Donald Trump’s Final Insult to American Democracy
“I’ll keep you in suspense.”
That was Donald Trump , candidate for president of the United States, treating the peaceful transfer of power like a reality-TV show cliffhanger in the final presidential debate .
The hyperpartisan hype man was either teasing the opening season of Trump TV or promising a constitutional crisis. Either way, it’s a display of stomach-churning disregard for our democracy by a celebrity demagogue whose narcissism has already stained our political history.
By now, we’re now used to The Donald treating this election as a vehicle for his vanity. Most sober Republicans have slowly come to the horrified realization that they have a manifestly irresponsible man at the top of their ticket. But the radius of damage seemed contained to the GOP and the quality of our civic debates. Donald changed that Wednesday night.
Once the act-like-an-adult sedatives wore off around 30 minutes into the third debate, he lapsed into his reflexive lying and insult comedy. He lied about insulting a disabled reporter. He lied about his past praise of Putin and his call for Japan to pursue nukes. He called his opponent a “nasty woman” and said she shouldn’t be allowed to vote, let alone run for president.
But those were just the fetid appetizers before the rotten main course that instantly defined the third debate.
The most troubling rumble from Trump’s flailing final weeks has been his suggestions that maybe he wouldn’t accept defeat. He teased this riff repeatedly to crowds only to have it be denied by his designated straight man, Mike Pence. But Trump went full wingnut with his comments in the third debate, refusing to say whether he would accept the results of the election if—as the polls show is likely—he loses on Nov. 8.
Put down the popcorn for a second. Remember that this election is real. It is not a reality show.
We in the media may try to entertain as we educate, but at the end of the day this is deadly serious stuff—selecting a leader who will make decisions about war and peace. And in democracy, we get the government we deserve.
Donald Trump has gone beyond dog-whistle appeals to the ethno-nationalist crowd. He is doubling down on the delegitimizing of duly elected presidents that has helped cripple our democracy over the past few decades. Much of the alt-right Clinton-hating crowd staffing his senior team— David Bossie especially —started this anti-democratic cycle with the hunting of the president in Bill Clinton’s term. The blame shifted to the left after the loss of the popular vote made many of those folks consider W. illegitimate. And God knows, we’ve had the same putrid stain grow during the Obama years, symbolized by the “birther” conspiracy theories that Trump used to grab the heart of the GOP base , who couldn’t accept a black man as president. If Hillary Clinton is elected, we’ll see sexism take the place of racism in the most unhinged corners of the internet activist class.
But the fundamental message of illegitimacy is the same. And the recourse? “I’ll keep you in suspense.”
Trump surrogates were furiously spinning in the aftermath, understandably panicked that their man had once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Apparently the talking points had been emailed out before the end of the debate because both campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Jeffrey Lord were spouting the same ahistorical nonsense on CNN about how there is a liberal double standard because Al Gore didn’t concede the 2000 election until December. Of course, that ignores the whole Florida recount and loss of the popular vote.
There is no precedent in modern American politics for contesting an election before the votes are in. Both Conway and Lord are political pros who know better as, presumably, does Kayleigh McEnany, who was reduced to talking about dead voters and fraud in a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that her candidate is playing footsie with a fanatical disregard for the democratic process.
The most generous explanation is that Donald Trump just doesn’t have the psychological capacity to admit defeat. The prospect of being defined in the history books as a loser—possibly on an epic scale—is too much to bear. And so the only face-saving play is to say that the whole system is rigged against him. This is the ultimate expression of the conservative-as-victim card.
But what makes little Donald feel better isn’t the best gauge for what’s best for our democracy. I know this is hard for Trump to compute, but some things matter more than himself. The real damage comes when his anti-democracy defiance is heard as validation by extremists looking for an excuse to make the culture wars even more real.
During the Tea Party wave, I interviewed a fringe folk hero on the far-far right : a patriot militia man named Mike Vanderboegh, who recently died. His favorite slogan was “all politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.” “We are rapidly coming to a point in this country when half of the people are going to become convinced of the illegitimacy of this administration and its designs upon our liberty,” he told me. “Need I remind you that this side is the one with most of the firearms?”
Talk about “Second Amendment solutions.”
Likewise, Trump’s favorite unhinged conspiracy entrepreneur, Alex Jones, loves to say “the cure for 1984 is 1776.” The same echoes are evident.
