with AIR and charging $3+.

 

You can't run alternative math by Stanislav. He is just to smart! He he!

 

Did you? Number of faulty votes in Detroit is in low three digits - I'd be surprised if discrepancies like these DIDN'T exist, given semi-manual procedure. In fact, that would suggest that the numbers were just invented out of thin air.

One of the reasons this isn't Russia is that voter fraud is ubiquitous in Russia and virtually nonexistent in US. That corner of the world owns voter fraud art (Churov's nickname is "The Wizard"; Kivalov's translates from Ukrainian as simply "calculate" in singular imperative but sounds like an obscenity to Russian ear. Both nicknames are well-earned for their memorable accomplishments in keeping their patrons in power by faking elections). Why you try to make your country look like Russia or Ukraine amazes me. I mean, for Trump it's part of his political con, but what's in it for you?

 

In other words, your best proof of widespread voting by illegal immigrants is your strong belief in it. Terrific.

 

The thing that fascinates me about this (as one who is neither Republican nor Democrat and in fact completely unaffiliated) is that the Trump supporters who won the election are adamant that there was widespread voter fraud and the Clinton supporters who lost are just as adamant that the election was legitimate.

It's almost as if in a baseball game the manager of the team with the pitcher who just threw the questionable strike to end the game just barreled out of the dugout and is kicking dirt on the ump and screaming that the pitch was in fact a ball--and the manager for the other team that lost is screaming that it was a strike.

This is a head scratcher.

 

Am not part of the "Christian right", yet am very adamantly a Christian. So at least I meet half of that description, and can say that Rand gives me the shivers, like Nietzsche. Both seem to be just the kind of atheists who think they're a good bit more clever than they actually are. Then again, I disagree profoundly with atheism in general as a philosophy because I think it's ridiculous that anyone could even think they, a tiny little thing who's never set foot off their tiny speck, could pronounce for the benefit of the entire universe and who knows what else besides: "there is no God". I think Rand was equal parts silly and scary.

 

Stanislav, how do you know with certitude that President Trump is lying about being a Christian? And how can anyone know with certitude that you are not lying about being a Catholic?

 

Me again, Mathew 6:24. As for Ayn Rand, she's not Christian because she said quite adamantly that she was not one. Honesty.
I'm very sympathetic to the Catholic Church, but am a member of a Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada parish. Not that it's of any interest to anyone since I'm not a public figure.

 

To put it simply, Ayn Rand was a founder of a secular cult ("Objectivism"). Her legacy persists because her creed raised the rich to positions of saints or demigods.

 

No big mystery. Trumpers' promoting this conspiracy theory serves two purposes: pleasing the nativist base, and distracting from the real scandal which is Russian interference. Trump movement, at least in Bannonite wing, is quite media savvy.

 

I don't believe that's true.

Clinton supporters keep pushing the fanciful but unsubstantiated thesis that the Russians somehow subverted the entire American democratic process and that Hillary would be President today if they hadn't.

I think that Trump's supporters do think that they won a legitimate victory, but they feel that they had to win that victory going uphill, against a system stacked against them.

Unlike the Russian subversion thesis, I think that there's abundant evidence that the voter registration rolls are inflated with an unknown but probably large number of people who aren't legally qualified to vote.

If these California numbers turn out to be correct, if there really are more registered voters than voting age citizens in some of the most populous parts of the state, and if there isn't some plausible explanation for it (like deceased voters and voters who have moved away not being purged from the rolls for long periods of time) then it would look like voter fraud on the scale of millions of votes might be occurring in California.

That's why the Democrats are so 'resistant' to any suggestions that the voter rolls be cleaned up, to any suggestion that voters be required to show IDs at the polling place, or to whatever suggestion is made to improve the integrity of the election process.

 

I once had a professor who insisted that dead people voted in the election of 1960.

 

This is an exaggeration aimed at trivializing the real concern that Russia did, in fact, hack the electoral system. This is accepted by virtually everyone in the Senate, the House , the FBI, etc. Mueller's entire investigation is based upon the fact that this occurred. Also, it has been repeatedly stated that there is no evidence that the voter totals were affected by the hack. You must be watching that Fake News.

 

I believe it.

For generations it's been a cynical joke how dead people continue to vote in every election in Chicago for ten years after they die (straight Democratic ticket every time). The big-city political machines were/are infamous for that. Lots of people vote in multiple precincts too. ('Vote early and often'.)

But I'd guess that the most common form of voter fraud, at least here in California, is non-citizen voting. Voter registration is entirely honor-system with just check-a-box for citizenship, nobody ever verifies it and there's no discernible downside for lying on the voter-registration form. That's my guess how counties could end up with more registered voters than adult citizens.

Once again, non-citizen immigrants are often reliable Democratic voters, so there's little motivation for local officials in Democratic-dominated districts to do anything about them, or to cooperate with anyone like Trump's electoral integrity commission who is trying. Local jurisdictions will often file highly-imaginative lawsuits claiming that enforcing existing voter laws constitutes "voter suppression" and the Obama Justice Department was famous for siding with those suits.

Hopefully, the Trump Justice Department will reverse that.

 

How do dead people vote ten years after they die?

 

I can answer that: it's implied that elections officials vote for them. It's a straight-up fraud. Similarly, voting in multiple precincts would imply elections officials' help. Very common in more corrupt countries. In Ukraine, we have a special name for organised multiple-precinct voters ("voters" were bused in organized fashion): "carousel".

 

Discernible downside would be the same as with stealing: it's a felony to impersonate a U. S. citizen. Except with theft a thief gets obvious material reward. Even hardened criminals need an obvious incentive to risk committing another crime, no matter how low the chance to get caught. There's no incentive for an individual immigrant to risk like that, leaving a paper trail.

"Often"??? I'd say non-citizen immigrants are grossly more often not voters at all. The case of Frederick County, Maryland, a highly imaginative lawsuit designed to inflate noncitizen voter problem, could only support (and it was not tested in court yet) 63 people they say voted illegally, "many" (meaning "not all") in multiple elections - which means in each election the number is likely lower. In contrast, voter ID laws do suppress legitimate voting - and that claim WAS tested in court in a few states. Besides, you have literally no data to prove these are reliable Dem voters.

Once again, you try to present your belief as fact.

 

For many it's more about zealotry; their religion is left wing politics and they have no objective standards beyond whatever comprises the platform of their party. So the shame would be in not promoting that political party, not in breaking federal law to support it. So they're willing to lie, cheat, steal, maybe even murder (as we saw on the baseball diamond) to promote those goals, which they think is the highest standard of good. This happens in right wing politics, but just over a different set of issues. I see it sometimes in my religion, Christianity, where people are occasionally willing to cover up the abuse of the church leaders and break laws and defame and shun victims of the abuse because they think it's for the greater good. The political stuff doesn't get me amped up, but the church abuse stuff because it's "for the best" puts me on tilt.