Alex Jones (Infowars = alt news) implies they all voted. From your link:
quote:A study revealing that over 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary Clinton doesn’t account for dead and fraudulent voters, which accounted for over 25 million registered voters during the 2012 presidential election — and little has changed since then.
Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.
Curiously we get no reference to this "groundbreaking research" or the methodology of this "research" or to the blog.
So the author said the Washington Time piece is deceptive and that the evidence "did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming" rather that the extrapolation was solely for the purpose of showing that this kind of voter fraud could not be anywhere near the Trump claim of 5 million -- over 6 times what can only be considered a worst case ball park estimate.
So there is no evidence that shows a single adult noncitizens actually voting.
Next Alex said
quote:Illegal alien voters combined with dead and multiple state voters could easily explain Clinton’s popular vote margin over Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, especially considering that her victory came from Democratic-controlled counties known for illegal immigration and loose voter ID laws such as in New York and California.
A report by the Pew Center on the States finds that more than 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote, and 24 million registrations are either invalid or inaccurate, NPR reported in 2012, which is ironic given how NPR is heavily controlled by Democrats.
quote:February 14, 2012 Approximately 24 million active voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or have significant inaccuracies, according to the Pew Center on the States. Research in Pew's report, Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient, underscores the need for registration systems that better maintain voter records, save money, and streamline processes. This is an effort that eight states are spearheading with Pew’s support.
The report highlights the challenges nationwide:
Not Registered:
At least 51 million eligible citizens remain unregisteredmore than 24 percent of the eligible population.
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as active voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people have active registrations in more than one state.
About 12 million records have incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved, or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them.
Since 2010, election officials from several states have been working with Pew on plans to upgrade their voter registration systems using advanced technology. This new approach consists of three elements:
Inaccurate registrations:
Comparing registration lists with other data sources, such as motor vehicle and National Change of Address records.
Implementing proven techniques and security protocols that use those data sources to better track and identify both inaccurate records.
Minimizing manual data entry by establishing ways voters can submit information online.
So not only is Alex implying something NOT in the report, but he is using a report that is 5 years out of date, so it doesn't include all the legitimate voters that have been purged by republican states.
Again, there is no evidence of anyone actually doing voter fraud in this study. The ONLY case known in the last election was a republican caught in a red state that voted twice for Trump.
12 million records with incorrect addresses does not mean they voted twice.
2.75 people with registrations in multiple states does not mean they voted in those states. Bannon has registration in two states -- did he vote twice? It is possible that I am still registered in Michigan (there is not process to unregister iirc) but I did not vote there (I would have voted there instead of RI if I had the choice -- because MI)
1.8 million deceased individuals still on the registry does not mean someone voted for them, just that they are still registered and haven't been purged (unless in one of the red states that purged everyone they could, whether they were legitimate or not).
But the biggest number is 51 million eligible citizens remain unregistered. This is an order of magnitude larger than Trumps petty claim. And I expect this number to be significantly bigger in 2016, especially in the red states that were purging legitimate voters and blocking people from voting -- THAT is the REAL fraud in this election.
And if I can I will come back and add evidence on the numbers that attended the inauguration. At the moment I can say I've heard that the photo offered in proof of extremely low attendance at Trump's inauguration is false, and it looked false to me when I first saw it. ...
Just find a picture that does not show white at the far end but does show the monument there.
Here is one from the 2015 Million Man March for reference:
Here is one from Trump Inauguration taken at a low angle (tends to hide gaps)
Note that you can still see a gap just over the media tower and smaller lines for gaps beyond that, and that the end of the mall is white and finally I only count 4 "jumbotron" screens that showed the inauguration stage for people to see and hear in real time.
Notice the time stamp on this photo that ran in a BBC story on the inauguration. Is this the same picture CNN ran with?
4:20 PM in London, UK is 11:20 AM in Washington, DC
When did Trump get sworn in?
Noon, 40 minutes later. There would have to be an explosion of late-comers to fill the mall out to match either of Obama's inauguration crowds. Is there any evidence of a late large surge in crowd size?