And lest this just sound like a litany of cranks, one month ago Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin referenced Timothy McVeigh’s favorite Jefferson quote—“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”—before talking about how America could survive a President Hillary Clinton only if the blood of patriots were shed as well. “Whose blood will be shed?” he asked in a speech . “It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have nine children. And it breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood that is needed to redeem something, to reclaim something that we, through our apathy and indifference, have given away.”
Got that? The governor of one of our 50 states was actively musing about civil war and the bloodshed it could cause in his family if Hillary Clinton is elected president. Spin that any way you want—and Bevin tried to say that he had been talking about a foreign war—but the audience at the Values Voter Summit heard him loud and clear. Losing an election is akin to living under tyranny, and it will be up to patriots to take down tyrants to make America great again.
Finally, on Wednesday night, just after Trump left the stage, his surrogate Sarah Palin told reporters he’d only accept a “legitimate” election since doing otherwise would betray those who “died” for freedom.
The point is that none of this happens in a vacuum. Calls for massive resistance to democratic processes and legal decisions have been a repeated riff in conservative populist circles for decades. It’s possible that the proud Fifth Avenue redneck has no idea about the historical ghosts he’s stirring up. Or he may know exactly what he’s doing. The sick twist is that everyone understands Trump isn’t motivated by political convictions. He’s just looking for his next marketing campaign. We’re living through the final stages of Eric Hoffer’s immortal insight: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
By denying that he would accept the results of this election in a presidential debate, Donald Trump delivered perhaps the final insult to our democracy in his disgraceful campaign. The only saving grace is that a true constitutional crisis would require that the election results be close. But less than three weeks from Election Day, he has offered the latest example of why he is deeply unfit to be president of the United States. He has no interest in uniting the nation.
Donald Trump is one of those folks who want to ruin if they cannot rule. In a school yard, he’d be called a spoiled brat. In politics, he’s a dangerous demagogue with a dictatorial streak.
"There is no precedent in modern American politics for contesting an election before the votes are in. Both Conway and Lord are political pros who know better as, presumably, does Kayleigh McEnany, who was reduced to talking about dead voters and fraud in a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that her candidate is playing footsie with a fanatical disregard for the democratic process.
The most generous explanation is that Donald Trump just doesn’t have the psychological capacity to admit defeat. The prospect of being defined in the history books as a loser—possibly on an epic scale—is too much to bear. And so the only face-saving play is to say that the whole system is rigged against him. This is the ultimate expression of the conservative-as-victim card.
But what makes little Donald feel better isn’t the best gauge for what’s best for our democracy. I know this is hard for Trump to compute, but some things matter more than himself. The real damage comes when his anti-democracy defiance is heard as validation by extremists looking for an excuse to make the culture wars even more real. "
As the Third Reich was crumbling all around him in March/April of 1945, Hitler decided that it was all the fault of traitors, cowards and liars within his own people. He had been betrayed.
When Trump crumbles on Nov 8th, he is setting up the excuse that the American political system will have betrayed him. In his mind, the ONLY way he can lose is if he is betrayed by the electoral system.
Sad.
There is no precedent in modern American politics for contesting an election before the votes are inY
You know he's not contesting the election, right? The precedent still stands.
The inability to understand simple English words like "might" are ruining democracy. For Democrats to attack Trump for merely saying he leaves open the possibility of acting like the Democrats do when they lose an election is simply pathetic.
Sean, when was the last time a presidential candidate questioned the validity of the election before the election happens. Trump has said "It is rigged". He has said it now dozens of times.
The more you people defend this idiot the worse you make yourselves look.
What steps has he taken to contest the election?
How many times have CLinton, Obama Warren etc.. called America rigged? So it's okay to call America in general "rigged" but to use that term as a way to describe how themedia works hand in glove with the Clinton campaign is somehow beyond the pale?
Funny how people get more upset about the word used to describe unethical behavior rather than the unethical behavior itself.
the media works hand in glove
Donald Trump is totally unfit to be president of the United States. I would be extremely upset and disappointed if the media did not point this out every day.
Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be president of the United States. I am extremely upset and disappointed the media do not point this out every day.
153 newspapers have endorsed Clinton, including 27 that supported the Republican candidate in 2012.
3 newspapers have endorsed Trump, one of which has a total circulation of 4,000.
