New study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast

The ODU professors, who stand by their work in the face of attacks from the left, concluded that in 2008 as few as 38,000 and as many as 2.8 million noncitizens voted.

Mr. Agresti’s analysis of the same polling data settled on much higher numbers. He estimated that as many as 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered that year and 594,000 to 5.7 million voted.

These numbers are more in line with the unverified estimates given by President Trump, who said the number of ballots cast by noncitizens was the reason he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

Last month, the president signed an executive order setting up a commission to try to find on-the-ground truth in illegal voting. Headed by Vice President Mike Pence, the panel also will look at outdated voter lists across the nation with names of dead people and multiple registrants.

For 2012, Just Facts said, 3.2 million to 5.6 million noncitizens were registered to vote and 1.2 million to 3.6 million of them voted.

Mr. Agresti lays out his reasoning in a series of complicated calculations, which he compares to U.S. Census Bureau figures for noncitizen residents. Polls show noncitizens vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

“The details are technical, but the figure I calculated is based on a more conservative margin of sampling error and a methodology that I consider to be more accurate,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times.

He believes the Harvard/YouGov researchers based their “zero” claim on two flawed assumptions. First, they assumed that people who said they voted and identified a candidate did not vote unless their names showed up in a database.

“This is illogical, because such databases are unlikely to verify voters who use fraudulent identities, and millions of noncitizens use them,” Mr. Agresti said.

He cites government audits that show large numbers of noncitizens use false IDs and Social Security numbers in order to function in the U.S., which could include voting.

Second, Harvard assumed that respondent citizens sometimes misidentified themselves as noncitizens but also concluded that noncitizens never misidentified themselves as citizens, Mr. Agresti said.

“This is irrational, because illegal immigrants often claim they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in the U.S. illegally,” he said.

Some of the polled noncitizens denied they were registered to vote when publicly available databases show that they were, he said.

This conclusion, he said, is backed by the Harvard/YouGov study’s findings of consumer and vote data matches for 90 percent of participants but only 41 percent of noncitizen respondents.

As to why his numbers are higher than the besieged ODU professors’ study, Mr. Agresti said: “I calculated the margin of sampling error in a more cautious way to ensure greater confidence in the results, and I used a slightly different methodology that I think is more accurate.”

There is hard evidence outside of polling that noncitizens do vote. Conservative activists have conducted limited investigations in Maryland and Virginia that found thousands of aliens were registered.

These inquiries, such as comparing noncitizen jury pool rejections to voter rolls, captured just a snapshot. But conservatives say they show there is a much broader problem that a comprehensive probe by the Pence commission could uncover.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which fights voter fraud, released one of its most comprehensive reports last month.

Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitizens from voter lists, including 1,852 people who had cast more than 7,000 ballots. The people volunteered their status, most likely when acquiring driver’s licenses. The Public Interest Legal Foundation said there are likely many more illegal voters on Virginia’s rolls who have never admitted to being noncitizens.

>>150790
This is good.
As someone from California where illegals can vote because ids are racist, I support this.

it's a reasonable conclusion considering the left consistently blocks citizenship requirements for voting.

if they knew it was going to hurt them, they would not continuously fight citizenship requirements.

>>150790
Liberals are gonna live this because in the EU everyone needs to have a voter ID and be registered, we should follow their example

>>150790
>independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians
LMFAO

cant stump

>>150813
Liberal: independent think tank, guess the information is useless :/

>>150828
I'm sorry. Are you calling me a liberal?
LMFAO
Maybe you will back up the left when they start calling a think tank led by self described liberals and progressive "independent".

>>150801

>it's a reasonable conclusion considering the left consistently blocks citizenship requirements for voting.

What. Are you trying to imply that fighting ID laws is the equivalent of removing the citizen requirement for voting? Or is there some tiny movement of retards who actually advocate this (seriously who the fuck is dumb enough to want to override the constitution to give non-citizens votes?) that you've found and are trying to apply to the entire left?

>>150803

When the government provides a standard ID upon registration, voter ID laws can be passed. The problem is that nearly every voter ID law has remarkably specific ID requirements, so much so that some of them have been struck down for racial profiling (and it isn't a "this might be racist" sort of thing, lawmakers specifically requested ID data to avoid accidental racial profiling but then somehow ended up with a law that targeted minorities with "surgical precision"). Sort of like how you can't trust politicians to draw districts (because both parties suck at making districts that aren't ridiculous spiders), you can't trust them to pass an ID law that cherry picks IDs.

>>150831
How can an ID be racist?

>>150831
getting a government ID is very easy as long as you are a citizen, anon. driver's licenses are relatively easy and there are even ones that you can simply get from your local government office.

IDs of this type are not racist. yet they are opposed by the left, and that is because the left know that illegals will vote for them because illegals materially gain from doing so.

>>150831
Yeah it litterally costs like 20$ and there's dmv and dmv kickoffs all over the city I live in, it's super fukin easy

>>150832

Probability. The urban poor (aka black people) are unlikely to have cars, and therefore are unlikely to have driver's license. They are, however, more likely to have a government employee ID. If you exclude the latter but include the former, you can effectively reduce the number of black voters. Of course, they could get a new ID that fits the new criteria, but that's why you have the DMV and local government offices only open on the 5th Sunday of each month. Also, something to keep in mind is that minimum wage workers don't necessarily have the schedule flexibility that better off workers have, so going to the DMV could represent a significant loss in time (and therefore money).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html

>>150833

Except some of those government issued IDs were specifically excluded in the North Carolina law that was struck down, which is the reason it was fucking struck down. Combine that with efforts to shut down DMVs, polling places, and government offices in predominantly black districts and you have a remarkably racist outcome, even if the reasoning given for the bill was to prevent fraud.

Like I said, voter ID is fine, but there's a lot of deliberate bullshit being put into play that adds political baggage to what should be a clean deal. If you issue an ID with registration, you completely eliminate this political garbage.

Before ID laws were in place in Alabama, Dems were in power and it was a fight to get the dead off of the voter rolls. NOW that the voter ID act was past in this state Republicans are in power and it easy to get the dead off voter rolls; go figure!

>>150843
Funny, considering Alabama's voting laws block a quarter of a million citizens from voting and is the top ten states in the Union for disenfranchised voters. Go figure!

>>150841
Nice to know the dead can still vote in N Carolina.

>>150844
Yes, the dead are a disenfranchised people in Alabama.
They are dead
Go figure!

>>150846
Gee, that sure figures. Thanks for clearing it up!

>>150841
That's a bull argument, it costs next to nothing and takes a couple hours to get

>>150841
Fact: only reason libs/Dems block voter ID laws is because they know a shit ton of illegals vote dem

>>150792
>Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitizens from voter lists, including 1,852 people who had cast more than 7,000 ballots. The people volunteered their status, most likely when acquiring driver’s licenses. The Public Interest Legal Foundation said there are likely many more illegal voters on Virginia’s rolls who have never admitted to being noncitizens.

But we don't need voter I.D. laws because there is " no evidence" of voter fraud!...

>>150849

>it costs next to nothing and takes a couple hours to get

Voting shouldn't cost a thing except a short period of time. We have laws against poll taxes for a reason. Plus for the cripplingly poor a few hours is a bunch of time they could have spent making money. This obviously affects a small slice of people, but we shouldn't be throwing them under the bus for being poor.

>>150850

Keep in mind that this is the opinion of the COURTS, and the Supreme Court de facto upheld this decision by choosing not to take up the case.

>>150854

Within this very same report, they mention that all of these illegal voters also had illegal IDs. Voter ID laws literally do nothing to stop this, only a revamp of the registration and voter list upkeep will actually clear the problem (along with the dead people problem).

>>150861
Lol I think we should, they tend to vote dem to get welfare and are typically uneducated besides.