Here is a video showing the whole day for comparison. The crowd never fills the mall, there is no large surge in people arriving, they just straggle in:
Then there is this Trump supporter video:
quote:
Published on Jan 21, 2017
I've seen a lot of lies about the size of Trump's crowd in the mainstream media, so I made this video to put those lies to rest. Yes, he probably didn't draw a crowd as big as Obama's, but the images ABC and CNN have put out about the crowd, and their reporting on it, is all bogus. Here's actual footage of the Inauguration. I made this video because my Dad was trying to tell me that Trump was so unpopular, believing what he sees on cable TV as usual. He even suggested I was a robot for believing otherwise in an email he sent me, so I had to take the time to put this lie to rest. It's all a petty tactic of the media moguls to manipulate the American population, and it's rather pathetic. Unfortunately, it's not easy for others to find this footage according to other videos I've seen on the topic, so here it is.
If you wonder whether the crowd grew bigger during that 30 minutes, it doesn't appear to change that much. Below is another photograph taken at 12:01:18 p.m. when Trump was taking his oath. We used the photograph taken earlier for comparison as it shows a wider area.
Photo taken at the National Mall shows the crowd attending the inauguration ceremony to swear in US President Donald Trump at 12:01pm.
The discussions at Infowars took into account the age of the data. And of course it's obvious that 800,000 is not three to five million, nobody is overlooking that. They are talking about having MANY studies from different locations in different years, which they'll be covering over some time.
Of course they are. Talk is cheap.
I repeat that the ONLY case of voter fraud in the last election was a woman that tried to vote twice for Trump. She said it was because of all the talk about voter fraud, so she wanted to counterbalance it.
This is the danger of spreading false information. ie -- prove it, THEN we can talk.
Meanwhile I still note that:
quote:But the biggest number is 51 million eligible citizens remain unregistered. This is an order of magnitude larger than Trumps petty claim. And I expect this number to be significantly bigger in 2016, especially in the red states that were purging legitimate voters and blocking people from voting -- THAT is the REAL fraud in this election.
51 million UNREGISTERED LEGITIMATE VOTERS is way more than all the trumped up assumed numbers from republicans, and that was in 2012. It's worse now with the voter ID laws that have been used to disenfranchise legitimate voters. The republicans are using multiple voting MYTH to justify disenfranchising legitimate voters,
So I will be happy with a full study and ways to rectify any actual voter fraud as long as legitimate voters are embraced and allowed to vote.
Tit for tat eh?
Of course 51 million voters would have likely changed the election, while the pretend voter fraud didn't.
Something I left out of my previous post: The two pictures you said to identify by the presence of the monument are not so easy to judge because the distances are different.
If you go to the link here and page down to the text "Now we move a little closer." (you can also do find "Now we move a little closer" to go there) these two pictures are arranged so that you can move the center bar right and left to compare the crowds. They are from the same camera location, picture angle and viewing distance. I made a quick video of this with my phone:
Sorry the clarity is so poor (you will likely need to view it full screen) but it gives you an idea of how the sliding bar on the website works.
Then go down to the next detail shot
This also is set up so that you can slide the center bar back and forth to see the differences in the crowds on the webpage.
There really is no comparison of the crowd sizes that does not show the Obama 2009 inauguration significantly larger than Trumps: you will not find any photos of the Trump inauguration that does not show the white ground in the areas shown by those last photos.
Accept it, because the only person it is important to is TrumpleThinSkin and his overbearing ego. He won the election, the crowd size does not matter. Let it go and breath.
The general population is likely more concerned with the next showing of "Smackdown" (WWE) than this.
Enjoy
Edited by Admin, : Narrow image default width slightly.
I keep trying to compare the pictures with each other and am finding it hard to find clear points of reference, making it very hard to judge the soze pf the crpwds.
I still don't really know what degree of authenticity to assign to the long shots, or what numbers are represented by them.
See Message 17 for some additional photo information
But I don't need Trump's crowd to be as large as Obama's, I've said I don't think it was, though Trump may have thought it was; and that looks like a pretty huge crowd to me in any case.
Thanks for your honesty here. Indeed I agree, the crowd is large enough for any president to feel welcome, especially with the viewing location he had.
But what would help put things in perspective is to see the original pictures Trump was objecting to as showing the crowd from some perspective that in his judgment minimized the actual numbers, based on his view from his position up front. I don't see anything in these photos that makes that comparison.
Personally I think the problem is all in his head, and his head alone. That may be an indication of an obsessive ego, but I hope not, for the sake of the country.