John. Read what you just posted. Now say this: "The media is biased toward Hillary and establishment politics" Then read your post again.
You just justified every thing we have been saying about a biased media.
You are trying to justify Donald Trump's abomination of a presidential candidacy by claiming that the media is against him.
THEY SHOULD BE AGAINST HIM
he is the worst and most unqualified candidate in American history. Of what worth would the media be if the weren't against him?
John: Of what worth is a media that ignores the corruption of our government, ignores the criminal acts of Hillary, ignores the corruption and scandals of the Democratic party?
For years the right wing media and nit's followers have been saying Hillary Clinton was responsible for 6 billion dollars missing from the State Dept. Recently Trump picked up this theme.
Trump’s false claim that Clinton ‘lost’ $6 billion at the State Department
(Gregg Newton/AFP/Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton “lost as much as $6 billion in taxpayer money while she was running the State Department. Now, some people say it was misplaced. Oh, billions of dollars misplaced.”
— Donald Trump, remarks in Panama City, Fla., Oct. 11, 2016
In the past week, Trump has offered some version of this claim that Clinton “lost” or “misplaced” $6 billion of taxpayers’ funds while she was secretary of state. He argues that this shows she “is the vessel, a corrupt global establishment that’s raiding our country and surrendering the sovereignty of our nation.”
Trump is also trying to rebut news stories about the nearly $1 billion loss that he claimed in a 2005 tax return that was made public by the New York Times. His supporters have argued that Trump losing a billion dollars of his own money is not as bad as Clinton losing $6 billion of taxpayer money.
In the context of the $3.8 trillion annual federal budget, a few billion dollars is a rounding error. But by itself $6 billion is a hefty chunk of change — and certainly taxpayers should expect the money is properly spent.
Does this figure have any basis in reality?
The Facts
Trump’s use of the number appears to have its roots in recent reporting of the right-leaning media, which reported on a Freedom of Information Act request in August 2016 by a self-described government watchdog (also right-leaning) called the Cause of Action Institute. The FOIA request sought information about whether State has implemented recommendations in a management alert issued by State’s Office of Inspector General in March 2014.
The management alert, which used the $6 billion figure, summarized a variety of recent audits that indicated paperwork deficiencies in closing out contracts that were issued in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa. The FOIA request asserted, without evidence, that “many of these cases arose during the tenure of Secretary Hillary Clinton.” In the Daily Caller, this got translated as “Clinton’s State Department Blew $6 Billion In Contracts.”
Actually, the 2014 alert is an old story. Steve Linick, the inspector general, was sufficiently concerned about media reporting on the figure that he sent a letter to The Washington Post, published April 13, 2014 , explaining that it was wrong to assume $6 billion was “missing.” The alert, he wrote, “did not draw that conclusion.” Instead, he wrote, the point of the alert was that “the failure to adequately maintain contract files — documents necessary to ensure the full accounting of U.S. tax dollars — ‘creates significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions.’ ”
Translation: Paperwork was missing, not dollars. Indeed, the State Department had no argument with the Office of Inspector General’s message, pledging to agree to its recommendations.
So, for the past two years, it was known that taxpayer money was not lost or misplaced. So what about the claim that the problem was Clinton’s fault?
The State Department is a vast bureaucracy, and it’s silly to blame Clinton for some missing paperwork in the Baghdad embassy. But we dug through the footnotes of the alert and read the original audit reports to figure out the time period in question. Recall that Clinton was secretary of state from January 2009 to January 2013.
About two-thirds of the $6 billion stems from a set of contracts issued in Iraq. The IG looked at 115 contracts , worth about $7.5 billion, that were issued between October 2004 and October 2011. The report does not give a breakdown, but it’s safe to assume that more than half were issued before Clinton took charge of the State Department.
Another $1 billion, transferred to State from the Defense Department between October 2006 and April 2009, concerned a civil police contract in Afghanistan . The problem in this case was contract files were not complete and could not be easily accessed.
Finally, $1 billion concerned a Blackwater contract to provide security in Iraq, as of May 29, 2008. Again, files were not accessible, complete or maintained in accordance with State Department policy.