If you can't put the minimal effort to get a voter ID, then you don't give enough of a care to vote in the first place.

Always playing the devil's advocate and giving people the benefit of the doubt doesn't help them

>>150831
>Are you trying to imply that fighting ID laws is the equivalent of removing the citizen requirement for voting?

Yes, I think he was. Obviously, it does not matter if you are a citizen anymore because we have so little laws in place that it's extremely easy to bypass. By fighting ID laws you are fighting the against an honest election carried out by American citizens.

>>150869
> they tend to vote dem to get welfare and are typically uneducated besides.

Except that in most recent cases of voter fraud where it's actually registered republicans committing the fraud.

>If you can't put the minimal effort to get a voter ID, then you don't give enough of a care to vote in the first place.

The issue isn't going through the trouble to get an ID even. Although the bar needs to be set as low as possible, motivation is never intended to be a qualification here.

The problem is that politicians use it as a tool to gerrymander at the polling booth. There was even a republican representative that said he'd rather not have places people could go to register near neighborhoods with more blacks simply because he preferred voters to be more educated.

People have to collect documentation to establish their identity and then they have to set aside time concurrent with the business hours of wherever they can obtain their ID and then they have to obtain transportation. So if you happen to live in a particular district, you're going to have considerably greater inconvenience in obtaining an ID. For many folks saving single dollars matter with respect to meeting their basic living needs.

Even if this is fine for the vast majority of voters, for elections that are particularly close, it's going to matter when the residents of one district have a harder time getting their papers in order than another.

If you're going to enforce voter ID, there needs to be independently verifiable guarantee that everyone as equal access to obtaining an ID in so far as feasible.

It's not acceptable to have a standard where in order to prevent a handful of cases of fraud, ten thousand would be voters are disenfranchised. In that case, voter ID does more harm to representative elections than good.

>>150880
Proof on that first comment would be nice, I don't believe it and actually think it's opposite.

Gerrymandering has nothing to do getting an ID, a process that litterally only makes perfect sense and every European democracy partakes in

>>150883
>every European democracy partakes in
Not true.

>>150883
Well, here's a list with sources:
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/29/1625154/-Sure-there-s-voter-fraud-By-Republicans
These include people in the current administration.

>Gerrymandering has nothing to do getting an ID,a process that litterally only makes perfect sense and every European democracy partakes in

It is analogous if you can make it considerably more inconvenient for some voters to obtain valid ID than others on the basis of where they live, which is precisely the case right now.

Because otherwise, especially in close races, the election's outcome can be determined by which communities had an easier time of obtaining access to valid ID before an election.

As voter rolls are regularly updated and registration is cross checked with information regarding who lives in a given district, that is comprehensive enough to prevent voter fraud because otherwise it would be obvious if multiple persons of the same identity were being registered or attempting to vote twice, especially if it were massively prevalent.

Like I said, if you're going to enforce voter ID, there needs to be independently verifiable guarantee that everyone as equal access to obtaining an ID in so far as feasible. It's nonsensical with respect to achieving elections as representative of popular will as possible to add to bureaucracy in such a way that prevents a handful of cases of fraud but in the process disenfranchizes a thousand would be voters.

If I need an ID to get a job that isn't under the table, then I expect to need an ID to vote.

>>150800
>illegals can vote because ids are racist,
You still have to register, and you can't register without documentation.
Sure, you can vote by claiming to be someone else.
But if they go to vote, you'll be long gone, but since their name is already crossed off the list, your illegal vote will be discovered.
If even 1% of a million illegal votes were detected this way, you'd have ten thousand such incidents to point to, but you don't.
Even 1% OF 1% would be 100 such incidents per million illegal votes, but you don't have that either.

Don't forget, Trump's original, debunked claims were based on another conservative "think tank" report.
This is just more of the same crybaby bullshit.

>>150957
>Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitizens from voter lists, including 1,852 people who had cast more than 7,000 ballots.
Hmmm...

>>150961
>>Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitizens from voter lists
That seems really odd.
I live in Virginia, and you can't even get a driver's license without proving legal status.
We say that if your neighbor has Maryland tags, they must be wetbacks because illegals can't get ID in Virginia.
And since there's only 5.5 million registered voters here in total, I'm really suspicious of claims that one of a thousand voters was illegal.
And if I understand correctly, the conservative think tank made this claim, not the state itself?
Yeah, ok...

>>150891
Your source really reads terribly. I don't disagree with the information, but it is like something out of a college newsletter.

Anyway, here is an interesting read on voter fraud and arguments in favor of ID. It does take an "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" stance on the issue, but is a decent read for the beginning and end. Also the quality is at least on oar with yours, so no complaining about the source.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/

>one in eight voter registrations are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.”
>“More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state."

>>150891
>DailyKos
>Equal access

A couple things - I don't think the current drivers license disenfranchises anyone. The other thing is that everyone does have equal access to a license. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I think you're full of shit, in short.

>>150974
>I don't think the current drivers license disenfranchises anyone.
Then you disagree with both the Democrat and Republican parties.

>>150790
If there's one good thing about Trump's presidency, its that people are taking a good hard look at potential cracks in the system that politicians assured us were not there. See the now supposedly possible Russian tampering with voting machines that we were told was definitely not possible and that any investigation was a waste of time.

>>150975
Who cares

>>150975
Vig deal, they're both trash.

>“In addition to ignoring the major issue with the original study, they also claim that we should take any supposed non-citizen at their word if they claim to have voted even if we can’t match them to a vote record because they probably used a fraudulent identity,” Schaffner continued. “However, the issue here is why would a non-citizen who is going through the trouble of using a fraudulent identity to vote then admit to voting in a survey and give us their actual name and address?”

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59498b3ae4b0177d0b8a3412

Also
>121 people interviewed and extrapolating that out to 5.7 million

Top fucking Kek m8

>>150972

TBF your source only shows proof that dead people were -registered-, not that they voted(though it claims they do).

>and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state."
Steven Bannon of Breitbart is registered in more than one state, so is one of the Trump family. That's more because people are either lazy, or systems are slow to update. It's worrying, but 1% of the country being double-registered and <1% of voters on roll being dead is a pretty good percentage IMO.

>I don't think the current drivers license disenfranchises anyone.

Not the anon you're replying too, but drivers licenses as ID cost money- forcing a person to bring a license is equivalent to a poll tax. If you wanted to fix this you'd have to make an ID that's free for all citizens that can be mailed/delivered. But to do that you'd have to add a very small tax for cost of postage and paper, and god forbid anyone in the US want to see their taxes go up 0.20$/year.

>>150980
>See the now supposedly possible Russian tampering with voting machines that we were told was definitely not possible and that any investigation was a waste of time.
That's why I'm glad my district still uses the mechanical old-style voting machines with punch-out cards. There's more points of failure in the counting process by hand, and a chance of tampering at the polls themselves, but a lot harder for foreign actors to work. Why the fuck voting machines would have internet access boggles me. Just have it write to an encrypted piece of flash media or some shit.

>>150988
>Why the fuck voting machines would have internet access boggles me.
I really wonder how they've tried to justify this. It sounds tailor-made for vote-fucking, probably meant for domestic rather than foreign but of course the government fucked up.

>>150975
Good

>>150975
>Then you disagree with both the Democrat and Republican parties.
>>150981
>Who cares
>>150984
>Vig deal, they're both trash.
>>150995
>Good

*sigh*
There's a difference between holding a different political view, and failing to recognize a fact.

Both parties understand that ID laws disenfranchise legitimate voters.
Republicans are for voter ID and Democrats are against it because they both believe more legit liberals are disenfranchised than legit conservatives.

>>150974
>The other thing is that everyone does have equal access to a license. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/TX_voter_ID_decision_100914.pdf

>In Texas, for example, the cost of traveling to the nearest Department of Public Safety office, Texas’ version of the DMV, can be burdensome: Of the 254 counties in Texas, 78 do not have a permanent DPS office. In some communities along the Mexican border, the nearest DPS office is between 100 and 125 miles away. And in rural communities in other states, the DMV offices are few and far between.