I repeat that the ONLY case of voter fraud in the last election was a woman that tried to vote twice for Trump. She said it was because of all the talk about voter fraud, so she wanted to counterbalance it.
Yes. And there was another Trump woman who voted Trump for herself and then also Trump for her dead husband, certain he would have voted that way.
Thanks for the correction.
This is one of the things that worries me, the GOP echo machine makes such a fuss of voter fraud that their audience feels (a) it is easy to do and (b) this enables them to do it because the "other side" is doing it.
We really do need a national overhaul of voting from registration regulations to machines to how we vote (paper ballots, mail ins, etc)
And I'll challenge anyone to review this and argue that 51 million eligible voters not being registered is as big or bigger of a problem the the possibility of individuals voting more than once, assuming ALL others make illegal votes ...
+51 people not able to vote (not registered)
-1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as active voters.
-2.75 million people have active registrations in more than one state.
-12 million records with incorrect addresses
... still leaves 34.45 people not able to vote (not registered): what is the greater problem.
It is rather disturbing that republicans look at the PEW summary and not see the first group as a problem.
Personally I think the problem is all in his head, and his head alone. That may be an indication of an obsessive ego, but I hope not, for the sake of the country.
Personally I think the problem is all in his head, and his head alone. That may be an indication of an obsessive ego, but I hope not, for the sake of the country.
He's trolling the media!
He's got them so wound up over so many issues that they're losing it completely and biting their own tails! And I believe he's doing it both deliberately and with a lot of prior thought.
He's got them so wound up over so many issues that they're losing it completely and biting their own tails! And I believe he's doing it both deliberately and with a lot of prior thought.
Just as he trolled republicans during the primaries and the election campaign. The voters bought it.
Be careful what you wish for.
Personally I am somewhat not upset that the DNC got their asses handed to them across the nation: they need to wake up and return to being the party of the working people or the working people will find a new party -- they don't want cocktail party corporation sucking republican light DINOs.
He's trolling the media!
Is he? What I find disturbing is the leaked reports from his staff at his rage about the inauguration size coverage on TV and especially the comparison the next day to the massive crowds for the women's march, the biggest crowd in US history.
Why does he care that much?
The stockmarket breaks a new record, what does he do? Complains to the CIA people about his crowd size and the news is about Trump not the stock market, and not him taking credit for it shooting up after his election the way another politician would.
I keep trying to tell you it is not about the crowd size per se, it's about his perception that the media lied about it in its original reports. ...
It's about both, Faith, it is about his self image as the only important person in the world (massive ego) and it's about his pogrom on the media, continually shading them and accusing them of lies even when the facts are in your face verified.
... as far as I know -- we'd need to see the original pictures he saw and I don't know if that's in any of the ones shown here. ...
Try this site. I find it slanted to the right and more apologetic that unbiasd.
Introduction: For the past four days the internet has been abuzz in a heated debate regarding the crowd size of President Trump's inauguration. It is the opinion of CRG that the actual numbers of the crowd size are not the primary reason for this debate. Supporters of President Trump allege that the media is deliberately lying in order to make the president look bad in the eyes of the American people. They claim that this demonstrates that the media is involved in some kind of conspiracy and that they are not to be trusted. Opponents of President Trump allege that the media is telling the truth and that President Trump is lying and that should be taken as evidence that he is not to be trusted. At the end of the day, the root of the debate is about one issue: trust.
President Trump went on record saying that he saw a crowd that "looked like a million-and-a-half people" and "went all the way back to the Washington Monument." That statement can be easily verified as it was in a press release he made from CIA Headquarters. Is it a lie? Here's what the crowd looks like from a low-angle camera mounted slightly higher and above President Trump's podium.
From this perspective it certainly appears that the crowd is large and it might appear to go all the way back to the Washington Monument. To that end, President Trump's statements that the field was not empty seem at least superficially accurate. In his mind he's telling the truth. But personal truth, what we believe to be true, is not always the same thing as empirical truth supported by hard evidence. Does the crowd actually go all the back to the moment? Is it really 1.5 Million people? Is it actually "record setting" in size?
Looking at the same area of President Trump's photo using specific items as land marks and comparing crowd density, there is no question - while President Trump's crowd was large, it was not remotely close to the same size as Former President Obama's 2009 inauguration. We have highlighted areas in President Trump's inauguration crowd that are visually less dense than the 2009 crowd.