That adds up to $6 billion. Easily two-thirds, or perhaps more, concerned contracts that predated Clinton’s tenure at State. (The management alert also mentioned a handful of cases of deliberate fraud, such as $52 million in contracts awarded to a company headed by the spouse of a contracting employee– a scam first exposed by the Daily Caller. )
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The Pinocchio Test
The $6 billion was not lost or misplaced; it’s that $6 billion in contracts had missing paperwork. On top of that, the majority of contracts with missing or incomplete paperwork stemmed from the Bush administration, before Clinton became secretary of state. So it’s ridiculous to claim Clinton was in any way responsible for the problems with the contracts.
The only thing “lost” in Trump’s statement is reality.
Four Pinocchios
Your typical right winger could read this 4 Pinocchio conclusion, and they would STILL go out and repeat this false story online and to their friends. That is what Clinton and others are constantly up against - willful misinformation.
John - do you actually believe that shit???? Shows you just how much you understand the government accounting system - or any accounting system.
The alert, he wrote, “did not draw that conclusion.” Instead, he wrote, the point of the alert was that “the failure to adequately maintain contract files — documents necessary to ensure the full accounting of U.S. tax dollars — ‘creates significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions.’ ”
Translation: Paperwork was missing, not dollars. Indeed, the State Department had no argument with the Office of Inspector General’s message, pledging to agree to its recommendations . . . The only thing “lost” in Trump’s statement is reality.
Trump is over-hyping what this report says and the media is underplaying what it means. No, it doesn't say that $6 billion dollars was lost. What it does say is that the proper contracting procedures weren't in place regarding $6 billion so an indeterminate amount of that money was at a significant financial risk . . . i.e. subject to fraud or concealing evidence of other illicit behavior. The problem was not all under Hillary's watch but, as the head of the agency, she can't simply disavow responsibility by saying I inherited some of the problem and I can't be personally responsible for every scrap of paper in the agency.
Which means the government lost $6M worth of product as the contracts were issued, but due to their piss-poor procedures, they botched collecting.
John,
the point of the alert was that “the failure to adequately maintain contract files — documents necessary to ensure the full accounting of U.S. tax dollars — ‘creates significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions.’ ”
...A point you refuse to acknowledge.
Translation: If this dumb cunt keeps running shit this way there will be hell to pay. BTW all the money is STILL not accounted for due to Hillary's "failure to adequately maintain" the paper trail on it.
Either she is inept or a criminal in this and damn near every other one of her scandals. Take your pick. Either way SHE IS UNFIT TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.
Hmmmm - didn't know newspapers could vote in elections.
I keep asking how many electoral votes they have... The Russell has no cogent response.
You revert to that unfit to be president BS every them you paint yourself in a corner and continue to ignore the fact that not only is someone who lies under oath to congress unfit to be president, they are unfit to even RUN for president because they are a PROVEN CRIMINAL. Another heaping plate of hypocrisy anyone?
Al Gore ring a bell for you John? Oh, that's right - before your time.
Unlikely...
There is no doubt the election is rigged. Republicans in this state did not get to vote in a primary and we had no straw poll vote at our caucus. The party elites picked the candidate for us. It backfired and he won the nomination despite their efforts to stop him but it is still rigged. My understanding is that the Dems rigged there primaries to favor Hillary and I believe that to be true.
The simple fact that the Media refuses to report the corruption, lies, and criminal acts of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party PROVES the election is rigged. The problem that the Democrats And the Republicans have with this statement is that it's not rigged against one candidate or another, it's rigged against WE the People.
There is a saying that when faced with a difficult challenge your choice is fight or flight, and it seems that Trump has made his choice. I wonder if there are a lot of voters who would prefer a President who says he does not give up, and will never give up a fight.
Those who would support Trump's right to keep up his "fight" after the election is over are as unAmerican as he is.
Those who would support Trump's right to keep up his "fight" after the election is over are as unAmerican as he is.
Ooooh, so anyone who doesn't agree with John or the Corporate Media is deplorable!!!
How many votes do each one of those newspapers have John? People do their voting in states that are taxing them to death by their feet and leaving, which is the case in many of the states who support Hillary, which by the way the top 10 states who support her are in the worst financial condition in the country.
Corporate newspapers do their voting by publishing articles that are beneficial to the candidate they prefer and so do other news sources such and CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. They may not actually have to go behind the curtain, but they can vote millions of times by putting negative news in front of the readers and viewers for their candidate's opponent and ignoring the same for their chosen candidate. It's un-American. It's also un-American to accept this as the proper thing to do in this country.