>That means a person without a driver’s license is going to have to rely on a family member or a friend to drive them to the DMV (or, in Texas, the DPS) in order to get a photo ID card. Now ask yourself this—would you want to drive your Uncle Bob two hours each way and then stand in line at the DMV for god-knows-how-long to get a photo ID?

Some people will have more difficulty obtaining documentation necessary for a license.
Some people will have more difficulty arranging for transportation to get an ID
Some people will have more difficulty getting time off of work to go and obtain an ID.
Some people will have more difficulty affording time off and transportation to get an ID.

This shit will matter, especially in close elections. Unless you can guarantee everyone free + equal access to IDs, then you're opening the door to "gerrymandering" with respect to which communities are able to conveniently obtain ID prior to an election.

Ensuring voter rolls are regularly updated + that voter registration is cross checked with information regarding residents of given district, are comprehensive enough to prevent fraud because otherwise would be obvious if multiple persons of the same identity were registered twice or attempting to vote twice.

If your added security prevents more citizens that would otherwise vote than the number of frauds it stops, it's pointless.

>>151003
Establishment shill towing the line

Learn to think for yourself

>>151007
"Its gunna be harder for sum peeple than it is fer others"

That's everything in life fuckhead, are you really this naive?

>>151023
>"Its gunna be harder for sum peeple than it is fer others"
YES, which is why voter ID laws help swing elections over to the dark side (GOP).
Which is why anyone with a soul _should_ be against them.

Come back when you have a shred of evidence that any illegals voted.

>>151023
Not when shit is specifically made harder for people with an agenda rather than circumstance

>>151024
>Come back when you have a shred of evidence that any illegals voted.
Not that guy, but there is the whole study that the thread is about.

>>151027
Noones making it harder, are you retarded? Do you realize how easy it is to get an ID?

Haha goddamn it's like a little bit of effort is making liberals piss themselves, lazy shits

>>151029
>but there is the whole study that the thread is about.
>>150790
>research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.
>>150791
>Mr. Agresti lays out his reasoning in a series of complicated calculations, which he compares to U.S. Census Bureau figures for noncitizen residents.

I'm not seeing anything about a single case of an actual non-citizen voting.
There's lots of statistics and math, but if x-million illegals voted, you'd think they'd have at least one case where they could say "Jose McBurrito, of Shitstain, New Mexico voted in the 2008 election."

Aside from their dubious claims about Virginia, there's nothing specific. And in both Virginia and Florida Republicans have a history of removing people from voter rolls if they have names similar to any known felon or illegal.

There were three or four documented cases of voter fraud in 2016, and none of them involved illegals voting.
Maybe Mexico IS sending their "best", because they're apparently incredible master criminals, since none of them have been caught.

>>151031
>Do you realize how easy it is to get an ID?
It's easy to get laid too, but that doesn't prevent you from being a virgin.
Easy or not, both parties believe voter ID laws disenfranchise legitimate voters.

>>151035
They disenfranchise Americans by making it easy for illegals to fuck up our elections - that's a bigger concern

>>150861
>reee getting an ID is a poll tax!
So how is it constitutional to require an ID to get a gun? In my state I need to go to a dealer and provide an ID even if someone wants to give me a gun for free.

>>151034
>no one voted illegally
>or their names would be released to the public
>so it doesn't happen
You are one naive moron. It's not like California officials encourage illegals voting. Hell its the only way our governor jerry brown got elected. No ids mean illegals vote.

Even India with its pop being over 1 bill people and over 1/3 of them living in complete poverty have ids.

If someone doesn't have 8 dollars + 1 day in 4 years to get one, but they have a cell phone, they really didn't care that much to begin with did they?

>they might need extra documentation to prove who they are and that's bad because new copies also take time and cost money.
It's called accountability. Don't lose it, you won't have to buy duplicates. This doesn't exclusively apply to minorities either.

If it applies to everyone it's fair. Just because you are poor or a minority doesn't mean you shouldn't have to provide proof like everyone else. And who's fault is it if you lost your original documentation? The government? Evil republican who gerrymander? No. Fucking yours.

This laziness and entitlement of everything should be free and easy needs to end. If you can't spare $8 and a day in 4 years to get an Id you don't really care about voting and through your own actions forfeit your vote.

>>151041
>illegals to fuck up our elections - that's a bigger concern
I'm still waiting to here about a single documented case of an illegal voting.
Besides, we just had an election where 28% of registered voters elected the most unpopular president in US history.
If you're worried about our elections being "fucked up", and real Americans being disenfranchised, maybe you should be more concerned about the Electoral College and less concerned about illegals voting.
Fun fact: The Electoral College system allows each state to pick electors however they see fit.
If New Hampshire wants to pick electors at random by throwing darts at a list of names, that's their right.
And if California wanted to allow illegals to vote (they don't) they could just pass a law making it legal.

>>151046
>No ids mean illegals vote.
[citation needed]
Still waiting for even ONE of these amazing master criminals to get caught.

>>151049
gee it's almost like without IDs it's impossible to tell!

what a shock that is
to me
personally

>>151034
Actually there's been at least one recently. Some illegal woman down in Texas who voted like 8 times for some reason. I guess your thesis is technically shot.

I'd also add that it'd seem pretty suspect if there were absolutely no cases of illegal voting. It's plenty apparent we haven't been scrutinizing our voting process that closely, so it could certainly go either way. We really do need a hard investigation nationwide before arriving at any conclusions.

>>151048
>And if California wanted to allow illegals to vote (they don't) they could just pass a law making it legal.
Did you forget that the constitution exists?

>>151048

>I'm still waiting to here about a single documented case of an Illegal voting.

Isn't that the articles point?

But you'll probably dismiss the article besides for some reason or another

>>151048
Typical kike, as soon as the left starts losing they blame the rules (electoral college, alternative news, constitution) instead of their failing ideology.

>>151050
>gee it's almost like without IDs it's impossible to tell!
You still need documentation to register, dumbass.
And you have to vote in a registered person's name, even if you aren't really them.

>>151056
>Isn't that the articles point?
No, ffs.
The article claims that maybe, perhaps, etc... as many as 5.7 million voted illegally, but still can't offer a single documented case of this actually happening.
They're claiming that it happens all the time, but nobody EVER gets caught.

>>151058
>instead of their failing ideology.
If our ideology is failing, why do most people still vote democrat?

And if you really believe in your hypothetical Mexican voters, when why are social conservatives who hate blacks more than Trump himself voting for the pro-black, socially liberal party?

>>151035
If you can go out and vote you can go out and get an id

>>151068
>If you can go out and vote you can go out and get an id
Jesus, read the thread .
Both parties believe (whether they're right or not) that ID laws disenfranchise legitimate voters.
But I'm sure you know better than both halves of the entire political establishment.
Now tell me I'm an idiot because you don't support the establishment, even though I'm addressing what they understand about facts, NOT their political ideologies.

>>151066
Here you go, took me a Google search

http://www.westernjournalism.com/illegal-aliens-non-citizens-caught-voting-florida-vast-numbers/

>read the thread, both shitty political parties think X

Not a very strong argument

>>151068
Yup, until state congresses' start shutting down DMVs in certain areas. It's been done before.

>>150845
Which is great, because every time I see my wacko state try passing something like that, I get a little more dead inside.

>>150993
>I really wonder how they've tried to justify this
Cost and time, and claiming that it makes it harder for interference in person. It's way faster and easier for the voting machines to just phone home when required, and if there's no human in place to transport any votes or anything there's less of a chance of on-site fuckery.