In the interest of transparency and fairness some might point out that the camera lens in the 2009 photo does obscure part of the 2009 crowd. From this photo it's not entirely possible to determine definitively that the 2009 crowd did not have the same gaps. Fortunately, there are other pictures from other angles that can be used. Many people refer to the CNN images that show the side-by-side comparison which was the initial photo that sparked the controversy to begin with.
It is the opinion of this researcher that there is some deliberate misleading on the part of the press. Many of the images showing the comparison omit the time stamp data altogether. In this case Vox does a good job at least being transparent. The Presidential Inauguration begins at Noon, so the image from the 2017 crowd is one full hour ahead of the event. The crowd definitively increased in size since that photo was taken.
Several versions of the image on the left exist with time stamps ranging from almost one hour prior to the speech up until the speech commences. However, in all versions of photo the National Mall was never completely full. This is further supported by a time-lapse video from the same angle provided by PBS. Although the crowd does grow, it never reaches the same level as the 2009 inauguration.
Here is the video
People straggle in fill out some clumps around the large TV screens, and then they leave.
quote:Clayborn Global, LLC is a holding company that was created in 2016 to reorganize other businesses. Clayborn Global does not produce products or offer services of its own. As such, our website is minimal because we have no real direct interaction with the public. We invite you to take a look at our companies by visiting the companies page from the menu bar.
Curiously I note that the paper has a single author, it is an opion piece, the holding company was set up in 2016 (the research group was set up in 2014), and the company website is hosted by amazon. Their papers are listed on: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...research/research.html
Seems to me that they are trying to 'normalize' Trump as someone who was mistaken instead of someone who is obsessed.
Let's look at Trumps RAGE that the Women's March the next day drew larger crowds to the mall, as well as millions around the world. See if you can 'normalize' that.
Pogrom on the media? That's a laugh. Black humor unfortunately. The media are out to undermine Trump with their every word, but his corrective accurate self-defense is a "pogrom?"
Including all the foreign media? Fascinating.
I guess I missed whatever Trump said about the women's march. I'm certainly not taking your word for his attitude given your record of liberal spin on everything we've discussed so far. "Rage?" About what?
The president is a 70-year-old child whose TV time must be closely monitored because any news story that upsets his ego will trigger a temper tantrum followed by irrational demands that his indulgent, overwhelmed guardians will be helpless to refuse.
Or so Donald Trump’s aides keep confiding to the nearest available reporter.
On Sunday, one of the president’s confidantes told Politico that his staffers have to control information that may infuriate him, a task made difficult by the fact that the leader of the free world gets bored and likes to watch TV.
That same day, some Trump aides provided the New York Times with a portrait of the president as a moody adolescent.
The lack of discipline troubled even senior members of Mr. Trump’s circle, the paper wrote, some of whom had urged him not to indulge his simmering resentment at what he saw as unfair news coverage.
And then, on Monday night, Trump’s staffers whispered an even more vivid account of his rough weekend to the Washington Post.
President Trump had just returned to the White House on Saturday from his final inauguration event, a tranquil interfaith prayer service, when the flashes of anger began to build.
Trump turned on the television to see a jarring juxtaposition massive demonstrations around the globe protesting his day-old presidency and footage of the sparser crowd at his inauguration, with large patches of white empty space on the Mall. As his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was still unpacking boxes in his spacious new West Wing office, Trump grew increasingly and visibly enragedOver the objections of his aides and advisers who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary.
After forcing Spicer to baldly lie to the White House press corps about the size of his inauguration crowd, the president fumed that his press secretary’s performance was not forceful enough. According to Axios, Trump was also incensed by Spicer’s poor taste in suits, and is already considering treating the former RNC staffer to his signature catchphrase.
The problem is that white "flooring" that they put down to protect the grass. Pink hats at the Women's March show up against that background. White robes and white hoods don't.
The NC voter ID law allowed gun permits as valid ID but not student IDs.
The pathetic excuse I heard was that it had to do with how long the ID's were valid for - can someone have a student ID from two different institutions (community college and state university)?
Also, I would agree with having to show a photo ID when you go to vote. When I voted early, I and everybody else I saw there had their IDs out to be checked, even though it was not necessary. But if you are going to pass a law that requires a photo ID to vote, then you had damned well better be sure to provide all registered voters with those photo IDs! If you cannot or will not provide all registered voters with photo IDs, then don't require them!