Those who would support Trump's right to keep up his "fight" after the election is over are as unAmerican as he is.
Depends on what he's fighting and how he's fighting it.
JUST IN: Donald Trump: "I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win"
So you think it is bad he is flip flopping on a subject like Hillary always does?
Does anyone know what this bitch really stands for other than corruption and whatever she thinks will get a vote?
My prediction? this isn't going to be a status quo election , it hasn't been a status quo cycle , that's for sure.
at the end of the day this is deadly serious stuff—selecting a leader who will make decisions about war and peace.
I agree . And the thought of Hillary as CiC of the armed forces is very unsettling . She is incapable of keeping her mouth shut when that is necessary . Worse her compromising of the security protocols in place is a crime , probably a damaging one to the members of our armed forces among others ...
Trump leaves open the possibility that he may not accept the results of the election before the election is held and that makes him a disgrace to democracy. Democrats in the House openly rejected the results of the 2000 election to bring us to the brink of a Constitutional crisis and that's perfectly OK.
If you can't see the difference, bad on you.
If you can't see the difference, bad on you.
I see distinctions but not a difference.
I'm disappointed that some are dismissing Donald's accusations of a rigged election as though it's harmless or worst ........justified. This election is a sign that our Country's civility is on a downward slide.
Have you heard of Al-gore?
I don't understand what that has to do with my comment.
Neither does anyone else.
I'm not surprised. The ability to predict future events based on past experience is a sign of sentience.
Thanks
You're welcome, although I was replying to Herr Russell.
Another strong argument for voter ID. Why not just fix the system so that it is difficult for voter fraud to occur instead of keeping a system that welcomes it?
At this point voter fraud has been unarguably proven by votes cast by the deceased.
The only real reason to be against solving a PROVEN problem is if you are DOING it. This would be a good time to ask who is still against it and who did all the corpses vote for. Don't you think?
Sad to say our primary elections are undeniably rigged, and the DNC and RNC openly admit it.
DNC Chair: Superdelegates Exist to Protect Party Leaders from Grassroots Competition
This explains how, if someone the establishment does not likes starts winning (like Bernie Sanders) the superdelegates rig the primary for the establishment candidate (Hillary) so the establishment candidate wins regardless of how much of the popular vote their opponent has, therefore making your vote in a primary election useless.
At this point voter fraud has been unarguably proven by votes cast by the deceased.
What proof?
Show proof that large numbers of dead people have voted.
Oh come on John. Are you kidding me?
www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dead-and-Still-Voting-177286281.html
An NBC Bay Area Investigation has uncovered thousands of California voters who remain on the voter rolls despite having died several years ago.
A closer look at the data revealed that some of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted, several years after their death.
clerks say, where family members vote on their dead relatives' behalf.
NBC Bay Area found several other examples, too. People like Sara Schiffman of San Leandro who died in 2007 yet still voted in 2008, or former Hayward police officer Frank Canela Tapia who has voted 8 times since 2005, though he died in 2001.
Would you like more?
CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A comparison of records by David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9, has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California , a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County.
Not only has the fraud been PROVEN it has also been PROVEN it has been happening for a LONG TIME " Frank Canela Tapia who has voted 8 times since 2005, though he died in 2001."
What do you think about this happening in the bluest state in the country and that the dead always vote Democrat? I'm sure it is all pure coincidence just like in all Hillary's scandals right John?
An NBC Bay Area Investigation has uncovered thousands of California voters who remain on the voter rolls despite having died several years ago.
A closer look at the data revealed that some of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted, several years after their death.
clerks say, where family members vote on their dead relatives' behalf.
NBC Bay Area found several other examples, too. People like Sara Schiffman of San Leandro who died in 2007 yet still voted in 2008, or former Hayward police officer Frank Canela Tapia who has voted 8 times since 2005, though he died in 2001.
Would you like more?
If you have evidence that thousands of dead people have VOTED, maybe you would have something. A handful is meaningless. And when you have family members voting with a dead relatives name, that is hardly organized voter fraud, that is individuals trying to pay an odd tribute to their dead loved one.
Let's recap.
You asked for PROOF that large numbers dead have voted (because you actually believe the bullshit that it doesn't happen your party feeds you?) and I gave it to you.