Which isn't a wrong stance, considering 2000's election shenanigans in Florida and Clinton's 2016 'Oops you're not really a democrat' primary bullshit. But I'd far rather have that level of interference, which carries more risk of being found out, than outside interference

>>151054
>Some illegal woman down in Texas who voted like 8 times for some reason. I guess your thesis is technically shot.
Not that anon, but
>>citation needed.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but not offering a source makes it less believable.

>>151068
>>151070
This:
>>151086

Also, unless both sides are willing to pony up tax funds for paying for a voter ID, getting a license(which costs money), equates to a poll tax which is unconstitutional.

Also it wouldn't stop people from getting their ID, since the complaint is that illegals and dead people records are falsified anyway.

>>151071
>It hosts WesternJournalism.com, a news website and blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters.

Just looking around shows an interesting choice of articles... including one about a student class project at GWU about Seth Rich presented in the title as if it were some professional independent investigative team?

Non-citizen illegal votes higher than previously estimated

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

Yes, Illegal Aliens are Voting

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/771123?section=TomFitton&keywords=aliens-fraud-illegal-voter&year=2017&month=01&date=30&id=771123&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main&oref=duckduckgo.com

Obama May have been helped by illegal votes

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/10/obama-may-elected-illegal-votes/

1,250 non residents voted in Miami Election

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/18245049/illegal-voting-investigation-grows-dramatically

Illegals caught voting in vast numbers

http://www.westernjournalism.com/illegal-aliens-non-citizens-caught-voting-florida-vast-numbers/

Hundreds of Illegals caught voting in Maryland

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/hundreds-of-illegals-caught-voting-in-maryland/

Illegal Alien caught and Arrested while commiting voter fraud - ICE

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-arrested-charged-voter-fraud

Poll: 13% of Illegals Admit to commiting voter fraud in California

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/

Illegal immigrant caught voting 5 times in Texas

http://theblacksphere.net/2017/04/illegal-caught-voting-five-times/

1000 Viginia Votes cast by Illegal Immigrants

http://vesselnews.io/breaking-1000-illegal-immigrants-caught-voting-virginia/

>>151099
even the most credible claims have been completely and entirely debunked
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/24/recidivism-watch-spicer-uses-repeatedly-debunked-citations-for-trumps-voter-fraud-claims/?utm_term=.935989e31292

The obvious question is that mass voter fraud would be painfully obvious because they would be reflected by massive numbers of individuals registered to vote multiple times or massive instances of the same voter attempting to vote twice.

If it is happening, someone should produce actual evidence of the names of individuals responsible. Attorneys dedicate years to prosecuting these cases and we end up with one or two convictions a year, and when they get caught, they're consistently republican.

It's unsurprisingly yet another manufactured problem to explain the need for disenfranchising thousands of voters from republicans. They would have ten thousand disenfranchised to prevent a single fraudulent vote. Even a simple request that every citizen be guaranteed free and convenient access to ID is met with resistance, these guys aren't fooling anyone.

>>151102
>Posts Washington Post

Thanks Podesta, tell David Brock I said hi

>>151099
How has the ICE one been debunked, it's from their actual records

>>151071
Not even an article, just a video.
You might as well cite YouTube as a source.
First words from journalist are "we don't know how widespread this problem is".
Then they knock on the doors of random illegals, get incoherent answers.
Wow, so riveting.
Look, the GOP would just LOVE to have concrete evidence of this shit, but they just don't.
Instead, they rely on studies like the one from to OP, and that's all they have.

>>151072
>both shitty political parties think X
They are shitty because they're manipulative, self-serving cunts, NOT because they're incompetent.

>>151099
Your first link is the OP study, which can't point to a single actual case.
The second link also can't cite a single actual case, but still assumes it's widespread.
The third link also says "A large number of non-citizens cast ballots in U.S. elections", but can't point to a single actual case.

The third link is the same old "name matching" Republican ruse. There's an illegal somewhere in Florida named "Jose Burrito" so anybody with that name is a fraudulent voter!

Show me a picture of a wetback in handcuffs you kool-aid drinking cunts.

>>151107
>>Posts Washington Post
>Thanks Podesta, tell David Brock I said hi
OK, so show me the "fair and balanced" article from Fox News?
They would air ANYTHING about this if it were even vaguely credible.

>>151111
They are incompetent, like highly.
And Washington Post is a propoganda journal.

And there's been millions of illegal voters, some litterally caught in the act, check ICEs record database and do a Google search.

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-arrested-charged-voter-fraud

>>151102
>Yeah we found that 8-14% of polled illegals were registered to vote but cmon thats not a data point you can use
Riveting article. Great stuff. So when someone dies and Enrique comes in and says he is that dead guy, what exactly tips off the poll workers that he isnt? At the end of the OP article they mention Virginia for a reason. Despite federal law, officials in Virginia have been caught over the last year not bothering to monitor and update voter registries.

https://publicinterestlegal.org/blog/report-ineligible-aliens-registering-vote-casting-ballots/

https://publicinterestlegal.org/blog/alien-invasion-ii-sequel-discovery-cover-non-citizen-registration-voting-virginia/

Voter registration doesnt deter voter fraud if people who died in the 80s or moved out of state 5 years ago are still registered to vote. I know the reports linked are lengthy but they go through the process that leads to them finding what they find. In counties that actually copitulated with the law group (>10) it was found that a pool of 1800 illegals had cast around 7000 ballots. Literally 7000 cases of voter fraud by 1800 people who gave the state an address and real name. Want to talk a guess at how many charges were handed down? The answers in the links, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

>>151113
None of those sources were Fox

>>151144
Just a quick edit, was looking at the wrong link. 19 counties resulted in the 1800 voter pool.

>>151116
>They are incompetent, like highly.
...and a neckbeard neet on the 4chins has them beat, sure.

>https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-arrested-charged-voter-fraud
OK, that's a good first step.
She was indicted in 2011, and I can't find anything about a trial, or whether she was convicted.
But one case from 6 years ago is hardly "millions of illegal voters", even if we assume she was found guilty.

>>151147
>None of those sources were Fox
You miss my point.
The Post debunked several of these statistical analysis "proofs" of massive voter fraud, but some /pol/ack doesn't like the Post (presumably because they were mean to Trump by asking him why he lies about the size of his EC victory).
So I've asked him for any article from Fox debunking or supporting these studies (which I assume he would support since they have a very obvious conservative bias).

>>151144
>So when someone dies and Enrique comes in and says he is that dead guy, what exactly tips off the poll workers that he isnt?
That's a great story. And I'm sure one or two illegals could get away with it.
But millions?
AGAIN: If even 1% of 1% of these people got caught, you'd have a hundred examples to point to per million fraudsters.
So far, the /pol/acks in this thread have scraped up just one case from 2011, and that's a fraudulent registration, NOT a case of an illegal voting for a dead person.

And let's not forget both parties spend money cleaning out the voter rolls, removing felons, dead people and folks who moved.
Enrique wouldn't know if the dead guy was removed from the rolls.
But somehow, few (if any) illegals are getting caught?

>>151055
>>And if California wanted to allow illegals to vote (they don't) they could just pass a law making it legal.
>Did you forget that the constitution exists?
The Constitution allows states to pick Electors however they see fit.
OK, if you wanted a popular vote that excluded people based on their religion, you'd have a first amendment issue.
But there's nothing in the Constitution about a popular vote for the POTUS.
Instead, 48 states have chosen to pick all electors from the party winning a state-level vote.
Two states (Maine and Kansas) have chosen to use a pro-rated system.
But there's noting requiring them to go by a popular vote at all.
Originally, most states just had their legislatures pick Electors.

>>151055
the constitution only requires that one be a resident of the 50 states to vote in a federal election.
the citizenship requirement is not in the constitution and relatively recent.
in the 1800s it was common for non-citizens to vote.

>>150830
So you support NPR citing Planned Parenthood-commissioned investigations which found that the Center For Medical Progress videos were completely fabricated?

