Mueller report delivered

[ArcadiaGP]

Still waiting on your proof that outcome-changing voter fraud doesn't happen. You do know that absense of evidence is not evidence of absence, yes?

Wait... who is the onus on here? Who made the initial claim?

 

[Phase2]

Wait... who is the onus on here? Who made the initial claim?

The onus is on those that are blocking verification of voter integrity/fraud. Initial claim has nothing to do with it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The onus is on those that are blocking verification of voter integrity/fraud. Initial claim has nothing to do with it.

No, I assume someone here claimed that there is significant voter fraud... or someone claimed there wasn't.

The onus of proof is on the person that claimed either one first.

I didn't read this entire dumpster fire, so I'm asking those involved who it was.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Wait... who is the onus on here? Who made the initial claim?

I would say bug did, but he was asked for a citation and provided one. The other person disagreed with his citation so now the balls in his court to provide a citation that proves bugs citation isn’t accurate.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I would say bug did, but he was asked for a citation and provided one. The other person disagreed with his citation so now the balls in his court to provide a citation that proves bugs citation isn’t accurate.

OK, thanks.

If both cite sources with "scholars say", "experts assert", "people familiar with the issue claim"... though... then they both have room to negate the other's link (because that's what we do, as humans in the year of our lord, two-thousand and nineteen).

So I don't see this going anywhere.

But I'm always willing to be surprised.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

OK, thanks.

If both cite sources with "scholars say", "experts assert", "people familiar with the issue claim"... though... then they both have room to negate the other's link (because that's what we do, as humans in the year of our lord, two-thousand and nineteen).

So I don't see this going anywhere.

But I'm always willing to be surprised.

Thats the beauty of it, its the never ending argument that always comes full circle. Good ole American politics.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

All that’s missing is a good apple pie recipe, and it doesn’t get anymore American than this thread

 

[cbhausen]

I only got to hear bits and pieces of Mueller's testimony on the radio but wow... If he looked as bad as he sounded it must have been painful to watch. He seemed totally unprepared (or unable for that matter) to testify effectively.

I'm no Trump fanboy (bump stocks, suppressors, etc.) but this REALLY has him sitting pretty for 2020.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, I assume someone here claimed that there is significant voter fraud... or someone claimed there wasn't.

The onus of proof is on the person that claimed either one first.

I didn't read this entire dumpster fire, so I'm asking those involved who it was.

Let me ask you this: As much irrefutable evidence with emphasis on turnouts over 100% as we have had over the last several years, how can any reasonable person deny there is a problem, and why is one and only one party fighting tooth and nail against verification if they dont stand to lose significantly if the truth were revealed?

 

[BugI02]

Foreign interference is bad.
But allowing swarms of people to come across the border and vote Democrat, well there's nothing wrong with that.

Reasonable assertion

Citation?

Citations requested

The Hill is rated Left-Center with factual reporting High by Media Bias-Fact Check

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/416225-the-truth-about-illegal-voting
The truth about illegal voting


Scholarly study by Old Dominion U and George Mason U

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...tizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf
Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?

Citations provided. The scholarly paper provides information about the party loyalty breakdown of the voters in the study, but no one could be bothered to read it far enough to see that it answered the original question

Thank you. However "some academic estimates" don't quite meet the criteria as proof.

Goal posts moved, now proof is required

 

[Phase2]

Let me ask you this: As much irrefutable evidence with emphasis on turnouts over 100% as we have had over the last several years, how can any reasonable person deny there is a problem, and why is one and only one party fighting tooth and nail against verification if they dont stand to lose significantly if the truth were revealed?

Would that be the same one and only one party that fought tooth and nail to keep any neutral third party from examining the DNC e-mail server that was the proof that Russians were hacking the election?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Let me ask you this: As much irrefutable evidence with emphasis on turnouts over 100% as we have had over the last several years, how can any reasonable person deny there is a problem, and why is one and only one party fighting tooth and nail against verification if they dont stand to lose significantly if the truth were revealed?

Depends what we're talking about. Is the initial argument about illegals and voting?

Or is it just general voter fraud?

I thought it was the former. I'm all for Voter ID laws.

 

[BugI02]

Agree. I scanned the paper. I'm uncertain it yields much in the way of useful information or conclusions.

To what extent do illegal immigrants change presidential elections? Floods of immigrants voting in California would change the frequency of the blue, but not shift it anywhere toward red.

All the illegals in the USA voting enbloc for Kamala Harris would still throw the election to Trump.

It also doesn't factor in gerrymandered congressional districts by the republicans set up to minimize the effects of democrat voters. One needs only to look at state assemblies and and senators. The effect at the national level is there to some degree, but probably less pronounced.

Alpo awakens from his afternoon nap in a grumpy mood, goes with "But Republicans ..."

You should scan a little deeper, there Data. Look at the section where they go into percentage vote margins and percentage of estimated illegals voting necessary to swing the election - it was only 5.1% of ~140k illegals necessary to account for the margin of victory in NC, a state which has only recently been in play. And it's 'beyond the purview' of the study but why would you suppose McCauliff was so anxious to give felons the right to vote (and quickly) that he violated state law and tried to do a blanket restoration rather than case by case? Virginia is another state that ha been put in play recently, and I can easily believe that when a machine like the Democratic party sees the results will be close that they would be willing to deploy such strategies to put a thumb on the scales

'No harm, no foul' seems a bit laissez faire coming from the tribe that can't admit that not one vote can be documented to have been changed by Russian trolling in 2016

He's called out for not reading the discussion material, and then things descend into fractal quibbling

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would say bug did, but he was asked for a citation and provided one. The other person disagreed with his citation so now the balls in his court to provide a citation that proves bugs citation isn’t accurate.