"comparison of records by David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9, has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California, a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County."
Now that we have PROOF of voter fraud has been HAPPENING FOR YEARS in alarmingly large numbers and your comeback is that this isn't enough and it has to be thousands? You just shot your own credibility pal. It is obvious you simply refuse to believe anything you don't want to.
Keep in mind that the HUNDREDS are only the DEAD committing fraud. Do you really think this is the only form it has taken, and that they are only doing this with the deceased?
If in one metropolitan area there are hundreds you can bet that if you add up all the others around the country it is easily THOUSANDS especially given how hard it is to prove voter fraud.....AND HUNDREDS IN ONE METROPOLITAN AREA IS LARGE NUMBERS. 215 were discovered in Los Angeles ALONE
Tell you what John. Why don't you just keep towing your party line and keep on denying it ever happens. I think it will be best for you. It is obvious you can't handle the truth.
"And when you have family members voting with a dead relatives name, that is hardly organized voter fraud, that is individuals trying to pay an odd tribute to their dead loved one."
OMG I didn't think I'd have TWO things to make me laugh this morning.
I don't know whether dead people vote but it's also not clear to me how every state prevents that from happening. Also, if illegal aliens are given drivers licenses, and then automatically registered to vote, what state measure prevents them from voting?
Case in point. I has a Hispanic friend who lived in another state with his girlfriend (both were legal). He was very politically active. One day, I received a voter registration card in the mail addressed to his girlfriend showing her as a resident living at my address. I knew he was behind it so I called him to ask why he's using my address for voter fraud. He said he was trying to help a friend and needed to get votes any way he could. He didn't think I'd mind since nobody else did. I told him that I did mind and that the card was being returned to the elections office "marked not at this address". If I hadn't returned it, she would have reported to the poll and voted. It would have never been discovered as a voter fraud. I don't know how many others were involved in this scheme but sometimes it only takes a small number of votes to tip the scale (you don't need massive voter fraud).
Based on my personal experience, I don't see anything in the system that prevents illegal aliens from voting or discovers them when they do vote. And now, a video has surfaced implicating the DNC and the Hillary campaign in a voter fraud scheme. If you or anybody else can explain how voter fraud is prevented, then please enlighten me . . . with something other than a statement that there's no proof that it happens when the absence of proof may be due to the lack of an effort to uncover it.
"I don't know whether dead people vote but it's also not clear to me how every state prevents that from happening."
There is NO system in place in ANY state to prevent it, (or damn near any other kind of voter fraud for that matter) this is why a voter ID is necessary. And why wouldn't anyone interested in fair elections and stopping voter fraud be on board?
I read once that thousands of New Yorkers are registered to vote in both New York and Florida. It's illegal to vote in two places but what stops them from doing it or discovers it? Thousands of voters from a blue state could turn a battleground state blue.
The idea that thousands of people are going to cross state lines to vote in another state is laughable.
Laughable , I agree to an extent , but is entirely plausible and doable .
I recently lived very close to a town that the state line ran right down the center of main street , east side was Wyoming , the west side was Idaho, towns name was Freedom, founded by Mormon polygamists , when the authorities showed up to arrest them for their practices , they simply walked across the street to avoid arrest.
same people would own property and receive mail pay utilities in both places ( all things used to prove one can vote somewhere). and I do believe that voting laws state you can only vote at your PRIMARY residence , not every place you hold residence not matter how short you live there through out the year.
reading your last post with the excuse of the reason neither party does anything is because they both do it? glad I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that. the excuse they do it too doesn't wash to make it alright.
but then again I am responding to someone who lives In greater Chicago / cook county / Illinois , where voter fraud has been known of for decades , if not better part of centuries but not fixed. Chicago politics as some would say.
About 130 million people vote in presidential elections. Are there going to be some people, somewhere who want to try and cheat? I'm sure there are, but the numbers are relatively miniscule and don't effect elections.
Trump is trying to create an atmosphere among his followers that suggests he is being CHEATED out of the presidency. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that this is true.
Trump is a conspiracy nut, and this is one of his conspiracies. There have been stories indicating he believes in dozens of conspiracies. That is way more scary that anything that is in wikileaks about Clinton.
About 130 million people vote in presidential elections. Are there going to be some people, somewhere who want to try and cheat? I'm sure there are, but the numbers are relatively miniscule and don't effect elections.