>>150790
>594,000 to 5.7 million voted.

So all this "data" is basically them guessing with that range. What a hilarious bait thread.

>>151067
Why do most people vote Democrat? Because you keep importing voters. Whites haven't always voted so densely Republican until recently, and are each year voting more and more densely Republican. Democrats have to import voters because they're alienating the people who've actually lived in this country since 1960.

>>151190
I trust the Post as much as Salon.

>>151224
Why do Republicans still win elections? Because they're not democratic anymore.

>Because you keep importing voters.
Whether someone is illegal or not doesn't automatically enable them a pathway to voting. There is no evidence of anything approximating mass voter fraud. The number of convictions of illegals for fraud over the course of a decade can be counted on a single hand. If you want to prevent new immigrants from voting, change immigration laws to make it harder to become a citizen.

>>151234
Obama won twice nig

Can't you just admit to yourself that Americans taste has changed?

>>151234
I wasn't even talking about illegal immigration. I was talking about how the Dems have imported a large hispanic voter base through legal immigration.

>Why do Republicans still win elections? Because they're not democratic anymore.
Wrong. They won in November largely due to large turnouts in first-time voters who didn't want a standard GOP candidate, really didn't want Hillary, and lots of Dems stayed home rather than voting Hillary. Your explanation about them being "not democratic anymore" doesn't hold up.

>There is no evidence of anything approximating mass voter fraud.
Do you even know what motor Voter Laws are? They are laws in place, such as in places like California, that says you can register to vote if you have a license, but those places don't ask you to prove that you're a US citizen before allowing you to get a license to drive, unlike in most other places that do have such a basic requirement. You're telling me no one would use this loophole? You think California Dems would make this loophole and then no one actually used it? That's retarded.

>>151236
I'm not certain they have changed; maybe some have but the margins are largely the same as in past elections save for a few percentage points one way or another.

We've been vacillating between republican and democrat for decades now, we liked the idea of a cowboy for president when we elected bush and then we remembered why we hate republicans, 8 years after bush we have amnesia again. Every eight years America starts to lose its "soul" under democrats and we have to go back to core conservative principles until everyone is reminded just how shitty that is. The only constant is ever increasing corporatism by both right and left wing politicians.

>>151224
>Why do most people vote Democrat? Because you keep importing voters.
Nope.
Where does this come from?
Sure, I get it, most of the white people who hate Mexicans are Republicans.
But don't forget that Mexicans are social conservatives themselves.
They're anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and issues like the transgender bathroom thing drive them to vote Republican.
And as far as who's importing them?
In the biggest amnesty ever, 3 million illegals became legal. Who signed that bill? Ronald Reagan.

And "recently"? Oh, hell no.
Your party hasn't had a non-incumbent win the popular vote since 1980, and only two such wins since the 1920's, unless you count Nixon's 43% "win" in 1968 when the Dems split the vote and ran two candidates.
Most people still voted Democrat though.
So your only two real wins in nearly a century are Reagan and Eisenhower, and Ike was practically a communist compared to modern Republicans: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

>>151237
>They won in November largely due to large turnouts in first-time voters who didn't want a standard GOP candidate, really didn't want Hillary, and lots of Dems stayed home rather than voting Hillary.

When will this meme die?
YES, Hillary was massively unpopular.
YES, it's the EC, not the popular vote that counts
BUT: Hillary STILL beat Donald by three million votes.
Any story you spin that says "hillary didn't win the support of the voters because...." ignores the fact that Trump did an even poorer job of romancing the voters.
And the Democrats (and Republicans) that stayed home?
They stayed home after being told Hillary had a lock on the election, and there was no way for Trump to win.

>>151224
p.s.: Do you really think Hispanics voted the black guy into office? Twice?
They hate blacks more than Trump himself does.
Fun fact: Trump was a pro-choice, Clinton-friendly Democrat right up until the party put a black man in the White House.

>>150841
Posts like these make me wonder if you actually know black people

>>151289
>Posts like these make me wonder if you actually know black people
Maybe he doesn't, but the ideas he has are shared by both parties.
That's why this is an issue to begin with, both parties are trying to change the playing field in their favor.
Even if they're all wrong, you have to admit the Democrats are trying to win by allowing more legitimate Americans to vote, while the Party of Darkness™ is trying to tip the scales by disenfranchising legitimate American voters.

>>151292
Most black people don't care about voting to begin with though.

>>151293
>Most black people don't care about voting to begin with though.
Most white people either, so you can't really go by that,
Ok, maybe not "most", but a lot of people in general don't bother to vote.
Such low energy. Sad!

>>151294
Proprtially black people care about voting way less

>>151296
>Proprtially black people care about voting way less
[citation needed]
A little Googling says you're exaggerating.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
And besides, voter ID disenfranchisement doesn't just affect blacks, and even if it did, both sides are trying to sway every little bit they can.
It's not like one party gets 80% of the vote.

>>151297
That says black people do vote less though...

>>151193
>All that post
So you didnt read anything linked? I know it isnt washington post so it was a long shot but it was worth a try. From the link:

>Virginia stonewalls any legislation to require voter rolls getting cleaned or inspected, including a bill that forced a check when there are more votes/registered voters than people
>There is one check when registering to vote in virginia if you get a drivers license.
An unverified checkmark asking if you are a citizen
>State government has found 5.5k registered voters who were not citizens. These people are the just the ones who registered with their real names and addresses. 0 charges were made.
>The only charge was discovered on accident by a poll worker who called the cops.
>If you tell Virginia that you are not a citizen, they will send you a voter registration form anyways and let you know that they assume you checked the wrong box.
>Despite you ignoring every article posted because it isnt WaPo, the report points to thousands of individual cases of voter fraud that had happened as well as local elections effected by these illegals.

>>151107
Washington Times was started by Sun Myung Moon aka the leader of the Moonies, aka that Korean cult that mass marries strangers the leader's wife randomly pairs together.

You know, while we're attacking sources.

>>151300
>So you didnt read anything linked?
Sure I did.
But it's really the same as several other studies here.
It's a politically-motivated/biased "think tank" doing a study that alleges to show massive voter fraud, but still can't point to a single case of someone getting caught doing it.
And Virginia? We're a fairly conservative state on immigration. You can't even get a driver's license here without proving legal status, see:
>>150965
>We say that if your neighbor has Maryland tags, they must be wetbacks because illegals can't get ID in Virginia.
...and we ARE a voter-ID state.

>>151314
So you didnt read the link that provided 5500 people caught but were not charged. Its not a think tank. Its a watchdog group that spent a year fighting to get voter registration ledgers (something that is supposed to take a request and a week or so) that found all of this. Its okay to just say you didnt read it, must have been mortifying to even think about clicking a link that goes against what you believe.

>>151204
>the citizenship requirement is not in the constitution and relatively recent.
>in the 1800s it was common for non-citizens to vote.
This really SHOULD be the elephant in the room in this thread.
Even if non-citizens ARE voting, maybe they should be able to anyway?
They do live here, and lots of them are here legally.
There were 13.3 million estimated legal permanent residents in 2012.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_lpr_pe_2012.pdf
That's 4% of the population, why shouldn't they get a vote?
And what about the people living in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa?
That's 3.78 million actual American citizens that can't vote for the President.
Puerto Rico alone is larger than 21 states, which (combined) control 42% of the Senate and 17% of the EC.

Finally, here's some related reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Impact
>Jews were no longer German citizens and did not have the right to vote.[60]
>Jews and Gypsies were not allowed to vote in Reichstag elections or the Anschluss.[61]

>>151312
Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, billionaire Amazon leader and Bilderburg Society Member who has back door dealings with the CIA

Lol Moonies, noone cares about that shit?