The post offices are equipped to take passport photos, so it should be relatively easy to let them make photo IDs for voting. The departments of motor vehicles are generally capable of making photo IDs for people who want to use them for alcohol purchases etc., however the states implementing these laws generally shut down the offices in certain neighborhoods (for "economic reasons" ... )
... But if you are going to pass a law that requires a photo ID to vote, then you had damned well better be sure to provide all registered voters with those photo IDs! If you cannot or will not provide all registered voters with photo IDs, then don't require them! ...
It could be phased in, with ID making equipment at the polling stations so that every registered voters can get a standard format ID, and these digital images could be retained in a data base so that photos can be scanned and compared for fraud.
Every citizen should be allowed to vote freely and easily. It is also pretty clear that Photo ID's are NOT used to prevent duplicate voting, as claimed:
... the vetting stops with looking at a photo ID to see it is the person in front of you.
So there is absolutely no question in my mind that the only intention of these photo ID laws were the suppression of votes.
There is no specific photo format specified.
There is no data-base of photos at the polling stations to compare to the voter IDs
There are multiple types of ID allowed that would allow a person to use one in one location and another in another location
Student IDs are not allowed but NRA IDs are -- a clear bias.
There is no provision for the state to be responsible for providing the ID's for all existing registered voters at no cost, or for having a program to go to elderly or disabled people homes to provide the IDs
There is no provision to obtain a Photo ID at the polling stations.
Enforcement has been draconian in requirements for proof of ID and consistency of names. and finally
there is no provision to scan the photo IDs at the polling stations to compare them digitally with other photos in a data-base ... ie - there is NO provision for ensuring that the type of fraud that this program is purported to prevent is actually prevented.
This is as fake as "trickle-down" ... it is a joke, it is a scam, a fraud. They come from ALEC.
If we can register every 18 year old man and woman for the draft, we can provide automatic photo ID "draft cards" that the Federal Government decrees is valid for any and all public elections. The same can be issued when a person becomes a citizen..
Next get rid of the corruptible voting machines and return to paper ballots that can be recounted.
Make them instant runoff ballots while we are at it.
A man who President Trump has promoted as an authority on voter fraud was registered to vote in multiple states during the 2016 presidential election, the Associated Press has learned.
Gregg Phillips, whose unsubstantiated claim that the election was marred by 3 million illegal votes was tweeted by the President, was listed on the rolls in Alabama, Texas and Mississippi, according to voting records and election officials in those states. He voted only in Alabama in November, records show.
In a post earlier this month, Phillips described "an amazing effort" by volunteers tied to True the Vote, an organization whose board he sits on, who he said found "thousands of duplicate records and registrations of dead people."
Trump has made an issue of people who are registered to vote in more than one state, using it as one of the bedrocks of his overall contention that voter fraud is rampant in the U.S. and that voting by 3 to 5 million immigrants illegally in the country cost him the popular vote in November.
So the fact that registrations exist for dead people and multiple registrations are on record for some people in multiple states does not add up to fraudulent voting -- that only occurs when (a) someone votes pretending to be a dead person (like the republican women that cast a vote for her dead husband) (b) people attempt to vote twice in the same state (like the republican woman that was caught) and (c) when a person votes in multiple states because they are registered there. Like Gregg Phillips could have but didn't.
And we still don't have an accurate count of the people that were disenfranchised by states purging their voter lists with fairly loose criteria.
Nor do we have an accurate count of people who's votes were not counted or counted incorrectly by voting machines ... because the recounts were halted by the republicans.
Likewise there is no accurate count to how many votes were added by the precincts tabulation machines, which we know DID occur in at least one location when the total votes tabulated exceeded the number of voters.
If you are truly interested in the truth about voting then you need to look at ALL the types of fraud that can be perpetuated.
So far it looks like the number of people who managed to cast multiple votes, undetected to date, is minuscule compared to the other forms of election fraud.
ll walls are barriers but all barriers are not walls.
To say Hillary Clinton supported a wall like Trumps is a lie.
I have to go with Faith on this. The wall\barrier\fence that exists NOW was passed to limit illegal immigration, Hillary was for it as were most politicians.
The problem with Trump's wall is that the methods used to circumvent the current barrier will still exist. That makes it is about political showmanship, not practical concept.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