The 2000 election turned on winning Florida and Bush won Florida by 537 votes.
that's a miniscule amount of votes to win by........How many did Franken win by after recounts and vote disqualifications? just over 300 I think.
that's a miniscule amount of votes to win by........How many did Franken win by after recounts and vote disqualifications? just over 300 I think.
He won by 312 votes.
If you guys want to go to your grave believing Donald Trump was cheated out of this election, have at it. I'm not giving it any more time.
If you guys want to go to your grave believing Donald Trump was cheated out of this election, have at it. I'm not giving it any more time.
I was talking about the potential for voter fraud, not whether Trump has been cheated out of an election that he has yet to lose. But if you've run out of ammunition, it's best to leave the field.
The idea that thousands of people are going to cross state lines to vote in another state is laughable.
All they have to do is drop an absentee ballot in the mail.
"Also, if illegal aliens are given drivers licenses, and then automatically registered to vote, what state measure prevents them from voting?"
Do you mean that if I return to Canada, to Toronto, and drive to Buffalo, I could get a New York State driver's licence? Hey, then I COULD vote in the American election. Could I run for President as well?
Buzz-- maybe you could vote but your integrity and moral character are probably way too high to be our president. Right now, we're looking for the biggest liar and scoundrel we can find that isn't in prison.
Donald Trump supporters and Hillary haters are reduced to crying about dead voters. It's pitiful. You know why the Republican Party doesn't complain about voter fraud? Because they know that to whatever extent it exists, they do it too.
Sept. 2012
Republicans look for voter fraud, find little
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler i seen leaving his office in Denver. Republican election officials who were swept into office on promises to root out voting fraud say they're doing just that. But they're not finding much so far.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
DENVER -- Republican election officials who promised to root out voter fraud so far are finding little evidence of a widespread problem.
State officials in key presidential battleground states have found only a tiny fraction of the illegal voters they initially suspected existed. Searches in Colorado and Florida have yielded numbers that amount to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all registered voters in either state.
Democrats say the searches waste time and, worse, could disenfranchise eligible voters who are swept up in the checks.
"I find it offensive that I'm being required to do more than any other citizen to prove that I can vote," said Samantha Meiring, 37, a Colorado voter and South African immigrant who became a U.S. citizen in 2010. Meiring was among 3,903 registered voters who received letters last month from the Colorado Secretary of State's office questioning their right to vote.
Especially telling, critics of the searches say, is that the efforts are focused on crucial swing states from Colorado to Florida, where both political parties and the presidential campaigns are watching every vote. And in Colorado, most of those who received letters are either Democrats or unaffiliated with a party. It's a similar story in Florida, too.
Republicans argue that voting fraud is no small affair, even if the cases are few, when some elections are decided by hundreds of votes.
"We have real vulnerabilities in the system," said Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican elected in 2010 who is making a name for himself at home by pursuing the issue. "I don't think one should be saying the sky is falling, but at the same time, we have to recognize we have a serious vulnerability."
The different viewpoints underscore a divide between the parties: Are the small numbers of voting fraud evidence that a problem exists? Or do they show that the voter registration system works?
COLORADO
Last year, Gessler estimated that 11,805 noncitizens were on the rolls.
But the number kept getting smaller.
After his office sent letters to 3,903 registered voters questioning their status, the number of noncitizens now stands at 141, based on checks using a federal immigration database. Of those 141, Gessler said 35 have voted in the past. The 141 are .004 percent of the state's nearly 3.5 million voters.
Even those numbers could be fewer.
The Denver clerk and recorder's office, which had records on eight of the 35 voters who cast ballots in the past, did its own verification and found that those eight people appear to be citizens.
Kevin Biln, an Adams County resident on the list, said he didn't know he was registered and maintains that he's never voted. Another voter on the list, Erica Zelfand, a Canadian immigrant, said she's a U.S. citizen no longer living in Colorado. Robert Giron said he was furious that the 20-year-old daughter he adopted from Mexico was listed as having illegally voted. He said she went to the Denver clerk's office with her U.S. passport and other documents to prove her eligibility to vote.
To Pam Anderson, the clerk and recorder in Jefferson County in suburban Denver, the investigation proves what's already been her experience: Cases of noncitizens on the rolls are extremely rare.