>>151316
>provided 5500 people caught but were not charged
See:
>>151111
>same old "name matching" Republican ruse.
>There's an illegal somewhere in Florida named "Jose Burrito" so anybody with that name is a fraudulent voter!

If the GOP had any actual evidence, it could just start a class-action suit to address this in court, but they don't.

>>151319
You mean all liberal media were own by the same kinds of oligarchs that owns conservative media.

Nice try.

>>151320
>Of those 5500, 1800 had cast over 7000 votes. Still no charges.
Keep going. Being disingenuous isnt really going to do much for your case when your state government does everything it can to defend illegals and non-citizens. Why did your governor veto a bill that would allow investigations when there are more votes than people? Or maybe one that cross references voter registrations with felons and resident aliens? You and a few others keep talking about "lel no proofs of voter fraud" but its pretty hard to get a clear look when youre state government refuses to do any enforcement, investigations or even a check when its clear something is up. There also hasnt been a single reference outside of a WaPo article that literally, actually, non-figuratively mentions that 8-14% of non citizens polled said they were registered to vote, but its not a good data point because they probably checked the wrong box.

>>151322
There's only one (Fox) and it's owned by Murdoch and his sons

All he other right wing news sources are local, small fry alternative news sites

>>151324
And Fox just so happens to the the only conservative MSM in existance. Some of the alternative sources were funded by oligarchs (like the Mercers and the Koch Bros.)

>>151326
Can you name a few examples, I've never heard of any

>>151318
>Even if non-citizens ARE voting, maybe they should be able to anyway?
Maybe you should be asking WHY almost no place in the US allows non-citizen voting. Beyond that, why should we allow a vote to anyone who is barred from or simply unwilling to become a citizen? Do you not see any potential issues with that? Something something foreign powers influencing our elections? Plus there's always how maleable the term "resident" is. A state just has to lump you into that category and bam! New voters, including people who broke and are currently breaking the law to be here while simultaneously diluting the votes of the far fewer number of residents who are here through the proper channels. What a well thought-out alternative! Good thing you're the first to discover it, I'm sure that's the only reason we aren't seeing non-citizen voting across the nation.

>>151319
You keep bringing up Podesta and David Brock like that means anything either.

>>151323
>your state government does everything it can to defend illegals and non-citizens.
No, they don't.
For the THIRD TIME: illegals can't get ID in Virginia.
You need to prove at least legal status to get ID here.
And it's been that way since I moved here in the 90's, when we were a solid red state.

>>151099
Let's see... 10 sources, and only one that could be viewed as credible. Oh, and the guy's Filipino, not the Mexicans we usually hear about.

Am I the only person put off by blatant partisan hackery in media? Like, as soon as it starts, I can't even read that shit. I don't care which set of fuckers are throwing the buzzwords designed to raise my political ire are, I just fucking can't. Just tell me the goddamned things, leave your fucking opinion out of it.

>>151334
de facto we already allow non-citizen voting by not preventing it.

it's pathetically easy to either claim to be someone else and/or vote multiple times. there are no real safeguards in place to prevent this in many places.

>>151116
>hey guise we found one
>that means teh millions
>no need to find another

>>151334
>or simply unwilling to become a citizen?
There's nothing "simple" about becoming a citizen, some people spend years or decades trying .
Why not just let legal residents vote?
They're compelled to live with the result of any election, AND the government is fine with them being here, so why would you deny them a vote?

>>151334
>foreigners shouldn't influence our elections
>hey shut up about Russia it's no big deal
Pick one, jackass.

>>151353
>why would you deny them a vote

because they are not citizens

>>151354
>>foreigners shouldn't influence our elections
>>hey shut up about Russia it's no big deal

There's a difference between people who live in this country and a foreign government, duh.

>>151356
So... "something something foreign influence" only means illegals living here managing to vote, presumably in their own interests and not those of foreign governments. It doesn't apply to attacks against the process initiated by foreign governments for the interests of said governments.

A subtle distinction. You realize it reflects a sort of xenophobia about the "other" in our midst while relying overmuch on the reassurances of an authority figure, right? Them votin' illegals is bad, but Our President says we don't need to worry about Putin's government...

>>151348
For the THIRD time you lie through your shit chomping teeth
https://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/apply-license.php
To obtain a VA driver's license, you will need to apply in person at your local DMV office (except for the Fair Oaks Mall office). You will need to:
Provide documents to prove your:
Identity (e.g. birth certificate, passport, government-issued ID card).
Legal presence in the U.S. (e.g. U.S. passport, permanent resident card, foreign passport and I-94 print out).
VA residency (e.g. rental agreement, recent bank statement, recent paycheck stub).
SSN, if you have one (e.g. Social Security card, paycheck stub, Social Security statement).
Name change, if applicable (e.g. marriage certificate, divorce decree, court order).
NOTE: See the VA DMV's list of required and accepted documents.
Show you've completed an approved Driver's Ed course, if you haven't held a learner's permit for at least 60 days.
Pass the VA DMV tests:
Vision.
Knowledge.
Driving.
Pay the $32 fee.
Based on $4 per year for 8 years. In certain circumstances your driver's license may only be valid for 5 years and you'll pay the same yearly fee.
The VA DMV will send you your driver's license by mail.


>Legal presence in the U.S. (e.g. U.S. passport, permanent resident card, foreign passport and I-94 print out).

You dont know shit about your own process you double nigger. In the 90s Billy boy passed a bill that adds a seperate form to every drivers lisence application for registering to vote (if you are over 18 of course). In virginia this form does not require any proof beyond your good word that you are legal. The 5500 referenced in the op article are the ones who filled out the form, stated they were not citizens and then registered to vote claiming to be citizens.

>>151347
Cheese pizza

>>151328
Breitbart for one: funded by the Mercers.

>>151371
Any others? There's like hundreds. Breitbart and Infowars are a given

>>151365
Are you going to go shoot up a pizza place that doesn't have a basement?

>>151379
Maybe, are you gonna be there?

>>151299
>That says black people do vote less though...
Not "way less".
In fact, look at the chart for 2008 and 2012. Black turnout is higher than white turnout.
This year, whites had 5% higher turnout.

>>151361
>You dont know shit about your own process you double nigger
Wat part of what I've said is wrong?
ILLEGALS CAN'T GET ID IN VIRGINIA

>>151385
I'll be fucking your mom that day

>>151417
Nice try fag, I have two dads

>>151412
>ILLEGALS CAN'T GET ID
False

>>151418
I know :)

>>151285
So your theory is that the fake polls meant to prop up Hillary backfired and Dems stayed home, thinking it was in the bag?
That's some bullshit, son

>>151463
>fake polls meant to prop up Hillary
???
First off, the polls weren't fake or wrong.
They all said Hillary would get a few million more votes than Trump, and they were all correct.
The piss-poor analysis that gave Hillary an alleged lock, were wrong, but they were never meant to "prop up" Hillary. How the fuck would that work?
Do you really think anybody said "let's tell the voters not to bother, that will help"????
No, dumbass.
Besides, you now god-damn well Hillary was ridiculously unpopular, even within her own party.
Now got read the post again, but this time don't be a retard.
My "theory" is that some idiots are confused and think somehow the Dems lost because they didn't win the voters over despite their 3-million vote margin in the popular vote.
In reality, the Dems lost because the conservative minority is spread out thinly over so many shitty little flyover states they have a huge advantage in the EC, and don't really need to woo the majority of voters.
No matter how much you want to tell yourself "the dems didn't get the support of the voters", the truth is, the Republicans did even worse, despite having a poor man's Reagan to rally around.

>>151464
Polls said she would win
Ossof would win
Brexit was impossible
Polls lie

>>151470
>polls lie
>a poll was wrong therefore it was a lie
No one ever claimed that polls were totally infallible 100% accurate predictions for the future. If I say you have a 99% chance of incorrectly guessing the number I'm thinking of between 1 and 100 therefore you'll probably get it wrong, does it make me a liar if you happen to guess the right number?