Actually BUG wasn't asked for a citation he just provided one based on what he believed the question being asked was. I, admittedly was just as guilty, but looking back on the question:

Foreign interference is bad.
But allowing swarms of people to come across the border and vote Democrat, well there's nothing wrong with that.

It appears we have taken so liberties with the initial assumptions. Legality was never addressed, only that swarms of people cross the border, and vote Democrat. Based on that post alone, and if one isn't xenophobic, then there many not be anything wrong with that.

 

[Alpo]

The author is addressing Trump's claim that he would have won the popular vote if fraudulent voting was eliminated, which is not the issue here. He stands by the reports conclusions that enough illegal immigrant voting has taken place to skew results in congressional elections and the electoral college

From your cite

He stands by limited assertions and conclusions made by his study. He doesn't agree with the extrapolations of his study. By either side.

Even though his paper was peer-reviewed, I would suggest that an opt-in on line poll that the author concedes "may" have sampling bias is not something anyone should hang their hat on to support "your" opinion on the matter.

And, kudos, for avoiding the larger issues by obfuscating the effects on voter behavior.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Depends what we're talking about. Is the initial argument about illegals and voting?

Or is it just general voter fraud?

I thought it was the former. I'm all for Voter ID laws.

Your question is like the overlap between psychology and sociology studying the individual in the crowd. Illegals voting represent part but not all of general fraud and while we are focusing on that for the most part, it is hard to isolate from general fraud because of the pushback against establishing the facts at hand.

 

[churchmouse]

Let's see...

The entire premise of the Mueller investigation is that the Trump campaign illegally coordinated with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the election. For the specific accusations I have at least two major problems:

First, this predicated on the notion that the Russians were manipulating weak- minded voters for nefarious purposes. At minimum, these are proper eligible voters. Beyond this, no one has challenged the truthfulness of anything the Russians allegedly told leaving us with the sole complaint being the identity of the messenger. Simultaneously, the Clinton campaign and DNC were paying Russian government agents through intermediaries to generate the false documentation to launce a 2 1/2 year investigation, but that is somehow alright.

Second, I find it incredible that the same people screaming up a lung about the remotepossibility that the Russians may have swayed a few weak minds are hell-bent on making sure no one verifies voter registries or the eligibility of people voting. Don't even try to tell me that fraudulent voting is statistically insignificant. When you have too many precincts turning in more votes than they have people, there is a problem that is not open for debate. When you have hundreds of voters registered under the address of a defunct Kentucky Fried Chicken, there is an undeniable problem. When you have roughly half of the political actors in the country fixated on making sure that voter eligibility can neither be verified nor ineligible registrations removed, there is a huge problem.

EVERY FRAUDULENT VOTE NULLIFIES THE VOTE OF A DULY ELIGIBLE CITIZEN..NEVER FORGET THAT.

OK. We have a winner here.

So on point my friend. All of this is lost in the run amok twist and shout MSM.

 

[BobDaniels]

it continues to amaze me how detached from reality these people are: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...-for-grand-jury-info-insist-mueller-delivered


I'm sure our resident TDSers will be cheering this on. What a ****ing waste of time, money, and effort.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

This must be the thread everyone's talking about. IBTL part deux!

 

[jamil]

Let's see...

The entire premise of the Mueller investigation is that the Trump campaign illegally coordinated with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the election. For the specific accusations I have at least two major problems:

First, this predicated on the notion that the Russians were manipulating weak- minded voters for nefarious purposes. At minimum, these are proper eligible voters. Beyond this, no one has challenged the truthfulness of anything the Russians allegedly told leaving us with the sole complaint being the identity of the messenger. Simultaneously, the Clinton campaign and DNC were paying Russian government agents through intermediaries to generate the false documentation to launce a 2 1/2 year investigation, but that is somehow alright.

Second, I find it incredible that the same people screaming up a lung about the remotepossibility that the Russians may have swayed a few weak minds are hell-bent on making sure no one verifies voter registries or the eligibility of people voting. Don't even try to tell me that fraudulent voting is statistically insignificant. When you have too many precincts turning in more votes than they have people, there is a problem that is not open for debate. When you have hundreds of voters registered under the address of a defunct Kentucky Fried Chicken, there is an undeniable problem. When you have roughly half of the political actors in the country fixated on making sure that voter eligibility can neither be verified nor ineligible registrations removed, there is a huge problem.

EVERY FRAUDULENT VOTE NULLIFIES THE VOTE OF A DULY ELIGIBLE CITIZEN..NEVER FORGET THAT.

Of course. Something to consider about Russia's involvement...

They didn't have zero impact. But if we're talking about undue influence on elections, James Comey likely had a larger effect on the election than anything Russia did. His passive/aggressive non-indictment at his highly unusual press conference validated in a lot of voters minds that the email fraud was real, and that Hillary was not trustworthy. Then Comey wrote the letter to congress reopening the case, which reminded America just how wide it was.

But, that's not to say that Russia had no large impact at all. Presuming that the origins of the leaked DNC emails was indeed the Russians, the news about the DNC working to put Hillary ahead of Bernie really pissed a lot of Bernie supporters off. Some stayed home, and according to some polls, 8-12% of Bernie supporters flipped to Trump.