Anderson said the fighting between the political parties over the perception of voter fraud also has less tangible consequences.
"It impacts people's confidence in elections, which is extraordinarily important," she said.
FLORIDA
Florida's search began after the state's Division of Elections said that as many as 180,000 registered voters weren't citizens. Like Colorado and other states, Florida relied on driver's license data showing that people on the rolls at one point showed proof of non-citizenship, such as a green card.
Florida eventually narrowed its list of suspected noncitizens to 2,600 and found that 207 of them weren't citizens, based on its use of the federal database called SAVE, or the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. The system tracks who is a legal resident eligible to receive government benefits.
Of the 2,600 initially marked as possible noncitizens, about 38 percent were unaffiliated voters and 40 percent were Democrats, according to an analysis by The Miami Herald.
The state has more than 11.4 million registered voters, so the 207 amounts to .001 percent of the voter roll.
Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner, a Republican, said in a statement that the initiative "is already proving to be a successful process to identify illegally registered voters," which he noted is crucial in a state where the 2000 presidential election was decided by 537 votes.
NORTH CAROLINA
In North Carolina, the nonpartisan state elections board last year sent letters to 637 suspected noncitizens after checking driver's license data. Of those, 223 responded showing proof they were citizens, and 79 acknowledged they weren't citizens and were removed from the rolls along with another 331 who didn't respond to repeated letters, said Veronica Degraffenreid, an elections liaison for the board.
She said the board did not find evidence of widespread fraud, noting there were only 12 instances in which a noncitizen had voted. North Carolina has 6.4 million voters.
"What we're finding is there is strong indication that the voter rolls in North Carolina are sound," Degraffenreid said.
MICHIGAN
Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, last week estimated that as many as 4,000 noncitizens are on the state's voter roll.
The department said it verified 1,000 registered voters who are noncitizens, based on an analysis of about 20 percent of complete citizenship data. She extrapolated the 4,000 number from the most recent U.S. Census' five-year American Community Survey, which showed Michigan has a noncitizen population of about 304,000.
That's as far as the investigation has gone. The figures have not been verified.
OTHER STATES
Ohio and Iowa, both with recently elected Republican secretaries of state, also are negotiating with the federal government to also use the SAVE database to verify citizenship, although it's unlikely they'll have enough time to do anything before the Nov. 6 election. While Ohio doesn't have a list of names it wants to check, Iowa is looking at verifying the status of 3,500 registered voters.
Last week, Iowa's Division of Criminal Investigation filed election misconduct charges against three noncitizens who voted in gubernatorial and city elections in 2010 and 2011. Among the three are Canadians who told investigators they thought they were only barred from voting in presidential elections.
The three were on a list of about 1,000 names of potential noncitizens who had voted since 2010, which Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz forwarded to the Division of Criminal Investigation.
Early voting in Iowa begins Thursday and Schultz recently told legislators that his office wants to use the information from the federal database "in a responsible manner."
"When somebody casts a ballot you can't un-ring that bell," he said. "If somebody is ineligible to vote and they cast a ballot that's been counted we can't take that back. This is an important election coming up.
"When somebody casts a ballot you can't un-ring that bell," he said. "If somebody is ineligible to vote and they cast a ballot that's been counted we can't take that back."
Very true because there is no way of telling who the fraudulent vote was cast for, unless like what happened in my current county a year or so ago . lady moved here from out of state , started a business and lived elsewhere , she voted in 08 and 12 , but she did so in the town she lived in and 70 miles away where her business was located ( she provided proof she payed utilities in both places ) . she was caught because someone turned her in , and she admitted to voting straight democrat ticket , but that wasn't the best of it , it was found in the investigation she was also a felon in another state( the one she moved here from) so couldn't legally vote to begin with , but as the quote says , the bell cannot be unrung.
That's interesting but leaves out most of the states with the largest numbers of electoral votes: California (55), Texas (38), NY (29), Pennsylvania (20), and Illinois (20). How do they prevent illegal aliens from voting, how do they check to see if dead people voted, how do they detect people voting in more than one state?
"When somebody casts a ballot you can't un-ring that bell," he said. "If somebody is ineligible to vote and they cast a ballot that's been counted we can't take that back. This is an important election coming up.
Which is why I'm asking questions now.
Interesting question , Wyoming only has the 3 EC votes so some might think its insignificant , unless you live here.