>>151491
It just makes you not worth listening to

>>151354
Do you need to strawman this hard to pretend you've accomolished something?

>>151359
What the hell are you smoking?

>>151353
Because citizenship is a filter that (supposedly) helps ensure the person actually gives a damn about the country they're living in.

But in a world where residents can vote, foreign influence on elections is as simple as sending folks here with instructions on how to vote. The attitudes and motives of residents are not nearly so scrutinized as a potential citizen's. It's the Russia scenario on steroids.

>>151204
>the citizenship requirement is not in the constitution and relatively recent.
>in the 1800s it was common for non-citizens to vote.
The constitution was written in the 1800s. I wouldn't call a change made back around then relatively recent.

>>151470
>Polls said she would win

Polls said she would win the popular vote, which she did.

>>151572
>The constitution was written in the 1800s. I wouldn't call a change made back around then relatively recent.

1789 isn't "the 1800's"


Oh, and...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_United_States
>Since 1996, a federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections,
>1996

>>151571
>But in a world where residents can vote, foreign influence on elections is as simple as sending folks here with instructions on how to vote
We're talking about Green-Card holders, not wetbacks.

>>150800
t. Contrarians

>>151576
Only including the millions of illegal voters.

>>151582
>Only including the millions of illegal voters.
Still waiting to hear about even ONE specific illegal voting in 2016.

>>150800
Oh this bait again... Haven't we all had this argument time and time again? I'll give you the run down if you haven't heard it before.

IDs are not racist.
People put them into place to prevent voter fraud.
Voting is a right and not a privilege.
If IDs have a barrier to entry then they are a privilege.
If IDs are a privilege and they are required to Vote then Voting is a Privilege.
Hence Voting is not a Right.
The Rights of Citizens are being taken away.

Solution, Provide an ID free of a barrier to entry to all citizens.
Problem, Privacy.

In order to prevent Voter fraud by distributing valid IDs, you would need an accurate database of all the citizens and their identifying features, Jobs, Weight, Sex, Race.
This would prevent Illegals from voting since only citizens would have the requirements.

Either you take it in good faith or you take Big Brother's dick up the ass, there is no way around it. And since we already sell our selves to Facebook and Google and post all our private information online, I think we will willingly give up our Right of Privacy to obtain such a Stupid Security.

>>151807
voting is a privilege

see: felons, noncitizens, etc. cannot vote.

>>150846
I know when my mom and dad die, the first thing I'm doing is hauling ass to the dmv and making sure they aren't registered to vote.

>>151640
Then you must be a special kind of stupid.

>>151640
Still waiting for one Russian hacker to get caught

>>151815
voting should not be regarded as a priveledge instead of a right. If you are a citizen of the United States, and have never committed a violent crime; you should have the right to vote. For some reason, though; we thought it'd be a good idea to charge people with felonies and lock them up in prisons in the 80's.

There's a lot of petty, stupid shit that's considered a felony. None of that should bar you from voting

>>151847
>demands proof
>is stupid
great argument, cunt

>>151419
i think you may be retarded, son. how can an illegal have all the fucking paperwork mentioned in >>151361?

>>151855
Proof of illegal voting has been cited throughout this thread. You are pushing back the goal posts by demanding proof of someone being charged. But it's clear through examples cited that even if caught, illegals are rarely if ever charged for voting illegally.

You are stupid.

>>151856
Get a life hombre

>>151236
>Can't you just admit to yourself that Americans taste has changed?

That must be why most Americans poll left-center on a majority of major issues, and why Trump's approval ratings and disapproval ratings are at record lows and highs, respectively.

Trump was a fluke. A perfect storm of general malaise towards the establishment, Democratic corruption and incompetence, and a populist conman successfully galvanizing autistic 18-24 year old alt-righters to go out and vote for the first time, and he still only eeked out an EC win due to a combined ~80,000 votes in MI, WI and PA.

Based on the way he's handling these first few months of being a constant international embarrassment I'll be surprised if he actually makes it through his first 4, and I'll eat my hat if he even comes close to winning a second term.

>>151882
Nah man, the polls are all a joke and you're kidding yourself

>>151884
>hurr durr fake news
you need to go back to your containment board.

>>151882
Totally wasn't scorning the workers' vote in favor of BLM and trannies.

Nope.

Michigan was all Russia.

Come on dude, even Michael Moore knows how the Democrats fucked up.

>>151856
>Provide a visa a passport and an electric bill from an apartment, SSN is optional
Yes, how could a lowly mexican even hope to get such papers. Such a herculean task for those subhumans.

Its not like part of the issue is also the legals that turn into illegals after their visa expires at the end of their year, or a variety of H1B/work visas that register despite being non citizen residents.

>>151886
>Lol like a broken record

>>151886
If all you got in response to his claims is >lol go back to /pol/
Then you don't really have much do you?
Sad.

>>151854
>have never committed a violent crime
Fuck that. Even criminals should be allowed to vote. Even if they're locked up. Give them absentee ballots.

>>151900
>BLM
Yeah, Hillary loved BLM so much that her campaign staffers were instructed specifically to PRETEND to listen to BLM
>trannies
irrelevant
>Russia
anon never mentioned Russia
>even Michael Moore knows how the Democrats fucked up
No he fucking doesn't. He backed Hillary and wants the Dems to run Dwayne the Rock Johnson in 2020 purely because he's a well-liked celebrity.

>>151970
>wants the Dems to run Dwayne the Rock Johnson in 2020 purely because he's a well-liked celebrity

Honestly, not that bad of an idea. The gate is open for non-politicians now so all he'd need to do is find a sizable political vein to tap and try to distance himself from the party heads enough to seem like an outsider.

>>151969
Voting is a Privilege.

You lose it when you cannot act like a decent human being, you edgelord

>>151975
It's a bad idea because it's focusing on celebrity instead of policy. It's like Hillary's strategy of making references to emojis and Pokemon Go instead of actually fighting for policies Americans want and need.

>>151990
>Voting is a Privilege
Wrong.

>>151995
Voting IS a privilege

>>150790

Yeah, bullshit. Federal authorities can't seem to find the evidence for the whole "millions of illegals voting" meme, even under Trump. This is just some right wing think tank presenting their favorite narrative in a new way.

>>152001
Check ICEs database fuckhead

>>151990
>Voting is a Privilege.
>You lose it when you cannot act like a decent human being, you edgelord

Letting the government be in charge of who can vote is an obvious conflict of interest.
The voters should pick the government, not the other way around.

>>152000
>Voting IS a privilege
Voting is a constitutionally protected right. Several Constitutional Amendments specifically deal with the right to vote.

>>152013
Not if you're a felon dingleberry

>>152014
>Not if you're a felon dingleberry
That doesn't make it a privilege.
Words mean things. You don't have to like it.

>>152016
You can't have "rights" taken away if your a felon, dingleberry

Voting is a tangible (requires registration and proper behavior under government law)

Rights are not tangible - right to self defense, right to speech, right to opinion, right to fair trial, etc are considered "natural rights" because they cannot be taken away

>>150790
>>150791
>>150792
That ODU study doesn't say what you think it says, and not with the rigor you think it has. When you say "the left" attacks that study, do you mean the academic community it came from?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-noncitizen-voters/

Fun fact: Voter IDs were won of the methods Southern states used to disenfranchise minorities during Jim Crow era. It's definitely akin to a poll tax and definitely constitutes massive disenfranchisement if voters aren't given years to acquire an ID.

>>152018
>You can't have "rights" taken away if your a felon, dingleberry
You're a special kind of stupid. Become a felon, try to buy a firearm.

>Voting is a tangible (requires registration and proper behavior under government law)
Voting itself does not necessarily necessitate the presence of /government/ law. Moreover, "right to fair trial" would require the exact same kinds of resources.

You're really an angry, special kind of stupid. Spend more time actually studying natural rights and less time hiding behind glib sarcasm to avoid having to actually admit you were wrong.

>>152020
Yikes the condeceding butt licker persona won't get you anywhere in life dingleberry. You're not a special kind of stupid, you're just a basic variety.

>Right to self defense =/= bear firearms
>Right to fair trial is a legalistic interpretation of a natural right (right to fair judgement or treatment by peers)

Voting is a government granted privilege to those who are citizens, abide by the law, and pay taxes. Until this last hundred years, only land owners could vote.

Nice try tho, be sure to wipe the shit out of your gums dingleberry

>>152021
>Buttlicker
>Overuse of dingleberry
You're an immature little cunt

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vote

Voting is defined as expressing one's views. The first amendment protects the right to freedom of expression. How can you say that restricting people's right to vote is constitutional, or right?

The laws of the nation you live in will affect your life in one way, or another. You have the right to choose who writes them.

>>151807
You can not live in America as a legal citizen and NOT have some of your privacy violated by uncle sam. Right to privacy, which pro-tip isn't actually in the constitution, doesn't mean 100% privacy just like freedom of speech has some limitations. Even if you are some sovereign citizen living off the grid the government will still have information on you like your birth certificate, tax history, mailing address, and social security information.

>>150957
If they use the names of dead people then they will never be found out. Your argument also falls apart when you realize that the vast majority of people do not vote. Even if a duplicate vote is found, they aren't going to immediately dig through the ballot box to pull it out. They will only do that if there is an automatic recount, which not all states even have in the first place.

>>151314
How about you actually read the article in question before you dismiss it with your partisan blindness?

>can't point to a single case of someone getting caught doing it.

Yeah, a liberal governor who won in a tight race totally wouldn't suppress evidence that could cause him to lose re-election, right? Texas has found several cases that the governor has personally commented on, and that state is even more strict on immigration. Your argument consistently fails to any hold water.

>>151320
> it could just start a class-action suit to address this in court

Texas and Arizona did you moron.

>>152029
>Yeah, a liberal governor who won in a tight race totally wouldn't suppress evidence that could cause him to lose re-election, right?
Virginia governors can't be re-elected. Term limits.
Good luck going through life just talking out your ass...

BullShit

>>152021
>Right to self defense =/= bear firearms

The supreme court seems to think differently.

>>152071
They don't always get it right
See Roe v. Wade

Also I fail to see how not owning a gun can take away your ability to defend yourself

>>152075
What's wrong with RvW?

>>152134
Free gay abortions for disabled trans-racial minorities

>>152134
It had no constitional basis, no reasonable judgement or argument, and lacked coherent reasoning behind the decision. Even pro abortion agree the decision was shaky and lacked proper legal logic.

>>151815
Felons have had their rights rightfully stripped by due process of law.
Noncitizens don't have full rights, and without valid visas have few if any rights.

Rights are part of the social contract of citizenship. Not entering into the contract means you don't get the rights. Violating the terms of the contract means the rights can be taken away.

>>150841
How many times per year does one get to vote in the first place? If you can't work your schedule to get an ID between now and your next comptrolling dicksucker election, you're probably just lazy.

>>150841
A driver's license is not the only form of I.D.
At least here in Florida, I see driver's licenses (green border) and official photo I.D.s (red border) and they are distinguishable and THERE'S NO REASON TO NOT HAVE AN I.D.

And let's not forget the original I.D. these fuckers SHOULD have if they even made it into this stupid country: their fucking PASSPORT

You have none of these things? I'm sorry this is just ridiculous.

>>150891
Double voting is not the target of scrutiny in the first place.

>>151007
Wouldn't those places with sparse DPS offices be places with sparse populations? Have you ever seen West Texas?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_County,_Texas

>Loving County is a county in the U.S. state of Texas. With a population of 82 as of the 2010 census, Loving County is the least populated county in the United States.

>>152137
>It had no constitional basis,
"nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process"
Yeah, it's a stretch, but right-to-lifers might argue that fetuses have civil rights, and it's also the job of the federal government to "settle disputes between the states".
And sure, it's flimsy, but not half as flimsy as half the shit the federal government does.
Most of the executive branch would fold under strict interpretation of the tenth amendment, so let's not shout "no constitutional basis" for whatever idea/law/ruling you don't personally like.

>>152158
"Yeah, it's a stretch"

There you go. You can say I'm just saying it's unconstitutional because I don't like it, but the same can be said for those who think it's constitutional just because they agree with it. It's a shammy decision, and will go down in history in my opinion when the supreme court became "activist judges"

>>152137
If you agree that the SCOTUS has no ability to rule on whether a fetus is properly a "life" or not (as, unfortunately, this is not mentioned at all in the Constitution), then you should be able to agree that the ruling should default to the rights of privacy that are consistently elaborated on in the Constitution.
>>152155
>>151007
Here in Texas, the DPS is open from 8am to 5pm. Closed on weekends. If you are someone living paycheck to paycheck or needs to drive a long distance to the DPS, it is nigh impossible to do.

I'd be down to start a national ID issuing service if it were issued and paid by the federal government every 10 years or so. Or a state mandate for prepaid IDs.

>>152137
>Even pro abortion agree the decision was shaky and lacked proper legal logic.

lol what.

you realize that they can't even take organs from a corpse unless the person consented to being a donor, right. even if it would save a dying person's life. the same legal reasoning applies to abortion. regardless of whether or not you consider a fetus to be a human, you cannot intrude on someone's (a pregnant woman's) personal agency and force them to carry a parasite even if removing said parasite would end a potential life. to say otherwise would be to argue that corpses have more rights than living women.

>>152208
>Unborn child = parasite
Yeah there's no debate to have with someone who thinks like this

Just FWI how do you explain double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed?

>>152003

I'm sorry, are we arguing whether illegal immigrants exist, or whether there's actual evidence that millions of them voted against Trump, causing him to lose the popular vote?

I'm pretty sure it's the latter. Fuckhead.

>>152254
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-arrested-charged-voter-fraud

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/30/ice-agent-counterfeit-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigration-voters-registration-elections

Also how do you expect to catch an illegal outright while voting if the governments policy is to not check for citizenship using an issued identification card? The ones they catch are usually after the fact (voter card in wallet after arrest) or via irregular vote counts

>>150849
Unless you are a minimum wage worker living in poverty with no support system you should STFU. When the DMV is open they are at work. You think the boss is going to let them have paid time off to go to the DMV?

>>153796
"Unless you're an oppressed minority / woman / gay then you have no right to have an opinion on things"

Cultural Marxism in action

>>150790
>Moonie Times

Itsfuckingnothing.jpg

>>152012
you realized what "government" stands for right?

>>150790
So can we retroactively impeach Obama if we find that illegal aliens swayed the election?

>>150986
>Huffpo
Leave

>>150790
Not really a reliable news source.

>>154522
Just Facts that is.

>>151807
>Haven't we all had this argument time and time again?
And you're going to be having it again and again for the rest of your life because you're wrong.

>>154522
It definitely is tho

>>154525
Care to elaborate or are you going to make baseless claims? Where did I go wrong?

>>150790
Good god anon not even Fox is bothering to report this nonsense.
>between 30000 and 8 million
There was literally no methodology here, the man is simply making up numbers

>>150790
Funny how this "research" comes out of an openly politically motivated "think tank" and not an actual academic institution or even an independent research organization. Who peer reviewed this?

>>156230
I did, it's legit

>>156230
Get lost you lying Jew bastard.

>>156228
>between 30000 and 8 million

kek, that's fucking hilarious.

>>150841
>Also, something to keep in mind is that minimum wage workers don't necessarily have the schedule flexibility that better off workers have, so going to the DMV could represent a significant loss in time (and therefore money).

Tough shit.